ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark matter

Reply
Old 6th April 2016, 05:37 PM   #121
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Thumbs down Maartenn100: It is a lie that the scientific method cannot "discover" consciousness

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You are avoiding all the questions, Reality-Check.
I am not answering your incoherent questions.
I am sometimes addressing your ignorance of the current state of science, e.g.
Scientists read dreams: Brain scans during sleep can decode visual content of dreams

7 April 2016 Maartenn100: It is a lie that the scientific method cannot "discover" consciousness in nature when there are scientific studies of consciousness.
For example, science has discovered that babies do not have consciousness (are not self aware) until they get older than ~18 months.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 05:38 PM   #122
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Scientists can see patterns of firing neurons in the brain (and that's what the scanner can scan and nothing more) while we are dreaming and they compare these patterns with patterns of firing neurons while we are watching photo's. Because these seems to be the same kind of patterns.

Scientists are using a 'comparing-paterns-tecnique'.

But the scanner can only scan a pattern of firing neurons. It cannot scan dream.

The more fundamental meaning of 'the other mind problem' is that a philosophical zombie, who doesn't know what it is to experience something, will never be able to discover 'consciousness' in reality.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 6th April 2016 at 05:50 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 05:45 PM   #123
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Consciousness can only be discovered by our own subjective experience. Not by science.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 6th April 2016 at 05:47 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 05:49 PM   #124
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Exclamation Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
But no, we can't read dreams.
That is a lie, Maartenn100.
You asked how we are"going to study the content of a dream" with a with a "brainscanner" and Scientists read dreams: Brain scans during sleep can decode visual content of dreams is how we are studying the contents of a dream with a brain scanner .
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner.

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th April 2016 at 05:51 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 05:51 PM   #125
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Sensational title, Reality Check.
But the scanner can only scan firing neurons. It does not scan dreams.
The scientist, as a human being, knows that this needs to be decoded to a picture or a dream.
The scanner is actually a scanner and a decoder, based on the comparison of patterns of firing neurons.
It cannot 'scan dreams' (wow, sensational, Reality-Check)

A decoder means: there is code that needs to be translated to visual stimuli.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 05:53 PM   #126
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Scientists can see patterns of firing neurons in the brain (and that's what the scanner can scan and nothing more) while we are dreaming and they compare these patterns with patterns of firing neurons while we are watching photo's. Because these seems to be the same kind of patterns.
And that is the answer to your question: 7 April 2016 Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner.

This is not the insanity of thinking that scientists can actually read minds to study dreams !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 05:55 PM   #127
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Sensational title, Reality Check.
....
The answer to your question remains: 7 April 2016 Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner.

The problem of other minds is irrelevant.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 06:03 PM   #128
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by Reality-Check
The problem of other minds is irrelevant.
That's a subjective evaluation of a fact. To my theory the problem of (other) mind(s) is a very relevant fact of nature.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 6th April 2016 at 06:04 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 06:04 PM   #129
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The more fundamental meaning of 'the other mind problem' is that a philosophical zombie, who doesn't know what it is to experience something, will never be able to discover 'consciousness' in reality.
The actual meaning of the 'other mind problem' is the problem of other minds
Quote:
The problem of other minds has traditionally been regarded as an epistemological challenge raised by the skeptic. The challenge may be expressed as follows: given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?[1] The thought behind the question is that no matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own is not sufficient to guarantee the presence of mentality. It remains possible, for example, that other people are actually nothing more than automata made out of flesh (or "philosophical zombies" as the term for this example stands).
The actual meaning of philosophical zombie is
Quote:
A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, a philosophical zombie could be poked with a sharp object, and not feel any pain sensation, but yet, behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or say that it is in intense pain).
A philosophical zombie is fully capable of discovering anything in reality since they have every attribute of humans except as above. They have intelligence. They have bodies.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2016, 06:07 PM   #130
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
That's a subjective evaluation of a fact.
Your question was an objective question about the real world answered with a fact about the real world.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: How we study the contents of a dream using a brain scanner.

Which of your words in the question "How exactly are you going to study the content of a dream of an organism (like an animal f.e.) with your brainscanner, Reality-Check?" do you not understand, Maartenn100?
What part of an experiment that uses a brain scanner to study the content of a dream is not an answer to this question?

ETA: A spelling lesson for you: "mind" is not spelt "dream"! The problem of other minds is not "the problem of other dreams" !

Last edited by Reality Check; 6th April 2016 at 06:13 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 01:20 AM   #131
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds. ..
Well, it's not a fact of nature actually, other people's minds can be observed to function correctly, otherwise or incorrectly.
We can be quite certain about any of these whenever one of these apply.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 04:21 AM   #132
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
When the block universe-hypothesis of spacetime of MIT professor Dr. Brad Skow and physicist Brian Greene is true, then the question is: why do we only experience the present? In the block universe, events in past, present and future are existing together.
The logical answer must be: that's a part of our experience as an observer of this world.
It's our 'consciousness' (whatever that be) or our mind, wich causes this experience of the world on a timescale.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 7th April 2016 at 04:28 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 04:31 AM   #133
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,802
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
When the block universe-hypothesis of spacetime of MIT professor Dr. Brad Skow and physicist Brian Greene is true, then the question is: why do we only experience the present?

Because that's how "the present" is defined.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 11:05 AM   #134
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You are avoiding all the questions, Reality-Check.

You don't seem to be familiar with 'the other mind problem'.
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
How do you think you know consciousness exists, in nature, outside of yourself?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 12:10 PM   #135
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,157
I've been watching "Sixty Symbols" videos on YouTube and happened on one that seems apropos to this discussion. Dr. Phil Moriarty of Nottingham University expresses his frustration with quantum woo, in particular Robert Lanza and the supposed need for a conscious observer. Moriarty's exasperation interferes somewhat with his message but he's right on target IMO. I don't expect our resident nonsense peddler to be receptive, if he watches it at all, but others might find it interesting.

http://youtu.be/8DGgvE6hLAU


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 02:35 PM   #136
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Question Maartenn100: State the time in the Greene video where he supports a block universe

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
When the block universe-hypothesis of spacetime of MIT professor Dr. Brad Skow and physicist Brian Greene is true, ....
Dr. Brad Skow has no "block universe-hypothesis of spacetime". Eternalism (philosophy of time) is a philosophical hypothesis about time (not the spacetime used in physics) that can be traced back to 1908 - it is not Skow's idea.

7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Spacetime is physics, block universe is philosophy.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: What makes all of the other philosophies of space and time from other (often prominent) philosophers incorrect?

You still have not supplied any evidence that Brian Greene supports the Eternalism (philosophy of time) that Skow has written about.
8 April 2016 Maartenn100: State the time in the Greene video that you cited where he supports a block universe.
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Physicist Brian Greene also believes in this idea of spacetime as a block universe where past-present and future exist together.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM.
Repeating a misrepresentation from ignorance after you have been told the definition of spacetime is becoming a lie:
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Ignorance of physics and what the block universe is has lead to a misrepresentation of what Brian Greene wrote.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 03:41 PM   #137
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Post title: "Maartenn100: State the time in the Greene video where he supports a block universe"
...
Post title added to quote by Daylightstar

Once I asked him about a specific time in a video:
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
I would like to learn about the exact time in that nearly 56 minute long video you posted where Greene says according to you that "The future is already there":


Thank you.
Never got an answer. I wonder if he'll be decent to you.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 04:14 PM   #138
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,971
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Never got an answer. I wonder if he'll be decent to you.
The videos are look the same interview of Brian Green from 2 sources:
The Illusion of Time | Full Documentary (from PBS)
Fabric Of The Cosmos Illusion Of Time - Nova
So I doubt that I will get an answer either!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2016, 04:31 PM   #139
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The videos are look the same interview of Brian Green from 2 sources:
The Illusion of Time | Full Documentary (from PBS)
Fabric Of The Cosmos Illusion Of Time - Nova
So I doubt that I will get an answer either!
I've never looked at the full video, no time for it, so I can't tell you if or where the claimed statement appears.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 10:23 PM   #140
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
The block universe concept appears to follow almost inevitably from the geometric understanding of relativity,
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 10:37 PM   #141
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
When spacetime (block universe concept) is a fact, then it's logically to conclude that 'the First existing Observer' establishes a first reference frame for space- and timeco÷rdinates. Before that, there are no fixed co÷rdinates for the objects in the universe.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 8th April 2016 at 10:48 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 10:44 PM   #142
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
We will have to wait for a new generation of philosophers and scientists who will put 'consciousness' into the equations and in their models of the universe. They will meet resistance at first. Because consciousness is 'woo' in it's nature. Consciousness can't be described in material terms.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 8th April 2016 at 10:53 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 11:36 PM   #143
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,802
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The block universe concept appears to follow almost inevitably from the geometric understanding of relativity,

Can you show your working for that?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2016, 12:10 AM   #144
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,501
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The block universe concept appears to follow almost inevitably from the geometric understanding of relativity,
IIRC it is a way to conceptualize determinism in a branching multiverse that appears to include free will.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
When spacetime (block universe concept) is a fact, then it's logically to conclude that 'the First existing Observer' establishes a first reference frame for space- and timeco÷rdinates. Before that, there are no fixed co÷rdinates for the objects in the universe.
Not really, at least not according to any reading I've come across. But this sort of Platonic Big Bang is fun to think of. I do recall you admit this is a thought experiment, correct? Good to not lose sight of that.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
We will have to wait for a new generation of philosophers and scientists who will put 'consciousness' into the equations and in their models of the universe. They will meet resistance at first. Because consciousness is 'woo' in it's nature. Consciousness can't be described in material terms.
OK, now you are just flying along in pure speculation. There is plenty of successful modeling going on wrt how the brain works and how cognition functions, but the lack of general familiarity makes consciousness seem like total mystery.

You may have a runaway default mode network. Perhaps this will help?
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2016, 01:44 AM   #145
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,060
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
When spacetime (block universe concept) is a fact,
Did you notice what Reality Check told you? Block Universe is a philosophical concept. It is practically guaranteed never to become a fact, and your conception of the marriage between Block Universe and spacetime has little to do with either.

Quote:
then it's logically to conclude that 'the First existing Observer' establishes a first reference frame for space- and timeco÷rdinates. Before that, there are no fixed co÷rdinates for the objects in the universe.
What makes you think that there are fixed coordinates for objects in the universe?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2016, 02:41 AM   #146
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Since you claim that one can not know that 'other people have consciousness' and that 'the scientific method can not discover consciousness in nature AT ALL', how do you think you know consciousness exist?
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.

How do you think you know consciousness exists, Maartenn100?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2016, 02:46 AM   #147
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,912
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
We will have to wait for a new generation of philosophers and scientists who will put 'consciousness' into the equations and in their models of the universe. They will meet resistance at first. Because consciousness is 'woo' in it's nature. Consciousness can't be described in material terms.
Why? We don't include chemical reactions in our laws of thermodynamics, we don't include meiosis in our formulas for chemical reactions, we don't include recipes for apple pie in our layout of an orchard...

Why would consciousness need to be included at the level of abstraction of physics? Instead of say, biology, behavioral science and systems theory?
Porpoise of Life is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2016, 03:59 AM   #148
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Contrary to what our senses tell us (our consciousness) we do not live in a measurable 3D-space-world (what our observations and measurements tell us) but there is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world where time and space are combined in a manifold called 'spacetime'.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is giving us the experience of a 3D-world.
While, the world without conscious observers is a mathematical entity, a 4D-reality, spacetime.
It's a timeless none-local environement where events and objects are in some kind of undefined state.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 9th April 2016 at 04:02 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2016, 04:33 PM   #149
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Contrary to what our senses tell us (our consciousness) we do not live in a measurable 3D-space-world (what our observations and measurements tell us) but there is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world where time and space are combined in a manifold called 'spacetime'.

My hypothesis is that consciousness is giving us the experience of a 3D-world.
While, the world without conscious observers is a mathematical entity, a 4D-reality, spacetime.
It's a timeless none-local environement where events and objects are in some kind of undefined state.
What consciousness?:
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Hilites by Daylightstar
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 07:11 AM   #150
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
What I'm talking about here is been known as the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantummechanics.
The non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.
A measuring device is not different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. And these particles must be in a 'probability state' or 'superposition state' too before being observed by a conscious observer.
The final observer is the non-physical human conscious mind.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 07:13 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 07:18 AM   #151
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Contrary to what our senses tell us (our consciousness) we do not live in a measurable 3D-space-world (what our observations and measurements tell us) but there is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world where time and space are combined in a manifold called 'spacetime'.

Wait, what? "only a mathematical deducable"? So wouldn't that be something that your consciousness would have to tell you?

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
My hypothesis is that consciousness is giving us the experience of a 3D-world.
Actually your assertion above is that our senses are "giving us the experience of a 3D-world" while our consciousness can discern "a mathematical deducable 4D-world "

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
While, the world without conscious observers is a mathematical entity, a 4D-reality, spacetime.
Your first assertion above says it's not only the same with "conscious observers" but such consciousness is required as it is "only a mathematical deducable 4D-world".

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It's a timeless none-local environement where events and objects are in some kind of undefined state.
"timeless"? So it's "4D" but without the 4th, well, D? Your assertions are simply self-inconsistent.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 07:26 AM   #152
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Wait, what? "only a mathematical deducable"? So wouldn't that be something that your consciousness would have to tell you?
No, it's not because the concept of the mathematical object is deducable by a conscious mind that the matematical object cannot exist in itself as a platonic entity without the need for a conscious mind.

Originally Posted by The Man
Actually your assertion above is that our senses are "giving us the experience of a 3D-world" while our consciousness can discern "a mathematical deducable 4D-world "
We have only access to the experience of a measurable 3D-world through our experience of the actual moment (and nothing more).
The 4D-world includes the past, the present and the future together. We can conceptualize that object, but we have no access to this 4D-object. (which is the universe).

Originally Posted by The Man
Your first assertion above says it's not only the same with "conscious observers" but such consciousness is required as it is "only a mathematical deducable 4D-world".
Again: a mathematical entity can exist (in some Platonic world) without a conscious mind to conceptualize it.

Originally Posted by The Man
"timeless"? So it's "4D" but without the 4th, well, D? Your assertions are simply self-inconsistent.
We, observers, can only experience/measure a 3D-world because we only have access to the actual moment and to nothing more.
The 4D-world includes the whole timeline. We, as observers, have no access to the 4D-world (which is reality).
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 07:56 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 08:14 AM   #153
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
No, the matematical object can exist in itself as a platonic entity without the need for a conscious mind.
Your claim wasn't about it's existence but just that it "is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world". Deduction requires consciousness.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
We have only access to the experience of a measurable 3D-world through our experience of the actual moment (and nothing more).
Nope, not only do we experience time we can recall past experiences and even apply them to "the actual moment" as well as future events.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The 4D-world includes the past, the present and the future together. We can conceptualize that, but have no access to this 4D-object. (which is the universe).
Nonsense, throw something while standing on the Earth and watch the curved path it takes. You have just accessed a 4D manafold.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Again: a mathematical entity can exist (in some Platonic world) without a conscious mind to conceptualize it.
Again, your assertion was not about existence but deduction.



Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
We, observers, can only experience/measure a 3D-world because we only have access to the actual moment and nothing more.
So you are claiming that you have no memory? Do objects in your "3D-world" carry information about past events? As information takes time to travel all we have direct access to is the past.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The 4D-world includes the whole timeline. We, as observers, have no access to the 4D-world (which is reality).
Ah, so the future never becomes the past? Just because you can't access some particular point in time right now in no way means you "have no access to" it. That you do things in preparation for future events (like say preparing a meal) demonstrates not only the ability but the conscious expectation of accessing that point in time.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 08:37 AM   #154
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Your claim wasn't about it's existence but just that it "is only a mathematical deducable 4D-world". Deduction requires consciousness.
It's not because of the fact that an existing world is deducable, that the existence of this world requires a mind which deduce it first.

Quote:
Nope, not only do we experience time we can recall past experiences and even apply them to "the actual moment" as well as future events.
No: we only have access to the present in our experience as observers. The past is gone, the future isn't there (yet).

Originally Posted by The Man
Nonsense, throw something while standing on the Earth and watch the curved path it takes. You have just accessed a 4D manafold.
No:, you only have access to one moment at the time. The curved path is a construction in your mind (memory). There is the illusion of motion. Like in an animation. You don't 'see' motion outthere.

Originally Posted by The Man
Again, your assertion was not about existence but deduction.
My assertion was about both: we only can deduce the existing 4D-world (which includes past, present and future together), but we have no access to it. We only experience the present.


Originally Posted by The Man
So you are claiming that you have no memory?
It's not because you have a memory, that you have access to the memorised past event. The event does not exist anymore in your measurable world.

Originally Posted by The Man
Do objects in your "3D-world" carry information about past events? As information takes time to travel all we have direct access to is the past.
That's true. But this information is only accessable to us in the present.

Originally Posted by The Man
Ah, so the future never becomes the past?
No, in my idea and the idea of MIT-professor Bradford Skow, future events exist together with past events. (Eternalism)
Only in the experience of conscious observers the future can become past.

Originally Posted by The Man
Just because you can't access some particular point in time right now in no way means you "have no access to" it. That you do things in preparation for future events (like say preparing a meal) demonstrates not only the ability but the conscious expectation of accessing that point in time.
There is the 'moving spotlight theory of time'. The theory implies eternalism, the concept that past, present, and future times all exist The NOW of a conscious observer moves along the series of times from earlier times to later times.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 08:56 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 11:07 AM   #155
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
We experience moment to moment.

There is only the illusion of motion like in an animation. But there is no motion outthere.
There is only a 4D-manifold 'outthere'. A kind of (unobservable and undetectable) block universe. (eternalism)
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 11:15 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 11:15 AM   #156
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
What I'm talking about here is been known as the von NeumannľWigner interpretation of quantummechanics.
The non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.
A measuring device is not different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. And these particles must be in a 'probability state' or 'superposition state' too before being observed by a conscious observer.
The final observer is the non-physical human conscious mind.
Maartenn100,:
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
Hilites by Daylightstar

How do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 11:27 AM   #157
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by Daylightstar
How do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
I experience, therefore I am. Cogito, ergo sum.
That we, observers (consciousness), exist, is the only thing we can be certain of.
When you experience the world, you exist. (your observations and experiences can be illusions, but you can be certain of your existence)
And we can also be certain about the existence of the undetectable 4D-manifold outthere.

And of course, there is the problem of other minds. We can't be certain of the existence of other minds.
But we assume that other people and animals have minds.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 11:31 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 11:27 AM   #158
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It's not because of the fact that an existing world is deducable, that the existence of this world requires a mind which deduce it first.
Sorry, I just can't seem to parse this, could you please rephrase it.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
No: we only have access to the present in our experience as observers. The past is gone, the future isn't there (yet).
See your "That's true." assertion below. Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, access to it is still in your future.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
No:, you only have access to one moment at the time. The curved path is a construction in your mind (memory). There is the illusion of motion. Like in an animation. You don't 'see' motion outthere.
Incorrect you see changes in position with changes in time (motion). There are numerous ways to record such data. In fact elements of our own and other animals visual systems have evolved to detect such changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion...ion_perception


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
My assertion was about both: we only can deduce the existing 4D-world (which includes past, present and future together), but we have no access to it. We only experience the present.
We do have access to it, again that you make a post expecting someone to read it later and then perhaps reply demonstrates this. Your only compliant seems to be that you can't access it all at once. Well, guess what, you can't access all the locations just on a 2D map of a 1 mile radius around you all at once either even though that map has everyone of those locations "together".



Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It's not because you have a memory, that you have access to the memorised past event. The event does not exist anymore in your measurable world.
Again incorrect see your "That's true." assertion below. Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, measurable access to it is still in your future.



Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
That's true. But this information is only accessable to us in the present.
Nope, we have the ability to retain information any number of ways. As information comes from the past and reactions can only take place in the future what is least accessible to us is the "present". Now these temporal offsets can be minuscule and for many everyday applications negligible but they exist none the less.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
No, in my idea and the idea of MIT-professor Bradford Skow, future events exist together with past events. (Eternalism)
Only in the experience of conscious observers the future can become past.
Don't try to blame your assertions on others. Future and Past are just different directions in time like forwards and backwards are in space.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
There is the 'moving spotlight theory of time'. The theory implies eternalism, the concept that past, present, and future times all exist The NOW of a conscious observer moves along the series of times from earlier times to later times.
Great so even you and perhaps "MIT-professor Bradford Skow" assert that you do have access to those other points in time by moving in time just as you have access to other locations in space (like on that just 2D spacial map) by, well, moving in space. Of course the significant difference is that we can only seem to move forward in time.

A suggestion, try thinking of the 'here' of a conscious observer as well as the "now" of a conscious observer. Being here now I can perhaps observe over there then. In fact, due to the speed of information, it has to then that I can observe from there. So events are always linked in both space and time, that's space-time. As you note yourself that you may have to do some deduction to realize that in no way detracts from the fact that it appears to be a integral part of the existence of the universe.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 11:36 AM   #159
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I experience, therefore I am. Cogito, ergo sum.
That we, observers (consciousness), exist, is the only thing we can be certain of.
When you experience the world, you exist. (your observations and experiences can be illusions, but you can be certain of your existence)
And we can also be certain about the existence of the undetectable 4D-manifold outthere.

And of course, there is the problem of other minds. We can't be certain of the existence of other minds.
But we assume that other people and animals have minds.
That still does not answer the question.
How do you know that consciousness exists outside of you when according to you it is a fact of nature that you can never be certain that other people have minds and the scientific method can not discover it:
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
So, Maartenn100, how do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 12:00 PM   #160
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Sorry, I just can't seem to parse this, could you please rephrase it.
See mathematical realism. It explains what I want to tell you about this 4D-universe.
See also The mathematical universe hypothesis.


Originally Posted by The Man
See your "That's true." assertion below. Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, access to it is still in your future.
I agree, but you can only have access to information in a present moment.
In our 3D-experience, there is only the present. And there is nothing else.
(see presentism)

Originally Posted by The Man
Incorrect you see changes in position with changes in time (motion). There are numerous ways to record such data. In fact elements of our own and other animals visual systems have evolved to detect such changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion...ion_perception
You have the illusion of motion in your mind. The information where the object was a fraction of a second ago is not accessible anymore for you, and the object is not yet arrived somewhere else. You only see one 'now-slice'. (terminology of Brian Greene).

It's like music. Do you think there is a song outthere, The Man? No, you only hear one puls. That's it. And when you hear the next puls, the previous puls 'doesn't exist anymore' and the next puls isn't there yet.
Your mind creates the experience of a beautiful song, but actually, your conscious mind has only access to one puls.


Originally Posted by The Man
Your only compliant seems to be that you can't access it all at once.
Indeed: accessibility to our consciousness is the crucial element here.
Consciousness is our accessibility to a measurable reality. It's a crucial factor.

Consciousness makes the difference between measurable and undetectable.


Originally Posted by The Man
Well, guess what, you can't access all the locations just on a 2D map of a 1 mile radius around you all at once either even though that map has everyone of those locations "together".
In 'reality', not only all the locations are 'together', but all past and future locations of objects are on that map too...

Quote:
Some of the past hasn't even gotten to you yet, measurable access to it is still in your future.
Yes, and this does not contradict anything of what I said here before. You only have access to this information in one moment: the present.

Quote:
Nope, we have the ability to retain information any number of ways. As information comes from the past and reactions can only take place in the future what is least accessible to us is the "present". Now these temporal offsets can be minuscule and for many everyday applications negligible but they exist none the less.
The information you got from the past can only be accessed in the present. As far as you know: only the present exists. (presentism)

Quote:
Great so even you and perhaps "MIT-professor Bradford Skow" assert that you do have access to those other points in time by moving in time just as you have access to other locations in space (like on that just 2D spacial map) by, well, moving in space. Of course the significant difference is that we can only seem to move forward in time.
Yes, that's true. We only seem to be able to move forward in time.

Quote:
A suggestion, try thinking of the 'here' of a conscious observer as well as the "now" of a conscious observer. Being here now I can perhaps observe over there then. In fact, due to the speed of information, it has to then that I can observe from there. So events are always linked in both space and time, that's space-time. As you note yourself that you may have to do some deduction to realize that in no way detracts from the fact that it appears to be a integral part of the existence of the universe.
Of course, I was only talking about our position in time. Not in space. We also have access to one position/moment. There is motion through spacetime. See the moving spotlight theory.

the 4D-manifold is not only all possible moments together, but also all possible positions of objects in the past, the present and the future together. But it is undetectable.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 12:21 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ę 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.