100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is this reality an imaginary place? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Its only a dead end if you are trying to look deeper than matter for answers. I am not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its only a dead end if you are trying to look deeper than matter for answers. I am not. I think a lot of physicists have taken that view. They simply accept that they can't know anything beyond the physically empirical. In fact, I think that was Niels Bohr's basic stance as well. The mere acceptance that we have indeed reached a dead-end. However, all that amounts to is a confession and resignation that science cannot go beyond the physical. Yet "beyond" the physical is clearly known to exist by the very recognition of complementarity. So really, all you're doing by taking your stance is saying, "I give up. We can never know the true nature of reality." But then to continue on and suggest something like, "Therefore we must be able to explain everything using a purely physical approach", seem rather unwarranted. In other words all you are saying is that you think we must be able to explain the experience of consciousness using your "limited" physical view of a universe that is clearly not limited by the reality of complementarity . But why would that make sense? Just because you have personally, and quite subjectively, thrown up your hands concerning the questions of what causes complementarity and how it can possibly make any sense, is no reason to suggest to other people that their questions and ideas into this realm have no merit. All you're basically saying is that you accept the dead-end of knowledge based on an ideal of preemption of existence (which complementarity actually denies). So all I'm saying is that I do not accept the dead-end of knowledge, and instead I prefer to consider an ideal of preemption of mind that can potentially go beyond the limitations of a presumption of preemption of existence. You just sound like Albert Einstein. He refused to believe that "God plays dice". But as it turns out, God truly is a gambler, and Albert Einstein was merely stubborn. Neils Bohr replied, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pattern of learning and thinking process which has developed into the brain of one person would transfer from person to person but the chemical environment of the brain - the ability to supply important neurotransmitters for example like serotonin would come via chemical pathways affected by the new body in various ways. So there is an interplay of these two systems and the person would have encoded the experiential learning but differ in processing of this learning. This results in a different person much as someone who may have undergone a major change in their body chemistry (without the transplant) can be a different person. It is not simply the physical organ ~ the brain but also the biochemistry on which it functions. Would memories be transferred? I mean, would the new person have memories from the brain or the new body or both? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pattern of learning and thinking process which has developed into the brain of one person would transfer from person to person but the chemical environment of the brain - the ability to supply important neurotransmitters for example like serotonin would come via chemical pathways affected by the new body in various ways. So there is an interplay of these two systems and the person would have encoded the experiential learning but differ in processing of this learning. This results in a different person much as someone who may have undergone a major change in their body chemistry (without the transplant) can be a different person. It is not simply the physical organ ~ the brain but also the biochemistry on which it functions. Would memories be transferred? I mean, would the new person have memories from the brain or the new body or both? Since memories are encoded in the patterns of the biology of the brain they would of course be transferred. On the other hand, the way the new chemistry interprets the memories would be somewhat different. Perhaps something like the way one might perceive a memory differently when their chemistry is altered if they are drunk for example or on some perception altering drug... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I think therefore I am... but because I think, other things are as well. So, is there a way to measure whether positive or negative thoughts will impact the result of the experiment? Like with the cat in the box experiment. Would it be more likely that the cat is alive if you wish for it to be alive when you open the box? Schrödinger's cat was an example to show the conflict between quantum thery and reality. The main flaw in the example is that the cat is the observer, so there is no conflict. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? The better question is - did the tree really fall??? when you are walking through the forest and come across a downed tree, the assumption is it did fall. But your observation only shows that it is currently on the ground. You have no way to show that it did in fact fall and wasn't just that way until you found it. Kind of like discovering Pluto. Was Pluto there the entire time before being discovered? just so all of you guys know, we don't live in the matrix...just sayin  are u sure? I know I'm an Agent The Op's question originally reminded me of the classic philisophical question of whether reality is the state of awake or dreaming? how do we know whether we are dreaming or awake? We could be dreaming right now that concept can now be transferred to an additional cyber reality that wasn't apparent in the time of Sartre hmmmm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pattern of learning and thinking process which has developed into the brain of one person would transfer from person to person but the chemical environment of the brain - the ability to supply important neurotransmitters for example like serotonin would come via chemical pathways affected by the new body in various ways. So there is an interplay of these two systems and the person would have encoded the experiential learning but differ in processing of this learning. This results in a different person much as someone who may have undergone a major change in their body chemistry (without the transplant) can be a different person. It is not simply the physical organ ~ the brain but also the biochemistry on which it functions. Would memories be transferred? I mean, would the new person have memories from the brain or the new body or both? Since memories are encoded in the patterns of the biology of the brain they would of course be transferred. On the other hand, the way the new chemistry interprets the memories would be somewhat different. Perhaps something like the way one might perceive a memory differently when their chemistry is altered if they are drunk for example or on some perception altering drug... I bet there is some mad scientists somewhere transplanting brains from one person to another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sun 05/15/11 04:07 AM
|
|
The pattern of learning and thinking process which has developed into the brain of one person would transfer from person to person but the chemical environment of the brain - the ability to supply important neurotransmitters for example like serotonin would come via chemical pathways affected by the new body in various ways. So there is an interplay of these two systems and the person would have encoded the experiential learning but differ in processing of this learning. This results in a different person much as someone who may have undergone a major change in their body chemistry (without the transplant) can be a different person. It is not simply the physical organ ~ the brain but also the biochemistry on which it functions. Would memories be transferred? I mean, would the new person have memories from the brain or the new body or both? Since memories are encoded in the patterns of the biology of the brain they would of course be transferred. On the other hand, the way the new chemistry interprets the memories would be somewhat different. Perhaps something like the way one might perceive a memory differently when their chemistry is altered if they are drunk for example or on some perception altering drug... I bet there is some mad scientists somewhere transplanting brains from one person to another. it's not meeeee!  to Abra and Billy - complementarity is physical and so are wave functions, uncertainty etc. I think Einstein was being flippant when he said "God does not play dice" and he was just saying that he believed that there was a yet unrevealed deeper simplicity to the situation that they were only partially describing with QM. Of course Bohr could not then resist teasing Einstein back...but the whole thing was a jocular exchange not a confession of Einstein's being stubborn and certainly not any lack of understanding of QM by Albert Einstein who had a central role in creating QM. None of them found QM very satisfying that's all and for obvious reasons. There is a deeper simplicity! (and we are still working on understanding it).... Our reality however is not imaginary. A camera left out in the forest will record the tree fall. Whether anyone ever sees it or not. That's reality for ya. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/15/11 08:20 AM
|
|
No. Why do you say no? How could you possibly know. They are doing it to mice. I think the idea is gruesome, and I'm not even a scientist and I would be curious to try it. Just think if a scientist/doctor is doing it to animals... what may have crossed his mind. Yep there is some mad scientist somewhere doing it.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/15/11 08:24 AM
|
|
Our reality however is not imaginary. A camera left out in the forest will record the tree fall. Whether anyone ever sees it or not. That's reality for ya. Don't people understand that the tree in the forest analogy was not meant to be taken literally? The question was basically if there are NO observers, would anything exist? The answer is no, because everything that exists observes in the vibrational sense. But since I believe this is a thought created dream-like reality, literally made of light and sound, that I believe -yes, imagination created it. Hence its an imaginary place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our reality however is not imaginary. A camera left out in the forest will record the tree fall. Whether anyone ever sees it or not. That's reality for ya. Don't people understand that the tree in the forest analogy was not meant to be taken literally? The question was basically if there are NO observers, would anything exist? The answer is no, because everything that exists observes in the vibrational sense. But since I believe this is a thought created dream-like reality, literally made of light and sound, that I believe -yes, imagination created it. Hence its an imaginary place. that may be true for you but only in your imagination not anyone else's imagination nor for the camera... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/15/11 11:54 AM
|
|
Our reality however is not imaginary. A camera left out in the forest will record the tree fall. Whether anyone ever sees it or not. That's reality for ya. Don't people understand that the tree in the forest analogy was not meant to be taken literally? The question was basically if there are NO observers, would anything exist? The answer is no, because everything that exists observes in the vibrational sense. But since I believe this is a thought created dream-like reality, literally made of light and sound, that I believe -yes, imagination created it. Hence its an imaginary place. that may be true for you but only in your imagination not anyone else's imagination nor for the camera... What does the camera have to do with anything? So you are saying if you can take a picture of it, that proves it is real? We call this "reality." That is what we decided to name our creation.   I guess we can call it real if we want.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm saying you can make believe anything and call it reality
but it will only exist in your imagination and nowhere else. think about it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At all scales of inquiry we find that physical entities exist independent of awareness, that the history of the objects existence is written in its current state of existence, and I have no reason to believe this history is made up at the time of "observation". Thank you Bushido, for being sensible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/15/11 07:58 PM
|
|
I'm saying you can make believe anything and call it reality but it will only exist in your imagination and nowhere else. think about it... Not at all. My reality really exists. Anyway... imagination and "make believe" are not even close to being the same thing. A think about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At all scales of inquiry we find that physical entities exist independent of awareness, that the history of the objects existence is written in its current state of existence, and I have no reason to believe this history is made up at the time of "observation". Observation by whom or what? That's the question. And at the quantum level, what exactly is "observation?" It is completely vibrational. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 05/16/11 08:17 AM
|
|
Yet "beyond" the physical is clearly known to exist by the very recognition of complementarity. I disagree, and we have had this conversation a few times already in other threads, the basic issue always comes down to the definition of physical and I have explained in detail why I feel all interactions quantum or otherwise fall under the physical. The very fact we treat QM as "physics" is at the core of my position. Its physics becuase physical interactions are what we detail. At all scales of inquiry we find that physical entities exist independent of awareness, that the history of the objects existence is written in its current state of existence, and I have no reason to believe this history is made up at the time of "observation". Observation by whom or what? That's the question. And at the quantum level, what exactly is "observation?" It is completely vibrational. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The very fact we treat QM as "physics" is at the core of my position. Its physics becuase physical interactions are what we detail. Exactly. Vibrations ARE REAL. Any interaction of particles which can transmit data IS REAL and part of physics. I get that. But what is it that is doing the vibrating and transmitting? I don't think they really know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The very fact we treat QM as "physics" is at the core of my position. Its physics becuase physical interactions are what we detail. Exactly. Vibrations ARE REAL. Any interaction of particles which can transmit data IS REAL and part of physics. I get that. But what is it that is doing the vibrating and transmitting? I don't think they really know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there's no reason what-so-ever to believe that they think.
Nice counters here, Bushido...
|
|
|
|
|
