Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Spellbound, Aug 9, 2015.
Your over your head here pad.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Coming from a recognised troll that makes remarks like "SHUT the F$#% Up!", I'll treat that comment with the disdain it deserves.
Your over your head pad.
I'll drop off now river, as your continued trolling can only lead to one course of action.
And I certainly don't want to be any part of your demise. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Have a good one! Ya hear! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Have a good one.
Spellbound in his initiation of the question, assumes he is an [ I ]! And identifies himself as such! To facilitate an answer , can Spellbound define his definition of an [ I ] first?
Second Can spellbound, define what you see, before you as an [ I ], so we can ascertain differentiation between what you see before you, and what we see before us, as an [ us ]?
I define a self or an I as a special one and is hence capable of distinguishing itself from its environment. It is self-aware.
Spellbound said in response to our inquiry : I define a self or an I as a special one.
Spellbound answered, utilizing the self assigned label for himself as an [ I ] which assumes [ I ] is a self,
Spellbound, Can you proceed definitionally in the explanation of self, so we understand what your personal interpretation of self is? A fish out of water distinguishes itself from its environment and proceeds to be dead! First! And second, amongst all of the ones which you assume are, and in your answer, one, is not defined by you! May we inquirer, why do you attribute it to be a special one?
A self is the reality or being which is no more than one. If a thing is not defined as one (more than a single being), then it is not a self or an I. Whether that self or I is a body or spirit does not matter, as long as it can distinguish itself from the rest of existence.
“Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.”
Hence can we legitimately claim that mind influences reality?
"A measurement triggering the transition from a superposition of states to a definite classical state, with that instrument act ultimately trailing back to the human performer and observer's cognition of it."
While it might be construed as something to do with mind, such was originally intended as a logical positivist or neo-Kantian influenced physicist's way of dodging ontological conclusions about quantum physics, rather than endorsing one. The collapse isn't explained by the traditional theory, but is treated as a brute axiom. IOW, one of those prior principles expressed on paper, which if it was to have any regulating effect upon the world, would have to be elevated ontology-wise from that passive symbolic status to a potent instructional agency. However, as aforementioned, the Copenhagen view was just a crafty way of describing the situation so as to navigate around anything it might mean about reality. The epistemological-bent physicists of that era despised realism about metaphysical schemes.
In today's QM interpretations, like Zurek's quantum darwinism, even the background "sea" of photons that quantum systems are submerged in provide constant interactions with the system which lead to decoherence ("or the manifestation of the quantum system in a particular basis dictated by the nature of the interaction in which the quantum system is involved"). While decoherence was usually associated with the Everett Interpretation in the past, Zurek claims he can proceed while being agnostic about "many-worlds". The abstract description doesn't force acceptance of that inference.
Spellbound , you responded," A self is the reality or being" A human being, in possession of a mind, can distinguish herself or himself, from the rest of existence.
Are you defining, [ being ] which thanks to evolution, evolved, from non humans beings, and are you assuming as a human being, its possession of thinking vehicle, which you refer to as a mind, also evolved, through evolution, from non beings, to the point where it could pop into awareness, and distinguish it self from the rest of existence, and subsequently following your thinking, it is not an animal anymore, but a being, [ a self], an [ i ], and those individuals with evolving minds, not fully evolved yet, but in a state of development, are in your view not a self, not an [ I ] and can you, if it was revealed to you that a mind is a conglomerate, a number of different things and parts that are grouped together to form a whole called a mind, and is more than one, then it because, as defined by you, '"if a thing, [ and we are referring to the mind as a thing, ] is not defined as one, [ it is more than one thing ,] it is not a self or an [ I ]"? And if your mind is not a self, or [ I ] or a [ you ] talking to us, we wonder who is?
There are two sides of the brain, with the left brain designed to differentiate reality. The right brain is designed for integration of reality and is the place of natural instinct. The right side of the brain would see itself as connected to the universe and not separate from it.
Consciousness was originally right brained with left brain support. "I think therefore I am", came when the left brain became more dominant (conscious) and had right brain support as a secondary; instinct is loss.
Reality is different for each side of the brain, since the data processing is different. The left brain is more sequential and expects things to happen in a sequence such as cause and effect and time. The right brain is more 3-D. This is less about sequence in cause and effect, but more like effect, cause and effect. This is where things are integrated and therefore each action impacts the other.
Despite having been informed numerous times that this characterisation is a gross over simplification and is largely incorrect you persist in pushing it.
Why is that?
Both hemispheres contribute to both kinds of processes, and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with such broadly defined functional differences.
It's probably because he's so invested in claiming liberals use the "inferior" brain hemisphere.
From what I have read your first two statements is so far in agreement in the research about the differences of the Brains hemispheres.
So far in what I have read, the left side of the Brain is specific ( breaks the whole into piece's ), the right side of the Brain is holistic, sees the bigger picture.
Oh my! The liberals are coming, the liberals are coming! They're coming for your guns and your women! The liberals are coming!
Stand down there Wellwisher, it'll be alright. Jade Helm is just a dream...
There exist elements of reality that are not seen. These would be the subjective aspects which, if reality is to contain itself, gives rise to a dual self-relation. See CC's response in #6 as well as #16.
As to whether or not there is more to reality than what is exactly observed, yes, there is. river was correct.
While lying in bed in deep thought, I noticed the sun's light painted a beautiful hue on my bedroom wall. Then, as I was opening my eyes wider and wider, the light became brighter and brighter at exactly the same rate until I opened my eyes wide enough such that I could not open it any wider. It was yet more proof of reality's self-awareness. I wish I knew how to link my mind up with the world on a regular basis so that sciforums readers can test this for themselves.
Separate names with a comma.