The good things about using skeptical reasoning

[abandonconflict]

Not sure why you are asking that. I don't think I implied I thought this was a debate about the supernatural. I have merely been trying to explain myself and understand your position. A point of mutual agreement is a good thing. Don't ruin it by creating a strawman.

Nah I was just joking around.

 

[Heisenberg]

QM experiments suggest reality is probabilistic, which does not indicate subjectivity. The observer effect is about the instruments, not the consciousness behind them. When we control for consciousness we still see the effect. So the effect is there no matter if we have a mindless sensor observing, or a brilliant human mind. The difference between a sensor and human consciousness would seem to be pretty significant, perhaps more significant than the difference between the human mind of today and one of 200 years from now, yet this difference does not increase the effect. Different minds in different mindsets make no difference. Probability seems to be influenced by the observer effect, but that effect is not subject to consciousness, and is in fact the same regardless of the state of consciousness. The observer effect is a probability factor which is apparently not subjective. So while minds of the future may indeed learn to control reality, I don't see anything in the experiments of today which suggest it's possible.

 

[abandonconflict]

QM experiments suggest reality is probabilistic, which does not indicate subjectivity. The observer effect is about the instruments, not the consciousness behind them. When we control for consciousness we still see the effect. So the effect is there no matter if we have a mindless sensor observing, or a brilliant human mind. The difference between a sensor and human consciousness would seem to be pretty significant, perhaps more significant than the difference between the human mind of today and one of 200 years from now, yet this difference does not increase the effect. Different minds in different mindsets make no difference. Probability seems to be influenced by the observer effect, but that effect is not subject to consciousness, and is in fact the same regardless of the state of consciousness. The observer effect is a probability factor which is apparently not subjective. So while minds of the future may indeed learn to control reality, I don't see anything in the experiments of today which suggest it's possible.

This debate is likely the most relevant I have ever had. I need to think a bit before I reply in earnest. Thank you.

 

[abandonconflict]

QM experiments suggest reality is probabilistic, which does not indicate subjectivity. The observer effect is about the instruments, not the consciousness behind them. When we control for consciousness we still see the effect. So the effect is there no matter if we have a mindless sensor observing, or a brilliant human mind. The difference between a sensor and human consciousness would seem to be pretty significant, perhaps more significant than the difference between the human mind of today and one of 200 years from now, yet this difference does not increase the effect. Different minds in different mindsets make no difference. Probability seems to be influenced by the observer effect, but that effect is not subject to consciousness, and is in fact the same regardless of the state of consciousness. The observer effect is a probability factor which is apparently not subjective. So while minds of the future may indeed learn to control reality, I don't see anything in the experiments of today which suggest it's possible.

OK. I inferred subjectivity about the role of observer where no such autoepistemic logic was necessary, warranted or apparently, welcome.

Just a note that I don't add to be annoying, although it may annoy; this doesn't prove that reality is objective. While your final statement acknowledges that, I feel it is necessary to claim it, while I run out of here chased away, proven wrong.

 

[Heisenberg]

OK. I inferred subjectivity about the role of observer where no such autoepistemic logic was necessary, warranted or apparently, welcome.

Just a note that I don't add to be annoying, although it may annoy; this doesn't prove that reality is objective. While your final statement acknowledges that, I feel it is necessary to claim it, while I run out of here chased away, proven wrong.

Not proven wrong, updated. You now have a more accurate understanding. If you feel jaded, it should be directed towards those who perpetuate that consciousness does play a role. Early on the experiments did seem to indicate that consciousness influenced reality, before we learned to control for it. This gave many spiritual guru and paranormal researcher reason to use science to back up their ideas. When we finally determined that consciousness had no effect, it was an inconvenient truth which many, like Depak Chopra, choose to ignore. Having QM back up your pet theory with science is just too good of a card to throw away, and so the public awareness is tainted by this idea because scientists tend to be less vocal and exploitative than the gurus and flakes. This is why you experience some measure of hostility and exasperation, because many perpetuate a myth even after hearing the truth, and animosity for them spills over. Even though what you were doing was harmless mussing, something we all do.

It seems to me that you are being true to your claim of skepticism, which means accepting the evidence even if it leads you in a direction you do not care for.

Particle physicist Victor Stenger has two books on the science and philosophy of quantum mechanics and its abuse by new agers:

The Unconcious Quantum
"In this fascinating and accessible book, physicist Victor J Stenger guides lay readers through the key developments of quantum mechanics and the debate over its apparent paradoxes. In the process, he critically appraises recent metaphysical fads. Dr Stenger's knack for elucidating scientific ideas and controversies in language that the non-specialist can comprehend opens up to the widest possible audience a wealth of information on the most important findings of contemporary physics."


Quantum Gods
"Does quantum mechanics show a connection between the human mind and the cosmos? Are our brains tuned into a "cosmic consciousness" that pervades the universe enabling us to make our own reality? Do quantum mechanics and chaos theory provide a place for God to act in the world without violating natural laws? "

"Many popular books make such claims and argue that key developments in twentieth-century physics, such as the uncertainty principle and the butterfly effect, support the notion that God or a universal mind acts upon material reality."

"Physicist Victor J. Stenger examines these contentions in this carefully reasoned and incisive analysis of popular theories that seek to link spirituality to physics. Throughout the book Stenger alternates his discussions of popular spirituality with a survey of what the findings of twentieth-century physics actually mean. Thus he offers the reader a useful synopsis of contemporary religious ideas as well as basic but sophisticated physics presented in layperson's terms."





These books are on my ever growing list. You may find them interesting as well.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Not proven wrong, updated. You now have a more accurate understanding. If you feel jaded, it should be directed towards those who perpetuate that consciousness does play a role. Early on the experiments did seem to indicate that consciousness influenced reality, before we learned to control for it. This gave many spiritual guru and paranormal researcher reason to use science to back up their ideas. When we finally determined that consciousness had no effect, it was an inconvenient truth which many, like Depak Chopra, choose to ignore. Having QM back up your pet theory with science is just too good of a card to throw away, and so the public awareness is tainted by this idea because scientists tend to be less vocal and exploitative than the gurus and flakes. This is why you experience some measure of hostility and exasperation, because many perpetuate a myth even after hearing the truth, and animosity for them spills over. Even though what you were doing was harmless mussing, something we all do.

It seems to me that you are being true to your claim of skepticism, which means accepting the evidence even if it leads you in a direction you do not care for.

Particle physicist Victor Stenger has two books on the science and philosophy of quantum mechanics and its abuse by new agers:

The Unconcious Quantum
"In this fascinating and accessible book, physicist Victor J Stenger guides lay readers through the key developments of quantum mechanics and the debate over its apparent paradoxes. In the process, he critically appraises recent metaphysical fads. Dr Stenger's knack for elucidating scientific ideas and controversies in language that the non-specialist can comprehend opens up to the widest possible audience a wealth of information on the most important findings of contemporary physics."


Quantum Gods
"Does quantum mechanics show a connection between the human mind and the cosmos? Are our brains tuned into a "cosmic consciousness" that pervades the universe enabling us to make our own reality? Do quantum mechanics and chaos theory provide a place for God to act in the world without violating natural laws? "

"Many popular books make such claims and argue that key developments in twentieth-century physics, such as the uncertainty principle and the butterfly effect, support the notion that God or a universal mind acts upon material reality."

"Physicist Victor J. Stenger examines these contentions in this carefully reasoned and incisive analysis of popular theories that seek to link spirituality to physics. Throughout the book Stenger alternates his discussions of popular spirituality with a survey of what the findings of twentieth-century physics actually mean. Thus he offers the reader a useful synopsis of contemporary religious ideas as well as basic but sophisticated physics presented in layperson's terms."





These books are on my ever growing list. You may find them interesting as well.

...Heis, I find it interesting that psychology and physics were at once connected. I'm not 100% sure that 'trying to' connect the two is relevant. They were already connected - and gave birth to the sciences. (open to be corrected there if necessary) What modern science is doing, afaik, is pushing the growth rate of what would happen naturally on earth. It's akin to stealing her secrets, if you'd allow me to put it that way. Weird that natural science starts to look a bit unnatural after a while. And, I don't think that it's bad to have advanced science, it's just that the human race is not capable of 'owning' that science. A?

 

[mindphuk]

Not proven wrong, updated. You now have a more accurate understanding. If you feel jaded, it should be directed towards those who perpetuate that consciousness does play a role. Early on the experiments did seem to indicate that consciousness influenced reality, before we learned to control for it. This gave many spiritual guru and paranormal researcher reason to use science to back up their ideas. When we finally determined that consciousness had no effect, it was an inconvenient truth which many, like Depak Chopra, choose to ignore. Having QM back up your pet theory with science is just too good of a card to throw away, and so the public awareness is tainted by this idea because scientists tend to be less vocal and exploitative than the gurus and flakes. This is why you experience some measure of hostility and exasperation, because many perpetuate a myth even after hearing the truth, and animosity for them spills over. Even though what you were doing was harmless mussing, something we all do.

It seems to me that you are being true to your claim of skepticism, which means accepting the evidence even if it leads you in a direction you do not care for.

Particle physicist Victor Stenger has two books on the science and philosophy of quantum mechanics and its abuse by new agers:

The Unconcious Quantum
"In this fascinating and accessible book, physicist Victor J Stenger guides lay readers through the key developments of quantum mechanics and the debate over its apparent paradoxes. In the process, he critically appraises recent metaphysical fads. Dr Stenger's knack for elucidating scientific ideas and controversies in language that the non-specialist can comprehend opens up to the widest possible audience a wealth of information on the most important findings of contemporary physics."


Quantum Gods
"Does quantum mechanics show a connection between the human mind and the cosmos? Are our brains tuned into a "cosmic consciousness" that pervades the universe enabling us to make our own reality? Do quantum mechanics and chaos theory provide a place for God to act in the world without violating natural laws? "

"Many popular books make such claims and argue that key developments in twentieth-century physics, such as the uncertainty principle and the butterfly effect, support the notion that God or a universal mind acts upon material reality."

"Physicist Victor J. Stenger examines these contentions in this carefully reasoned and incisive analysis of popular theories that seek to link spirituality to physics. Throughout the book Stenger alternates his discussions of popular spirituality with a survey of what the findings of twentieth-century physics actually mean. Thus he offers the reader a useful synopsis of contemporary religious ideas as well as basic but sophisticated physics presented in layperson's terms."



These books are on my ever growing list. You may find them interesting as well.

Enjoy the books. Stenger is pretty good at differentiating between what QM actually says and how it is misapplied by metaphysical opportunists.

 

[cannabineer]

...Heis, I find it interesting that psychology and physics were at once connected. I'm not 100% sure that 'trying to' connect the two is relevant. They were already connected - and gave birth to the sciences. (open to be corrected there if necessary) What modern science is doing, afaik, is pushing the growth rate of what would happen naturally on earth. It's akin to stealing her secrets, if you'd allow me to put it that way. Weird that natural science starts to look a bit unnatural after a while. And, I don't think that it's bad to have advanced science, it's just that the human race is not capable of 'owning' that science. A?

To the blue: I would opine that philosophy bore science as its direct offspring. (Psychology is still stuck in the passage imo.) Even so, it's worth remembering that the child is an individual.

To the red: I have never had that sensation of science doing anything somehow unauthorized, impolite toward Nature. Our human doings and learnings are nature in action. I worry that you're imposing a subtle moral disapproval upon natural philosophy itself. It's been a popular conceit that technology and scientism have taken us from the womb of wholesome natural organic neo-Medieval living, but it is every bit as artificial as the technosphere it decries. The whole "nature good!" concept is about 200 years old, something of a fad that gained legs as the Industrial Revolution started ugly and messy before someone figured out that environmental legislation was an option.
I think you're trying to elevate sentiment to policy, which I consider a dangerous activity. cn

 

[mindphuk]

This debate is likely the most relevant I have ever had. I need to think a bit before I reply in earnest. Thank you.

This sentiment is all too rare in this forum. You deserve recognition for recognizing your personal limits on a subject.

 

[eye exaggerate]

To the blue: I would opine that philosophy bore science as its direct offspring. (Psychology is still stuck in the passage imo.) Even so, it's worth remembering that the child is an individual.

To the red: I have never had that sensation of science doing anything somehow unauthorized, impolite toward Nature. Our human doings and learnings are nature in action. I worry that you're imposing a subtle moral disapproval upon natural philosophy itself. It's been a popular conceit that technology and scientism have taken us from the womb of wholesome natural organic neo-Medieval living, but it is every bit as artificial as the technosphere it decries. The whole "nature good!" concept is about 200 years old, something of a fad that gained legs as the Industrial Revolution started ugly and messy before someone figured out that environmental legislation was an option.
I think you're trying to elevate sentiment to policy, which I consider a dangerous activity. cn

...agree with lots, save the elevation of sentiment to policy. Will elaborate in a bit.

 

[abandonconflict]

This sentiment is all too rare in this forum. You deserve recognition for recognizing your personal limits on a subject.

A worthy challenge tempers.

 

[eye exaggerate]

To the blue: I would opine that philosophy bore science as its direct offspring. (Psychology is still stuck in the passage imo.) Even so, it's worth remembering that the child is an individual.

To the red: I have never had that sensation of science doing anything somehow unauthorized, impolite toward Nature. Our human doings and learnings are nature in action. I worry that you're imposing a subtle moral disapproval upon natural philosophy itself. It's been a popular conceit that technology and scientism have taken us from the womb of wholesome natural organic neo-Medieval living, but it is every bit as artificial as the technosphere it decries. The whole "nature good!" concept is about 200 years old, something of a fad that gained legs as the Industrial Revolution started ugly and messy before someone figured out that environmental legislation was an option.
I think you're trying to elevate sentiment to policy, which I consider a dangerous activity. cn

...Hi neer, to the green (yuk yuk - yuk) - why do we further attempt to divide that which is considered as fundamental? To find something else - discovery. Divide and what? I can't help but feel that this is far too projective *shrugs*

 

[cannabineer]

...Hi neer, to the green (yuk yuk - yuk) - why do we further attempt to divide that which is considered as fundamental? To find something else - discovery. Divide and what? I can't help but feel that this is far too projective *shrugs*

uuhm ... conk her?

As for dividing the fundamental ... if irt can be divided, was it truly fundamental?

I think we're drifting away from the subtext I saw in the red-highlighted portion previously, which I read as science being in a basic conflict with nature. I don't see it that way. cn

 

[eye exaggerate]

uuhm ... conk her?

As for dividing the fundamental ... if irt can be divided, was it truly fundamental?

I think we're drifting away from the subtext I saw in the red-highlighted portion previously, which I read as science being in a basic conflict with nature. I don't see it that way. cn

...not veering (at least, in my little parcel of mind, I'm not ). There's a quote somewhere, can't find, but it says that if there are advanced civilizations out there - would we want to meet them given how we are?

 

[cannabineer]

...not veering (at least, in my little parcel of mind, I'm not ). There's a quote somewhere, can't find, but it says that if there are advanced civilizations out there - would we want to meet them given how we are?

I'll ask you to unpack that a bit. I'm having some trouble seeing how it advances the topic.

But to answer the question directly: Yes, and without trying to put on appearances. If they are indeed advanced, they would be able to tell at once when we were being sincere. cn

 

[eye exaggerate]

I'll ask you to unpack that a bit. I'm having some trouble seeing how it advances the topic.

But to answer the question directly: Yes, and without trying to put on appearances. If they are indeed advanced, they would be able to tell at once when we were being sincere. cn

...what I feel the topic does is further the split between mind and matter. Nature unfolds, ironically, at its own pace. The overall psychology of man, at present, does not seem capable of waiting to unfold. Nest shtting? That's the point.

 

[cannabineer]

...what I feel the topic does is further the split between mind and matter. Nature unfolds, ironically, at its own pace. The overall psychology of man, at present, does not seem capable of waiting to unfold. Nest shtting? That's the point.

Here is where our faiths see it differently. I am convinced that I am my meat. The consequence of this is that, as I believe our consciousness is shaped and constrained by our neuroanatomy (and -physiology), we are trapped inside those. The change won't come until we develop and implement the tech to change our underlying material substrate.
So I don't believe there is any room to unfold our selves until we've rewoven the fabric ... from the selvage end. cn

 

[eye exaggerate]

Here is where our faiths see it differently. I am convinced that I am my meat. The consequence of this is that, as I believe our consciousness is shaped and constrained by our neuroanatomy (and -physiology), we are trapped inside those. The change won't come until we develop and implement the tech to change our underlying material substrate.
So I don't believe there is any room to unfold our selves until we've rewoven the fabric ... from the selvage end. cn

...ah-ha! lol got it. Awesome to pinpoint that. I think it's cause I 'see' in skeptical reasoning the 'ability' to reject the outcome of failed attempts. So, yeah, the creationist side of me says "cause and effect".

edit: "youreeka"

 

[cannabineer]

...ah-ha! lol got it. Awesome to pinpoint that. I think it's cause I 'see' in skeptical reasoning the 'ability' to reject the outcome of failed attempts. So, yeah, the creationist side of me says "cause and effect".

Skeptical reasoning, like fire, is a supreme servant but a rotten master. I see reasoning and rationality as a process and not an edifice. The stuff being fed into the process we generically call "premises", and the great task of the philosopher is choosing the premises imo. I also opine that the act of choosing the premises is typically extrarational, but this neither secures nor falsifies their validity. If skeptical reasoning is overused to weed out premises, it will call the conclusion of the reasoning process into (eminently reasonable) doubt. Jmo. cn

 

[Zaehet Strife]

I just watched this documentary which hypothesized that with certain technological advancements within the next thousand years, we may be able to download and extract the information in our brains into computers, in order for us to technically live forever. Just a really neat idea and concept.