|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Do you really believe that the moon exists only when you look at it? 1
#24028977 - 01/21/17 07:10 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
I don't want to change anyone I just want to express some opinions that I value, that said I don't think many of us share a deterministic view towards science.
I'm no expert but I'll have a go at explaining energy in my own words.
Quote:
Electrons are particles of energy because they can exert a force over a distance, in other words electrons produce electrical energy as they travel from atom to atom.
By 'energy exists' I mean that the work of different forms of energy such as kinetic, electrical and magnetic energy are all measurable, e.g. wave length/ frequency/ amplitude/ voltage/ ampere etc.
Against an argument for Black Swan theory, if I have not seen a unicorn I will not believe it until I see it, and since unicorns currently are not known to exist I can currently refute their existence. If the day comes that they are proven to exist then my refutation would become invalid and I think I would be able to accept a wider perspective.
Quote:
"Until a particle is observed, an act that causes the wave function to “collapse,” we can say nothing about its location. Albert Einstein, among others, objected to this idea. As his biographer Abraham Pais wrote: “We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.”
I don't follow the Copenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment so I've interpreted energy as that of a particle guided by the force of a pilot wave.

My stance is this, 'Particles have a definite position whether or not we are aware of it.'
Final word: If you look into a mirror you will never see your eyes look away from you, so do you really believe that the moon only exists when you look at it?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/21/17 09:15 PM)
|
Near Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 8 days, 36 minutes
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24028997 - 01/21/17 07:24 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
krishnalove
ᕙ(░ಥ╭͜ʖ╮ಥ░)━☆゚.*・。゚



Registered: 12/11/12
Posts: 343
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Near Dylan]
#24029019 - 01/21/17 07:42 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around... does the moon still exist?
you sound high.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: krishnalove]
#24029038 - 01/21/17 07:59 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
As if being high somehow invalidates anything I've said.

Quote:
First up, this passage from Dreams from My Father:
"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though—Mickey, my potentional intiator had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that."
http://poorrichardsnews.com/president-obama-admitted-to-felony-marijuana-and-cocaine/
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Buster_Brown
L'une


Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 12 hours
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly] 1
#24029067 - 01/21/17 08:14 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Final word: If you look into a mirror you will never see your eyes look away from you
False
|
fungusfun
Changeling



Registered: 10/15/16
Posts: 29
Loc: Virgo Supercluster
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly] 1
#24029072 - 01/21/17 08:16 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
I suppose I believe only the fact that I exist, as it is self evident and does not require my belief. The perceptions within my field of awareness are sensed, converted into electrical impulses and then reconstructed in the brain. First, this process is open for error both in the perceptive mechanisms (senses), and the interpretation of those signals. Second, as humans our ability to perceive as we do may very well be guided by survivability and not by an accurate reconstruction of reality. An interesting TED talk on the matter:
So I cannot believe with conviction that anything exterior to my primary experience of awareness is real. I cannot deny the existence of anything. I cannot affirm the existence of anything. I can only calculate the probability that something exists based upon that which I can bring up from memory of imperfect sensations and imperfect interpretation of those sensations. Memory is also imperfect, so this puts me even further at a disadvantage in predicting the existence of a thing.
To weave this into your post a little more, you might find it interesting to consider the theories of Robert Campbell in his book, "My Big Theory of Everything," who postulated that we live in a virtual reality almost a decade before Elon Musk made the idea popular.
If this is true, our field of perception is like a computer terminal. When we view a "chunk" of reality, that chunk is on and available as sensory experience. When we turn away, it is off, and only a mathematical representation of reality exists. To save on computing power, the "universal computer" does not need to calculate the the exact location of every object when the terminal does not require that data. Therefore, when reality is "off" in a sense, only probabilities of location can be calculated. When reality is "on", the computer quickly calculates position as things collapse.
To me his theories are a bit presumptuous. I don't think it has ever been proven in any way that our observation of the wave/particle phenomenon carries over into matter as it is constructed on our scale. His theories also are intertwined with his belief that he can travel out of body to observe other levels of the universe as he was a student of Robert Monroe. If you are interested in reading 1000 pages of genius mixed with wild speculation, it is actually pretty cool.
Ok, I'm getting carried away I guess. To answer the question, I'm not sure whether the moon exists at all. Everything to me has an asterisk beside it that says "seemingly." When I state at the moon it seems to exist. When I look away, it seems like it did exist, and it seems that it will probably exist when I look back. Unfortunately I have no means of knowing if it seems to exist presently when it is not within my field of vision.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Buster_Brown]
#24029103 - 01/21/17 08:33 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: fungusfun]
#24029112 - 01/21/17 08:39 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fungusfun said: When we view a "chunk" of reality, that chunk is on and available as sensory experience.
To me that can be explained by Mental Synthesis.
Here's another Ted Talk on the subject.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/21/17 10:01 PM)
|
fungusfun
Changeling



Registered: 10/15/16
Posts: 29
Loc: Virgo Supercluster
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24029247 - 01/21/17 09:54 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
You'll need to elaborate a bit because I can't make the connection. The video is interesting, so thanks for posting. The theory posits that mental synthesis can explain how the brain can construct an image of two unrelated things, and to a layman like me it makes sense.
However, I'm always looking for edge cases and while I was watching I began to think of the Picasso quote, "I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them." The man had a net of neural connections that formed a filter to reconstruct objects in a way that was not observable in nature. Anyways, I think the theory is on the right track but it is missing something essential in that it cannot explain objects transformed through a unique artistic expression. Perhaps it just needs built upon.
Anyways, I'd like to express my gratitude. You made me think slowly and deeply this evening.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: fungusfun]
#24029277 - 01/21/17 10:08 PM (7 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Mental synthesis occurs when the neocortex simultaneously activates neural ensemble to contrast images of known things to create a new mental visualisation otherwise known as an implicit perception.
There is a neural ensemble of electrical activity for each specific memory/experience.
Finally, the Hebbian principle states neurons that fire together wire together.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
fungusfun
Changeling



Registered: 10/15/16
Posts: 29
Loc: Virgo Supercluster
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24029323 - 01/21/17 10:38 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Mental synthesis occurs when the neocortex simultaneously activates neural ensemble to contrast images of known things to create a new mental visualisation otherwise known as an implicit perception.
There is a neural ensemble of electrical activity for each specific memory/experience.
Finally, the Hebbian principle states neurons that fire together wire together.

In general terms I understand the content of the video. What I meant to say is that I wasn't clear on how to subject matter of the video connected to the theory of the physicist Robert Campbell who believes that our reality is virtual in nature and reverts to mathematical probabilities when there is no conscious entity to demand the data in a concrete form.
It doesn't really matter though, I just enjoyed working through the logic. To me, mental synthesis is far too narrow in scope. It explains how perceived A + perceived B = unperceived C. It offers no explanation of how perceived A * unperceived filter B = unperceived C. I've already state my objections to Campbell. To never compromise leads me back to where I always begin, the middle way: unknown, unknowing, and veraciously questioning everything.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: fungusfun]
#24029331 - 01/21/17 10:43 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I think I understand that but I have a personal bias towards a few other hypothesise that I'm trying to simplify into a theoretical fact.
I think that one day we graduate and we don't have to question our qualifications anymore, however counter intuitive that may appear to be.
I'm trying to explain this model of an 'Anatomical Tripartite-Dichotomy'.

I can't help but see correlations.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/21/17 10:57 PM)
|
fungusfun
Changeling



Registered: 10/15/16
Posts: 29
Loc: Virgo Supercluster
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly] 2
#24029538 - 01/22/17 01:43 AM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: I think I understand that but I have a personal bias towards a few other hypothesise that I'm trying to simplify into a theoretical fact.
I think that one day we graduate and we don't have to question our qualifications anymore, however counter intuitive that may appear to be.
I'm trying to explain this model of an 'Anatomical Tripartite-Dichotomy'.

I can't help but see correlations.
When we get into biology I cannot follow. I see the meduala thingy, the amidgdala and pineal thingy, and the rest (forgive my spelling). What I would say is this: there is no safe theory. Theorize fearlessly and pray that people find fault in your theory so you can be the blade and humanity your whetstone. Be confident in your qualifications now, but never graduate, lest you begin to know and stop your effort at understanding.
"In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." -Eric Hoffer
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: fungusfun]
#24029544 - 01/22/17 01:49 AM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
It's the fore brain(mental synthesis), the limbic system(cardiac/heart rate) and the autonomic nervous system(digestion/fight or flight response/blood pressure) that I'm pointing out in the model.

Quote:
The sympathetic control of blood pressure:
Hypertension — the chronic elevation of blood pressure — is a major human health problem. In most cases, the root cause of the disease remains unknown, but there is mounting evidence that many forms of hypertension are initiated and maintained by an elevated sympathetic tone. This review examines how the sympathetic tone to cardiovascular organs is generated, and discusses how elevated sympathetic tone can contribute to hypertension.
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v7/n5/full/nrn1902.html
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/22/17 01:55 AM)
|
fungusfun
Changeling



Registered: 10/15/16
Posts: 29
Loc: Virgo Supercluster
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24029577 - 01/22/17 02:42 AM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: It's the fore brain(mental synthesis), the limbic system(cardiac/heart rate) and the autonomic nervous system(digestion/fight or flight response/blood pressure) that I'm pointing out in the model.

Quote:
The sympathetic control of blood pressure:
Hypertension — the chronic elevation of blood pressure — is a major human health problem. In most cases, the root cause of the disease remains unknown, but there is mounting evidence that many forms of hypertension are initiated and maintained by an elevated sympathetic tone. This review examines how the sympathetic tone to cardiovascular organs is generated, and discusses how elevated sympathetic tone can contribute to hypertension.
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v7/n5/full/nrn1902.html
I'm trying to tell you, in the most humble manner possible, to look beyond these systems which have been well defined for 40+ years, to drown in the ocean of unknowing for a time, and to come up for air with an answer, or better yet a question. For instance, the mammalian brain extends far beyond the image you showed me as is known from dissections the 1950's, as the feline brain is comprised of 3% frontal lobe by mass and the canine brain is comprised of 7% frontal lobe by mass, which I remember from a stupid class from at least 20+ years ago.
I'm not dishonest, because truly I do not know the individual biological parts of the brain. I offered my ignorance in hopes that you would respond likewise. Blah, blah, blah, bah, bah, bahh. Perhaps your brain is set up like mine, to "know what you don't know" and learn from that which is presented. You are not stupid so I'm sure the 2nd way is not yours. Unfortunately you could belong to the third way, acting as if they know in hopes that they do not belong to the 2nd way.
Dude, come up with your own stuff and hope that people try to tear you down. Anything less is "compliance" or "stupidity".
Edited by fungusfun (01/22/17 02:50 AM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: fungusfun]
#24029589 - 01/22/17 02:55 AM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I'm just a dual soul.

For me the only question is if it's possible to subjugate the fight or flight response with sympathomimetic drugs like psilocybin?
Quote:
Sympathomimetic : (of a drug) producing physiological effects characteristic of the sympathetic nervous system by promoting the stimulation of sympathetic nerves.
Quote:
Behavioural effects are dependent on dose and the individual reaction and sensitivity to psilocybin, previous experiences and the setting. The major effects are related to the central nervous system, but there are also some sympathomimetic effects. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/mushrooms
I ask that because the way I see it, somehow humans learnt to override our fight or flight response and I suppose it may have something to do with an anxyiolytic chemical that mimics serotonin neurotransmitter molecules just as metabolised psilocybin is and does.
Quote:
Psilocybin is thought to act as an agonist at serotonin receptors, meaning it increases serotonin transmission. Thus, it may be that antidepressants like SSRIs that act on serotonin--at least as part of their mechanism--have something in common with psilocybin. And, it suggests that perhaps psilocybin should continue to be investigated for its antidepressant and anxiolytic (anti-anxiety) properties. http://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/2014/5/12/magic-mushrooms-and-the-amygdala

-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/22/17 03:03 AM)
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24030572 - 01/22/17 01:30 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
As far as I see is, that what made us able to 'reflect' our instincts and so, override our 'fight or flight' mechanism is the development of the neocortex. It's not in molecules. Maybe I can hint you to the study of 'duality' by looking at the both hemispheres of the neo cortex, before you deepen your theories of that trichotomy ('Tripartite-Dichotomy')?
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: Do you really believe that the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24030659 - 01/22/17 02:06 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
My interpretation is that the photon fixates when it's observed or otherwise interacts with it's environment. The Moon is a collection of particles and therefore has a constant fixation. Both photons and Moons exist independent of my awareness, but one has an indeterminate position while the other does not.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Prem. Kissoff
Tourist with a typewriter

Registered: 11/09/16
Posts: 259
|
Re: Do you really believe that the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24030720 - 01/22/17 02:24 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
blowing my mind, im just gonna close my eyes and it will all go away
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#24030943 - 01/22/17 03:44 PM (7 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: As far as I see is, that what made us able to 'reflect' our instincts and so, override our 'fight or flight' mechanism is the development of the neocortex. It's not in molecules. Maybe I can hint you to the study of 'duality' by looking at the both hemispheres of the neo cortex, before you deepen your theories of that trichotomy ('Tripartite-Dichotomy')?
Yeah, it's the neocortex and it's full of synaptic networks that utilise neurotransmitters to communicate.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/22/17 04:05 PM)
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24032473 - 01/23/17 03:53 AM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
the moon is too smart to have beliefs
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: laughingdog]
#24032490 - 01/23/17 04:26 AM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24032939 - 01/23/17 10:29 AM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
BlueCoyote said: As far as I see is, that what made us able to 'reflect' our instincts and so, override our 'fight or flight' mechanism is the development of the neocortex. It's not in molecules. Maybe I can hint you to the study of 'duality' by looking at the both hemispheres of the neo cortex, before you deepen your theories of that trichotomy ('Tripartite-Dichotomy')?
Yeah, it's the neocortex and it's full of synaptic networks that utilise neurotransmitters to communicate.

Sure, but the synapses and neurotransmitters are only the on/off switches. They are only a module of the whole. The secret lies in the construction/structure (departmentalisation) of the brain and the (inter-)connections/branchings of the nerves...
But you are right that the three major brain parts (mammal brain, reptilian brain and neocortex) play a huge role in influencing our consciousness which is primarily located in our neo-cortex. That's why I suggest you look closer at the neo-cortex, because the other two are nor so well consciously graspable, even we understand their function very well (brainstem [reptilian brain]= reflexes, autonomous functions like breathing, body temperature, ..., mammal brain[cerebellum] = fine tuning of motor activity. There are still things inbetween like the diencephalon and the mesencephalon, for example) It is the neo-cortex where our awareness is located and all the signal try to reach our consciousness there...
Edited by BlueCoyote (01/23/17 10:37 AM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#24033771 - 01/23/17 05:05 PM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
I don't know why I think this but the 'on/off' switch of anything seems pretty important to me.
To me the neocortex is the 'conscious mind' of ethics/ conscience/ qualia/ morality/ sentience, while the heart and gut are the subconscious/unconscious minds
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly] 1
#24034337 - 01/23/17 07:35 PM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Way too associative. What you are saying is essentially a muddle; you know that right?
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt] 1
#24034542 - 01/23/17 08:59 PM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
You are bringing down this forum about three notches Sudly. It is offensive to the forum that you spam this pseudoscience here.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24034583 - 01/23/17 09:13 PM (7 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Please paste the pseudoscience you see.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/23/17 09:23 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24034928 - 01/24/17 12:46 AM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
I am not a paste it kind of guy like you, Sudly. If you pay attention to the dialogue and argument you can see what I said fine. I just pointed out where you are essentially muddling psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy together. While these are all legitimate fields of conjecture in their own right, what you have expressed is muddle.
There is a reason for this, in your methods, and in your ways of discussing things (the conceptual language mainly) in general. I already explained this. In your cargo cult of pregiven, borrowed conceptualisms, you make a show of having concepts of the physical world, or concepts of a sense based world. You are not engaged in these discourses in a rigorous way though. Anyone can see, whether they want to sort it out or not.
The conceptual connections you make always end up being too associative, and too muddled, and are generally not connecting with reality. This is because while you make a show of having a theory of a sense based world, making a connection, you are just rationalizing and projecting and associating concepts, and not finding the empirical sense based connection with the world. What you say is mostly nonsense.
It is not a surprise you describe a mirror as a metaphor of sense experience. While you pretend you engage in a correspondence of things, you are only being narcissistic and self referential. You are missing where the sense goes beyond its given data set. That is where you are pseudo-empirical.
Your opposition to fair criticism is also fair to point out, as pseudo-scientific, if you are asking me. Consider your topic title. Nobody here denied physical existence as far as I can see. Let me tell you what I think. I think you reacted to criticism the forum gave you and created a strawman. You ask "Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?" But who said or implied this? You are attacking straw positions. At any rate nobody who criticized you before said this.
What I find somewhat dishonest, is that you seem to go out of the way to contrive misrepresentation of the empiricist position in your rhetoric. You create a strawman to attack, in a subjective idealist. You want to suggest to everyone that people who have said you need to begin with a baseline experience can only be wrong, as subjective idealists when really what was suggested is you are not empirical enough. You only maintain a semblance and pretense of a sense based, natural philosophy, in metaphysical assumptions, which you are mainly rationalizing.
Anyway, I think you can learn to follow argument. Sorry to be quite critical, but the criticism should be made.
Edited by Kurt (01/24/17 01:17 AM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24034964 - 01/24/17 01:07 AM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
By the way... Stephen Fry can go fuck himself.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24034975 - 01/24/17 01:18 AM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Read/paste/explain/discuss.. It's a good way of getting information across
So again you say I'm planning a trap of sorts with you cargo cult idea, but I'm not trying to change you or anyone else, I only want to express some opinions that I value, at least that's what I've been trying to do lately.
Quote:
Kurt said: "It is not a surprise you describe a mirror as a metaphor of sense experience. While you pretend you engage in a correspondence of things, you are only being narcissistic and self referential. You are missing where the sense goes beyond its given data set. That is where you are pseudo-empirical."
Quote:
'If you look into a mirror you will never see your eyes look away from you.'
I'm not trying to pretend to be anything I'm not, I don't know everything and I'm not perfect, it's just an observation that you can't see your pupils if you are not focused on your eyes when looking at a mirror.
The criticisms I receive from some members of this forum are in my opinion often not overly constructive as they don't come with ideas or attempts to refute the anatomical associations I've described.
The title of this post is in relation to the Copenhagen interpretation of the double-slit experiment that suggests a particle can exist as both a wave and a particle. The moon quote was in hopes of providing a different perspective for looking at the experiment.
I don't think there are metaphysical assumptions when discussing the anatomy of the human nervous system.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24035071 - 01/24/17 03:12 AM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
How can you claim to want to express an opinion without wanting to change people's opinions?
I don't think that philosophy, psychology and neuroscience relate in the ways you suppose. You are taking the terms of one discourse (one paradigm and conceptual language, and circle of discussion) and associating it broadly with another in a way that doesn't make sense. It comes through your conceptual language which you never break down well enough.
This seems like confusion to me:
Quote:
To me the neocortex is the 'conscious mind' of ethics/ conscience/ qualia/ morality/ sentience, while the heart and gut are the subconscious/unconscious minds
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24035082 - 01/24/17 03:32 AM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ethics/ conscience/ qualia/ morality/ sentience
I just don't see the difference between the meanings of these words. I think they are the tendencies we as humans have to decide between what we think is good and what we think is bad.
Quote:
Although sensory perception and neurobiology are traditionally investigated one modality at a time, real world behaviour and perception are driven by the integration of information from multiple sensory sources. Mounting evidence suggests that the neural underpinnings of multisensory integration extend into early sensory processing. This article examines the notion that neocortical operations are essentially multisensory.
We first review what is known about multisensory processing in higher-order association cortices and then discuss recent anatomical and physiological findings in presumptive unimodal sensory areas. The pervasiveness of multisensory influences on all levels of cortical processing compels us to reconsider thinking about neural processing in unisensory terms. Indeed, the multisensory nature of most, possibly all, of the neocortex forces us to abandon the notion that the senses ever operate independently during real-world cognition.
Consclusion: The integration of information from different sensory systems is a fundamental characteristic of perception and cognition – qualitatively different kinds of information from the various sense organs are put together in the brain to produce a unified, coherent representation of the outside world. Traditionally, it has been assumed that the integration of such disparate information at the cortical level was the task of specialized, higher-order association areas of the neocortex. In stark contrast to this assumption, the neurobiological data reviewed here suggest that much, if not all, of neocortex is multisensory. This necessarily forces us to reconsider the validity of probing the brain unimodally and suggests a different perspective when considering other aspects of cognition – from cognitive development to social cognition.
http://www.lemanic-neuroscience.ch/PENSTrainingCenter/articles/Ghazanfar_Schroeder-2006-TICS.pdf
We do have 8 senses and I think our brain uses them all to be able to process our experiences into perceptions.
- Sight
- Taste
- Touch
- Smell
- Sound
- Vestibular (balance)
- Proprioception (bodies location in space)
- Stereognosis/Interoception (visualising 3D objects without sight)
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24035930 - 01/24/17 12:30 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Those are different words with different meanings. You can maybe use them somewhat interchangibly in some contexts, but in others it does not work.
Qualia as a particular instance in a field of perception, like of the color red, or the feeling of pleasure or pain; and a discussion about the quality of perceptions, is not the same thing as a conscience.
Conscience, as the psychological consideration of what is right and wrong, is not the same as moral values of people.
Morality, as a given instruction or rule of what is right or wrong is not the same as ethics, the way a person practically thinks ans acts in a situation.
Sentience, the capacity of anyone or any living thing to perceive and feel, is not morality or ethic, even if sentient beings are a moral and ethical concern to us.
I can describe a chain of relationships to some extent, but each link is clearly different than the next in this sense, not the same.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24036869 - 01/24/17 06:20 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
In my view they are all the capacity to perceive good and bad.
Qualia is a property of being able to perceive an experience, conscience is a persons moral sense of right and wrong, morality is a principle that discerns between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, ethics are moral principles and sentience is the capacity for an individual to perceive the difference between what they think is good and what they think is bad, or in other words their ability to distinguish between what they think and what they feel. 
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/24/17 06:42 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24036967 - 01/24/17 06:53 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
If you were right, why would you have so many words to signify the same thing?
...To each, their own.
Edited by Kurt (01/24/17 06:58 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24036979 - 01/24/17 06:58 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
'ethics/ conscience/ qualia/ morality/ sentience'
I think those words are synonymous in that they mean the same thing, perhaps each as one of many cultural interpretations, diversified by linguistic differences, but all attempting to explain the same thing.
Quote:
Language is malleable. We change the way we use words all the time.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/24/17 07:11 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24036996 - 01/24/17 07:03 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I didn't say that though.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24037005 - 01/24/17 07:09 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
That's what I'm saying.. I don't want to change you though, that's just my view.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24037054 - 01/24/17 07:26 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Okay I see that after the edit.
What you are saying seems off to me Sudly. I disagree with the statement. How can you take such a loose view of representation when you have an objectivist, moralistic point?
You throw around that just an opinion sign, but you seem to me to have a militant attitude in what you actually say.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24037140 - 01/24/17 08:09 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
I prefer to rely on what I perceive as knowledge or theoretical fact rather than to try and rely on faith or gut feelings.
I think it's because I perceive my own experience as a duality of explicit tendencies and implicit relations.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24037237 - 01/24/17 08:40 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
That doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by preferring?
I think your "preference to reality" is something you build up in your head, no different than anyone else, but which for some reason you project alot about.
Why is "preference to reality" to you an opposition? Isn't that just the nature of belief speaking?
What do you think you know that others here don't?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24037270 - 01/24/17 08:56 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Preference for me is a better choice of word than expectation.
As far as I know I can expect the physical tendencies of an object, e.g. If I drop a ball I can expect it to fall as gravity acts upon it. Until the day come that the ball does not follow the expected tendencies it has been observed to have, I will take it as a theoretical fact that a ball will fall when dropped and I will consider it as knowledge.
I don't think I have any new information that isn't accessible to everyone else, what I think is special about this case is that it I think it highlights a pattern in the anatomical interactions of the human nervous system.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24037309 - 01/24/17 09:19 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
I don't care about what word you use, but when you use a shift of the word to go off on a different logical direction, it is avoiding the question.
What I asked is why you think it means anything to say what you did. You said "'you prefer' to rely on what you perceive as knowledge".
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: Kurt]
#24037317 - 01/24/17 09:21 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
"you prefer' to rely on what you perceive as knowledge".
As oppose to jumping into a 'realm of unknown/unknowing'.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
mka
Stranger
Registered: 01/24/17
Posts: 15
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24037324 - 01/24/17 09:24 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
thinking too much maybe walks a fine line. I wonder how I'm charged.
|
mka
Stranger
Registered: 01/24/17
Posts: 15
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: mka]
#24037385 - 01/24/17 09:56 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Lack of electrons I think.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: mka]
#24037393 - 01/24/17 10:00 PM (7 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Then take some shrooms, once metabolised the molecules mimic the pathway of serotonin neurotransmitters.
Scans show psilocybin hyper-connects the brain and perhaps that's got to do with changing the polarity of the brains neural networks.
In other words I think that the active ingredients in magic mushrooms act to change the frequency of brain waves by altering the electrical activity of the brain and nervous system.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (01/24/17 10:07 PM)
|
mka
Stranger
Registered: 01/24/17
Posts: 15
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly]
#24037418 - 01/24/17 10:14 PM (7 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
So it makes you more aware not fall into a dream.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: mka]
#24037455 - 01/24/17 10:28 PM (7 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
In a way, I also think it stimulates brain wave activity and that individuals can have a different set of brain wave frequency experiences.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
LRG
Supernaut

Registered: 04/04/16
Posts: 871
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: sudly] 1
#24042004 - 01/26/17 05:55 PM (7 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I can't see my butthole. Yet, it's still there... I'm sure of it.
-------------------- "I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.” - Gandalf The Grey. "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle "I like to think of Jesus like with giant eagle's wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm HAMMERED DRUNK!" - Cal Naughton Jr. AKA The Magic Man. Abracadabra homes! "Each tear is a drop of poison released." - Anonymous "Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say if they knew you believe in God above? They should realize before they criticize that God is the only way to Love."
|
mka
Stranger
Registered: 01/24/17
Posts: 15
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
Re: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it? [Re: LRG]
#24054526 - 01/31/17 01:16 PM (6 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the moon exists as potential, activated by reaction with other things. So when a human looks or measures it a model is created.
|
|