flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > determinism

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
We can't "understand" anything nor "analyze" anything if we are pre-determined. We just do, what we were predetermined.

If we were predetermined to think about the truth, it would be again impossible, because the 'truth' is that we have been made to think about the truth -- but in this case, the truth does not represent what we think, but what we were made to think. If we would have been made to think different (i.e more 'true'), then again, the thing that made us think that way (big bang, etc), is the truth. We can't understand the truth (in determinism) because the truth makes us do that -- and by doing so, is automatically "changing" itself to be 'one-step-ahead' of ourselves. If it made us think different, it would also change by itself.

Also in determinism, we don't "know" anything at all, we just execute. Smile

and actually, the computer analogy for determinism, is the perfect analogy -- does a computer know about itself? Nope, it only executes. Even if the computer was programmed to execute "I know how I have been designed", it would still not know, it would only execute. By that, we could even make it execute something false -- and it claims that is the truth. It's not it's fault, because you see, he executes exactly as we wanted it to. It doesn't make mistakes -- if he was programmed to perform a mistake (by our standards) he'll follow it because he thinks it's true (or doesn't think at all).

I really don't know how to explain it better.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 13:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
We can't "understand" anything nor "analyze" anything if we are pre-determined. We just do, what we were predetermined.


So your argument is "It is impossible to create consciousness just on deterministic material basis". I disagree.

Doesn't VM "understand" it's bytecode enough to translate them to real instruction? Doesn't compiler optimizer "understand" source code language well enough to be able to transform it to different language? Not everything of course, neither do we claim to understand everything. But we are still getting better - consider compiler that is constantly evolving in some evolutionary programming experiment.

Nice argument that all parts of our consciousness are result of material basis is that you can disable those parts of consciousness by damaging particular part of brain, where they reside. Please read following article, it provides pretty good argument that ALL parts of our consciousness are tied to our material deterministic brain:
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
Post 28 Apr 2008, 14:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
So your argument is "It is impossible to create consciousness just on deterministic material basis". I disagree.
Frankly I do not get your point.

What does conscience mean? And actually, on deterministic material basis, we don't have conscience at all. We just execute what we were programmed to.

vid wrote:
Doesn't VM "understand" it's bytecode enough to translate them to real instruction? Doesn't compiler optimizer "understand" source code language well enough to be able to transform it to different language?
Not at all. See, if you would tell it to completely fuck up a piece of code/source, it will do it. Will it understand it then?

Answer: in both cases, he does not make any mistakes. He just does what he was programmed to. Does he understand? Not at all. If you tell him that white is a color -- he'll understand. If you tell him that white is an animal -- he'll understand.

But to see the obvious contradiction, it's best to say he doesn't understand anything at all.

vid wrote:
Not everything of course, neither do we claim to understand everything. But we are still getting better - consider compiler that is constantly evolving in some evolutionary programming experiment.
Determined stuff can't "evolve". It just is, pre-determined.

Again, let's take my example. Suppose you designed a species. For that species to understand the deterministic theory, you'll have to modify their brains for that -- but, since you modified their brains, the original theory (that they believe after modification) is false, because the new one includes you (the 'God') modifying them as well. Ok, you go and modify them again, but this makes the theory, again, old -- it changed (because you modified them again). Putting it in math terms, you're always n steps in the theory modification, while the species are in the n-1 step -- they believe the n-1 theory, aka the old one.

vid wrote:
Nice argument that all parts of our consciousness are result of material basis is that you can disable those parts of consciousness by damaging particular part of brain, where they reside. Please read following article, it provides pretty good argument that ALL parts of our consciousness are tied to our material deterministic brain:
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html
I read countless articles regarding that, and they all guess and make assumptions. Like, for example, that theists should know what the 'soul' is. Or for that matter, that God is "just". They all say that, if God is just, it should do this and that instead of something else. You know what? I hardly think theists know what God should do -- and even less atheists! Draw conclusions?

Did someone disable your brain to actually experience the thing yourself?

BTW: there is no evidence for the so-called 'soul' (or let's say, higher worlds)?? I'm not talking about the religious soul, but about the 'higher planes' so-to-speak.

Math already proves this -- all you have to do is understand it. Of course a proof is only valid as long as you want to accept it (i.e you can't see color if you don't want to open your eyes). Especially for a guy who wants the evidence to be served to him on a silver platter (I'm talking about the one in the article). People like him will always try to find different explanations for the things that they don't like. If you discard all possible signs then how do you expect to prove it? (e.g: you discard all signs of aliens with "cosmological interactions" instead). I doubt the guy is meditating, for starters Smile


Also I'm truly amazed at how some people seem to love the current "situation" -- they say that now they know "better". Remember that's what people always said, and probably will always say. If yesterday we thought the Earth was Flat, and now think it is round, what will we tomorrow think? of course people have always said that their current theories are correct, blabla.. but that is too ignorant and I thought history taught that, but hey, we are more ignorant and place more and more self-confidence on our abilities as each century passes.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 14:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Determined stuff can't "evolve". It just is, pre-determined.

You have very interesting concept of "evolving". What is (deterministic) evolutionary programming then, if not evolving? How about bacteria which (by deterministic DNA mutations) "evolved" ability to consume silicone, which didn't exist in nature before this experiment? Are those not evolutions?

Quote:
I read countless articles regarding that, and they all guess and make assumptions.

Of course, it's impossible to reason anything without some assumptions. Do you object to "higher plane" articles too, because they make (imho way more) assumptions? Please, check this one and let me know about incorrect assumptions there.

Quote:
Like, for example, that theists should know what the 'soul' is.

They should at least tell, if it is real, what it does, how it manifest itself. They all claim that it does manifest itself somehow, so then they should tell how.

Quote:
Or for that matter, that God is "just".

Not at all in this article, nothing about gods.

Quote:
They all say that, if God is just, it should do this and that instead of something else. You know what? I hardly think theists know what God should do -- and even less atheists! Draw conclusions?

You are attacking straw man. This article discusses idea of soul which somehow affects our consciousness, it's not about god.

Quote:
I doubt the guy is meditating, for starters

Does meditation in any way contradict his stance? Meditation can be nicely explained by science, those explainations make predictions which turned out to be true, meditation can be started or stopped by artificial agents (magnetic fields, drugs, ...), subjective sensations (higher plane, one with the world, optical shapes) during meditation accord to reduced and increased activity of various parts of brain... no, subjective feelings during meditation is no more evidence than hallucinations during LSD trips or during dreams. They fit very well to purely materialistic explaination, in fact they satisfy some of materialistic predictions, not explained by "traditional" explainations.

If you would read the article, changed states of consciousness are discussed, if I remember correctly.

Quote:
If yesterday we thought the Earth was Flat, and now think it is round, what will we tomorrow think?

Whatever evidence points me to. Actually, materialistic oriented people had concept of round earth for ~2300 years, maybe more. It were those who rejected evidence to subjective feeling (like "come on, you see earth is flat") that disregarded and forbid this claim.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 15:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
forgot to react to this:

Quote:
Math already proves this

Math cannot by itself prove anything in natural science. Fact that math can describe space with multiple dimension doesn't mean it is reality. Math can describe many possibilities, which can't all be true.

Quote:
People like him will always try to find different explanations for the things that they don't like

He "doesn't like" those ancient traditional explanations because now we have better ones, which explain more than old ones. Old ones hardly make any predictions, aren't testable, doesn't explain aspects which were discovered just recently, etc.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 15:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
You have very interesting concept of "evolving". What is (deterministic) evolutionary programming then, if not evolving? How about bacteria which (by deterministic DNA mutations) "evolved" ability to consume silicone, which didn't exist in nature before this experiment? Are those not evolutions?
Well yes of course, but they didn't evolve to better "understand" more than they were programmed to Smile

vid wrote:
Of course, it's impossible to reason anything without some assumptions. Do you object to "higher plane" articles too, because they make (imho way more) assumptions? Please, check this one and let me know about incorrect assumptions there.
Actually yes -- remember Dr. Newberg's article on the third eye?

vid wrote:
They should at least tell, if it is real, what it does, how it manifest itself. They all claim that it does manifest itself somehow, so then they should tell how.
Well it's like explaining how the color green looks like, with english text Laughing (not the physical properties, but how does it look?)

vid wrote:
Not at all in this article, nothing about gods.
Hmm:
article wrote:
If there is a god who is fair and just, and who punishes or rewards us for our actions, he would not set things up so that these actions can be dictated or altered by brain chemistry, genes, or other factors over which we have no control. Unless he is an unjust tyrant, he would make our actions the result of the individual's free choice. This is consistent with the idea of consciousness arising from a spiritual soul not subject to the weaknesses of the physical body.


vid wrote:
You are attacking straw man. This article discusses idea of soul which somehow affects our consciousness, it's not about god.
See above.

vid wrote:
subjective sensations (higher plane, one with the world, optical shapes) during meditation accord to reduced and increased activity of various parts of brain...
Well in that case, your eyes and everything you see is also subjective. which it is.

vid wrote:
no, subjective feelings during meditation is no more evidence than hallucinations during LSD trips or during dreams.
so why are the subjective vision (eyes) more evidence?

unless of course you mean that not everyone is meditating but everyone has eyes -- blind people don't have eyes Wink

vid wrote:
Whatever evidence points me to. Actually, materialistic oriented people had concept of round earth for ~2300 years, maybe more. It were those who rejected evidence to subjective feeling (like "come on, you see earth is flat") that disregarded and forbid this claim.
Materialistic people also did not like Einstein's relativity theory, nor quantum mechanics.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 15:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Well yes of course, but they didn't evolve to better "understand" more than they were programmed to

Yes they do. They weren't programmed to nothing. Evolutionary algorithm quite often start with completely random generated garbage, and that gets evolved to working app.

Quote:
Actually yes -- remember Dr. Newberg's article on the third eye?

Yes, some old things vaquely said, apart zound other things which are unfounded, that there is some "thirt eye in the middle of head". And then, we found that there is some secrecy gland in the middle of head, which also handles some sensory input. That's about as good as Virgin Mary prophecy about evil of communism.

Quote:
Well it's like explaining how the color green looks like, with english text (not the physical properties, but how does it look?)

Why "not physical properties"? Those physical properties are how we can tell it apart from other colors. If we change physical properties, or damage parts of sensory which detect these properties, then no "how does it look like" remains.

Sorry but your claim "there is some soul, and it manifests itself, but it is impossible to describe how" isn't the best one. Same argument can be used for just anything (like Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Quote:
See above.

There may be some mention of god, but that's not point of article. But okay, it wasn't straw man, my bad - it's some time since I read it. Still, please react to main topic of article - that every part of our "mind" is depending on physical brain.

Quote:
Well in that case, your eyes and everything you see is also subjective. which it is.

It is. But things percieved in clean mind independently by many people in normal state of consciousness, and can be observed also indirectly by multiple independent sensory organs (image can be transformed to sound, touch, or anything). It is quite much less subjective than feelings in altered state of mind, that are quite

Quote:
Materialistic people also did not like Einstein's relativity theory, nor quantum mechanics.

Like? Einstein (deist, not pure materialist) didn't like quantum mechanics either? And notice one important thing: After these hypotheses were proven, materialists accepted them, even if they didn't like them. Liking plays no role in scientific theory - if it is coherent with data, it is valid. That is important difference.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 20:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sakeniwefu



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 29
sakeniwefu
I don't believe there is a need for non-deterministic physics to explain the human mind and its apparent non-deterministic nature.

Firstly, a single neuron is and must be 99.9999% deterministic at the macro level regardless of the underlying physics. If our neurons acted randomly our senses, and pretty much all our brain, would be completely unreliable. Also, there are far too many ions and neurotransmitters involved for the results to be based on a single electron that decided to spin the wrong way.

But a single neuron being deterministic doesn't mean that the brain processes are determinable. The brain is an asynchronous multiple-core processor with inputs and outputs crossed, receiving data from multiple locally uncontrollable input vectors. Hormones, light, heat, sound, all completely "random" for similar reasons. Non-computable, even if you used another universe as the emulator, but still deterministic.

At most, you can hope that the input you receive really isn't deterministic, but I doubt the quantum "error" expresses itself at the macroscopic level soon enough to be relevant in a single person lifetime. So maybe you weren't supposed to born since the BigBang, maybe it was decided a mya or 230 years ago but the real choices you have are not many, either way.

_________________
Warning: C code found, deleting.
Post 29 Apr 2008, 14:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sakeniwefu wrote:
...If our neurons acted randomly our senses, and pretty much all our brain, would be completely unreliable....
I think it is important to point out that the human brain possess both a modest degree of plasticity, and a strong element of "deterministic" connectivity. Here is an illustration of both attributes, in this case of developing a prosthetic device (for those with Spinal injuries, for example), controlled directly by the brain-- sending instructions to a computer via an array of implanted electrodes. Nota bene: The location of the implantated array is crucial to success with this device, i.e. wrong anatomical area= no response (determinism):
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/brain-machine-interface-controls-movement-of-prosthetic-limb/
Post 29 Apr 2008, 18:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Yes, some old things vaquely said, apart zound other things which are unfounded, that there is some "thirt eye in the middle of head".
Well I don't know about you, but I wasn't there to perform the experiment, I never looked into someone's brain to see that gland, and for that matter, no article is that 'godish' for me (meaning that it represents pure truth). And that applies to any article Wink

vid wrote:
And then, we found that there is some secrecy gland in the middle of head, which also handles some sensory input. That's about as good as Virgin Mary prophecy about evil of communism.
Why do you dismiss it such in a hurry (without even testing or analyzing it).. same as Neal Adam's story about the dinosaurs (in that other thread). Do you have certain beliefs about the world and you think these are BS or highly improbable?

Even if they may not be true (again I don't think I'm in a position to judge that as I have not done any experiments of this kind, plus experiments on humans are highly subjective also!), they still make me wonder.

vid wrote:
Why "not physical properties"? Those physical properties are how we can tell it apart from other colors. If we change physical properties, or damage parts of sensory which detect these properties, then no "how does it look like" remains.
You got me wrong.

Let's suppose a person is born blind. He does not know how colors look (blind people of this sort, after they receive vision with some experiments for a short time, claim that they didn't even see the black color, as strange as it may sound, it is true, yet you can't imagine it NOR describe it with words).

That blind person asks you how green looks like. Note that he is not asking you the physical properties of the color (frequency, wavelength, etc), but rather, how does it look. Your answer will allow him to imagine it. Do physical properties help you to imagine the color? Not at all -- I doubt that by hearing a number (wavelength) you can imagine the blue color, for example, do you Wink

So please reply how you would explain to that person so he could imagine the color (without ever seeing it, remember he's blind from birth).

(trust me it's impossible with english).

vid wrote:
Sorry but your claim "there is some soul, and it manifests itself, but it is impossible to describe how" isn't the best one. Same argument can be used for just anything (like Flying Spaghetti Monster).
But then again, I think it's as hard to explain as to why playing with 'toys' are childish and men wearing pink look gay Wink

it feels that way, but it can't be explained (I'm not talking about the Spaghetti Monster nor about the soul here).

vid wrote:
It is. But things percieved in clean mind independently by many people in normal state of consciousness
To define the normal state of consciousness, you must first define the altered one for comparison. And this definition is 'subjective'. You could take the natural state of consciousness to be the "normal" one, but that doesn't make it clean as there is no 'meter' to measure this cleanness.

If we're in a Matrix, for example, then the normal state of consciousness is only an illusion. It may not matter, but that's not the point. The point is that it is impossible to know how "clean" a state is. What people do is just to agree on a standard definition. But 100 votes don't make something real if it's not.

(i'm not claiming that it's not, but the possibility that it may not be! hey i know as much as you about this Wink)

vid wrote:
Einstein (deist, not pure materialist) didn't like quantum mechanics either?
Einstein was not at all a materialist. Even if would not have believed in any God, wouldn't have make him materialist either. Atheists can be non-materialistic easily. It is the point to admit that you don't know everything -- that whatever you know has a certain chance to it.

In short, I think a much more bold idea to think about yourself.

"The first step in achieving wisdom is to admit that you don't know anything".

Note that knowing something means it's true sense -- so if we are in a Matrix, regardless if you give a fuck or not about it, it's still considered knowledge. Knowledge is not to be confused with practice!

vid wrote:
And notice one important thing: After these hypotheses were proven, materialists accepted them, even if they didn't like them. Liking plays no role in scientific theory - if it is coherent with data, it is valid. That is important difference.
Yes but they did not like it. Some still continually try to prove that wrong. Why would they? Because it does not suit their beliefs.

Just like organized religion Rolling Eyes
Post 30 Apr 2008, 11:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Well I don't know about you, but I wasn't there to perform the experiment, I never looked into someone's brain to see that gland, and for that matter, no article is that 'godish' for me (meaning that it represents pure truth). And that applies to any article

Like, "Let's not give any confidence to anything, and live day-by-day without learning anything, 'coz everything CAN BE a fake" ?

Quote:
Why do you dismiss it such in a hurry (without even testing or analyzing it).. same as Neal Adam's story about the dinosaurs (in that other thread). Do you have certain beliefs about the world and you think these are BS or highly improbable?

I have certain "beliefs" (if you want to call it that name, most people prefer "knowledge"), that are much better founded than anything you suggested. And I didn't disregard it:

In first case (3rd eye) article contained shitload of words that can mean almost anything you want them to mean. No definitive informative value, article refered lots of things, which, as you would argue, "manifest themselves clearly but it's impossible to describe how". Very much like when all creationist agree that fossil skulls of human / ape ancestors are always easily distinguishable human or ape, but they never can agree for particular fossil which of these two it is.

In second case (expanding earth), guy made argument from biology, in which he made gross error (or disregard) of biology. Sorry, but I'd rather prefer to hear to hypothesis from someone who knows and practices his field properly.

Quote:
So please reply how you would explain to that person so he could imagine the color (without ever seeing it, remember he's blind from birth).

I wouldn't be able to reproduce same sensory effect for him as non-bling people have. But i would definitively be able to demonstrate existence of distinct colors to him. I'd same way we use to "see" infrared and ultraviolet color. We don't know how they "look like", but we can clearly demonstrate their existence by transforming them to something that our sensory can detect. For the blind man, I would make device which detects color, transforms it to sound, and give them this sensory. Note that this was already done - colorblind man got color-to-sound detector mounted on head, and painted very nice color pictures.

To demonstrate existence of things we can't percieve directly, we just transform them to something that we can percieve. Can you do that for "soul"?

Quote:
To define the normal state of consciousness, you must first define the altered one for comparison. And this definition is 'subjective'. You could take the natural state of consciousness to be the "normal" one, but that doesn't make it clean as there is no 'meter' to measure this cleanness.

okay, so we are left with two options:

1. Sensory input in what I call normal state of consciousness (you know very well what I mean) is quite reliable, and all those sensation during meditations, sleep, out-of-body experiences, drunkness, druh trips, mantra chanting, other kinds of sensory deprivation, etc... are just illusions caused internally in brain.

2. Our senses in are limited in normal state of consciousness, but in altered state (whether it be drugs, sensory deprivation, meditation, electrical stimulation - all these were claimed by various groups) we activate some extra sensory that allows us detect things undetectable by normal sensory.

Occam's razor (eg. If we don't want to presuppose more than nescessary) hints for number 1. You obviously stand for number 2. What evidence can you put forth? How well is your claim testable? How come that we haven't yet observed the out-of-normal-sensory things to affect things we can detect by normal sensory (no breach of determinism in material world observable by sensory has ever been observed)?

I don't say number 2 is incorrect - it can be showed correct next day and I am fine with it. I just say that until someone shows some evidence for it, I see no reason to regard it. There are countless such "possible" claims, why should I pick right this one out of all?

Quote:
Einstein was not at all a materialist.

For einstein "god" was synonymous to "physical laws". For me that is deist, and very close to materialist. If not for you, okay.

Quote:
Atheists can be non-materialistic easily.

Sure - There can still be claims of other nonmaterial things not called "god": souls, chakras, fairies, spaghetti monsters, etc...

Quote:
It is the point to admit that you don't know everything -- that whatever you know has a certain chance to it.

I never heard any materialist claim he "knows everything", and I know many materialist who think we can't ever possibly know everything. I agree with that stance, if we live in perfect virtual reality, there's no way to find out. But that doesn't matter to us, if it's really perfect, it makes no difference - it's called "positivism" I think.

Quote:
Yes but they did not like it. Some still continually try to prove that wrong. Why would they? Because it does not suit their beliefs.

Original testing can easily be flawed, as I said to you before, every experiment should be repeated, every hypothesis tested independently multiple times.

You say as if it was bad to accepting something on the basis of evidence, even if you don't like it. Those people trying to "prove wrong" are just helping the science to determine if current theory is really valid (explains all evidence, makes correct predictions, etc..). But until they succeed in disproving some well-tested and accepted theory, it remains valid even if majority don't like it. Not at all like organized religion.
Post 30 Apr 2008, 12:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Like, "Let's not give any confidence to anything, and live day-by-day without learning anything, 'coz everything CAN BE a fake" ?
Not necessarily, we all believe in something. Why should I give confidence to a piece of paper written by some guy I never met? Yes of course, if I believe in the same stuff the guy said, then I will agree.

This does not mean that it is not interesting (the article); but as for evidence.

vid wrote:
In first case (3rd eye) article contained shitload of words that can mean almost anything you want them to mean.
Well, for me, the biological names are hieroglyphs Laughing

but just because I can't understand them (because I'm not a biologist, i.e specialized in that area) doesn't mean they are shitload of useless words.

Unless of course you expect every biology book to include the definition of those words -- which it isn't, if you read that book you're supposed to know the terms already Wink

vid wrote:
In second case (expanding earth), guy made argument from biology, in which he made gross error (or disregard) of biology. Sorry, but I'd rather prefer to hear to hypothesis from someone who knows and practices his field properly.
Instead of analyzing other people's typo's and wrong definitions, I'd suggest you just think about it -- even if it may not be true, it is still nevertheless interesting, and logical. I prefer logical arguments over people with no logic and 100% empirical-based thoughts.

vid wrote:
I wouldn't be able to reproduce same sensory effect for him as non-bling people have. But i would definitively be able to demonstrate existence of distinct colors to him. I'd same way we use to "see" infrared and ultraviolet color. We don't know how they "look like", but we can clearly demonstrate their existence by transforming them to something that our sensory can detect. For the blind man, I would make device which detects color, transforms it to sound, and give them this sensory. Note that this was already done - colorblind man got color-to-sound detector mounted on head, and painted very nice color pictures.
Again you missed the point.

What I am saying, is that he should imagine how the color looks like, based on your english explanation. Pretty much the same as a guy who is reading a book (story) imagines the 'movie' of the book (you know what I mean). Yes it can be open for interpretation, but you get the point.

This is what I want you to explain to the blind man -- how he can imagine the color.

vid wrote:
To demonstrate existence of things we can't percieve directly, we just transform them to something that we can percieve. Can you do that for "soul"?
Yep, but not with the 5 senses, you need the third eye (sixth sense maybe?).

I don't know, I've never been interested in the 'sensory' conversion, so I don't know if that's the answer -- but just because I don't know doesn't mean it's crap Smile

vid wrote:
Occam's razor (eg. If we don't want to presuppose more than nescessary) hints for number 1.
Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, that you don't open your eyes to see the light/colors. That we are all blind people in caves. One day, you can open your eyes.

Let's suppose you don't need light in every day-to-day basis. Does that mean that opening your eyes means it's a lot more complicated and should be dismissed, as it's a more complicated solution to life?

Or perhaps we should, in that example, treat eyes as illusions (i.e altered state of mind) because it is very different from what we had before (sound, blind living).

vid wrote:
What evidence can you put forth?
Plenty but you need a device called the third eye to see it Laughing

or perhaps, you need my own built device -- third eye meter -- that measures the amount of high planes (analog display). Note that you won't be able to understand how it works, it's too complicated, you'll need third eye for that Laughing

(of course I'm j/k but you get the idea about the faith in 'devices').

vid wrote:
How well is your claim testable?
Well, as testable as your eyes can get.

vid wrote:
How come that we haven't yet observed the out-of-normal-sensory things to affect things we can detect by normal sensory (no breach of determinism in material world observable by sensory has ever been observed)?
Three conclusions (or perhaps more):

1. "We" (meaning the materialists) haven't yet observed the things that are not perceivable with our 5 senses -- and by 'observed' I mean with the 5 senses. Funny thing is that, to construct a device that responds to light, you first have to know it exists, and we wouldn't if we were all blind. The analogy with infrared light is not a good one because infrared is still light (electromagnetic). The difference between sound, smell and light is far greater. Simply put, if we were all blind from the beginning, no one would have known light existed. That's why they haven't yet "observed" it.

2. They did "observe" that but they dismissed it as illusions. Nothing can beat a dismissed evidence Laughing

3. They observed it but are not telling us -- conspiracy Wink

vid wrote:
For einstein "god" was synonymous to "physical laws". For me that is deist, and very close to materialist. If not for you, okay.
Materialist does not mean atheist. That doesn't make all atheists materialists Razz

vid wrote:
Sure - There can still be claims of other nonmaterial things not called "god": souls, chakras, fairies, spaghetti monsters, etc...
Why do you find all these things so funny anyway (ridiculous) (hint: it's a rhetorical question, similar to the pink-wearing guys being gay).

Also, why do you find fairies any less "convincing" than a spherical atom? Or a world without mathematical relationships (i.e formulas)? Maybe you think these things are 'silly', and I can agree. Or maybe you think they're more complicated than a sphere explanation, but then how do you measure "simplicity"? Is there a simplicitometer? Laughing

vid wrote:
I never heard any materialist claim he "knows everything", and I know many materialist who think we can't ever possibly know everything.
Not 'everything', but 'anything'. That is, he does not know anything at all, for knowing means an almost 100% chance.

While quantum mechanics tells us that everything, even the impossible, has a small chance to it. Therefore, it is wrong to say in this case that you know something, because it has a chance to fail.

Materialists on the other hand think they can predict something with no chance of failure -- thus that they "know". But that is incorrect of course (due to quantum mechanics).

vid wrote:
Those people trying to "prove wrong" are just helping the science to determine if current theory is really valid (explains all evidence, makes correct predictions, etc..). But until they succeed in disproving some well-tested and accepted theory, it remains valid even if majority don't like it. Not at all like organized religion.
For a goal (i.e "proving wrong" a theory) you need some belief in what you're doing. Those people want and believe that the theory is wrong. Even if they may never be able to disprove it. For something to be done, you first need to believe in what you're doing. There's no job done without believing in your actions.

They may be helping "the science" (personality lol) but then they don't think that way. They truly believe in what they're doing. That is the difference.
Post 30 Apr 2008, 13:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Unless of course you expect every biology book to include the definition of those words -- which it isn't, if you read that book you're supposed to know the terms already Wink

okay, so I am ask second time, can you refer me to some source that clearly describes what "soul" is and what it does? Like in biology, you can look up clear description of any term you don't know.

Quote:
Instead of analyzing other people's typo's and wrong definitions, I'd suggest you just think about it -- even if it may not be true, it is still nevertheless interesting, and logical. I prefer logical arguments over people with no logic and 100% empirical-based thoughts.

I didn't mean that expanding earth hypothesis is bullshit. I just would like to hear that from someone less amateurish. If I see description from more serious source than one that doesn't regard whale as a mammal, then I will gladly read it.

Quote:
This is what I want you to explain to the blind man -- how he can imagine the color.

I didn't miss the point, you did. For this, I explained you that I can't explain in english how sensory input "feels". But still I can demonstrate him that green color exists.

Quote:
Yep, but not with the 5 senses, you need the third eye (sixth sense maybe?).

Sounds like circular reasoning... I was asking for demonstration that any of such things like soul, third eye, higher plane, etc. exist. I see a pretty consistent theory in mainstream science, which pretty much explains everything, and doesn't need these. For those things unexplained, I don't see how soul or third eye explain them any more.

For example, I can use virtually any sensory to demonstrate any other sensory gives consistent result. I can let deaf poeple use his eyes, or touch, to sense sounds. Try holding guitar in strong grab and pluck a string - you will feel by touch same pulsing of tone that you hear. All our senses give consistent result, and they don't detect anything else.

And now you come and tell me we have some hidden 6th sense, which is inactive in most people, and can sense things not convertable to standard 5 senses. Okay, it's not impossible, so go on - demonstrate that this claim is true. People who stated that ultraviolet light (undetectable directly by standard senses) exists, had to demonstrate it too.

Quote:
Not necessarily. Imagine, for example, that you don't open your eyes to see the light/colors. That we are all blind people in caves. One day, you can open your eyes.

Let's suppose you don't need light in every day-to-day basis. Does that mean that opening your eyes means it's a lot more complicated and should be dismissed, as it's a more complicated solution to life?

Or perhaps we should, in that example, treat eyes as illusions (i.e altered state of mind) because it is very different from what we had before (sound, blind living).

I agree that this is not impossible, but I need to explain why I dismissed it. Imagine now, that other guys besides you comes, and says that while defecating you can enable your 7th sense which can reveal hidden inner beauty of stones, if you train it for 10 years. Even though this is extreme example, without further proof it's about same validity as your claim. There are many such "possible" things. Which one to pick? Why pick just "soul" out of all those possible things?

Quote:
Why do you find all these things so funny anyway (ridiculous) (hint: it's a rhetorical question, similar to the pink-wearing guys being gay).

Not all of them are funny. But all of them purely theoretical, not needed to explain anything, never observed, etc... Feel free to demonstrate me opposite.

Quote:
Also, why do you find fairies any less "convincing" than a spherical atom?

Because this hypothesis maked predictions which turned out to be true, because it is testable and passed all tests, and because it is consistent with observations. You can't say that about fairies, souls, or invisible pink unicorns.

Quote:
of course I'm j/k but you get the idea about the faith in 'devices'

difference is that we KNOW how devices we use work :]

Quote:
Well, as testable as your eyes can get.

You mean with my touch, hearing, etc? Remember example of colorblind guy who "saw" colors using his hearing.

Quote:
Materialists on the other hand think they can predict something with no chance of failure -- thus that they "know". But that is incorrect of course (due to quantum mechanics).

Straw man. Materilists say that they can predict something with such little chance of failure that we can dismiss it. Do you think "shit, I can break my leg now" before every step you take? And that's quite higher probability than those you are talking about.

Quote:
For a goal (i.e "proving wrong" a theory) you need some belief in what you're doing. Those people want and believe that the theory is wrong. Even if they may never be able to disprove it. For something to be done, you first need to believe in what you're doing. There's no job done without believing in your actions.

Agree. If current theory that best explains evidence is such that they "don't like" it, they try to find evidence contrary to it, or try to find just as good (or better) theory. But until they do, the theory remains still valid scientific theory. Even if no one on planet besides author likes the theory, if it explains evidence, it is valid.

Quantum mechanics is beatufil example of this - it was best theory, but majority of scientists "didn't like it", and tried to find alternatives (Einstein is best known example). Yet still it was valid scientific theory, and eventually some of it's rare fans showed that any alternative without "action at distance" is impossible - Bell's theorem.
Post 30 Apr 2008, 14:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
okay, so I am ask second time, can you refer me to some source that clearly describes what "soul" is and what it does? Like in biology, you can look up clear description of any term you don't know.
I would have liked to if I remember the article (I don't usually keep links to them as I don't think articles are that reliable sources, but that's just me). I doubt that Googling will get the result easily.

vid wrote:
I didn't mean that expanding earth hypothesis is bullshit. I just would like to hear that from someone less amateurish. If I see description from more serious source than one that doesn't regard whale as a mammal, then I will gladly read it.
So what's important in science? Faith in authorities (serious sources) or the message contained therein. I guess that the second applies to people who prefer logic over empirical evidence.

vid wrote:
I didn't miss the point, you did. For this, I explained you that I can't explain in english how sensory input "feels".
ok

vid wrote:
But still I can demonstrate him that green color exists.
How will he know that the device you build for him will work properly?

vid wrote:
I see a pretty consistent theory in mainstream science, which pretty much explains everything, and doesn't need these. For those things unexplained, I don't see how soul or third eye explain them any more.
Well there's the problem with 'explanation'. Going back to the cave example, the blind people there would have not even known light existed. It's simple for you to say that you can build a device that converts light to sounds for blind people, as long as you see light. But now put yourself into a blind's position -- you don't even know light exists (let's say the people with eyes don't exist). So how are you supposed to build a device for something that you don't even know it exists (not even the slightest idea of it)?

Again, infrared/ultraviolet light is a wrong analogy -- because those are still light (electromagnetic waves) so you can take from the visible light and make those (by analogy). However, sound is not at all like light, so blind people would never be able to build a device that converts that.

Unless of course a guy that sees does that. Remember, for something to be done (e.g build a device) you need to believe in what you're doing. You can't build a device that converts light to sound if you don't even know light exists!

vid wrote:
And now you come and tell me we have some hidden 6th sense, which is inactive in most people, and can sense things not convertable to standard 5 senses.
Just because no one has done it or that they don't know how doesn't mean it isn't convertible. It's not 'inactive', unless you mean that closed eyes are inactive. Also I don't know whether it is convertible or not.

vid wrote:
I agree that this is not impossible, but I need to explain why I dismissed it. Imagine now, that other guys besides you comes, and says that while defecating you can enable your 7th sense which can reveal hidden inner beauty of stones, if you train it for 10 years. Even though this is extreme example, without further proof it's about same validity as your claim. There are many such "possible" things. Which one to pick? Why pick just "soul" out of all those possible things?
I never said I pick only "soul" out of all. The 7th sense with inner beauty of stones may be true, and to truly see it for myself I would have to train it. And definitely it would not be any less convincing than a soul, or than light.

There is a difference between "7th sense doesn't exist" and "I don't know whether it doesn't exist because I didn't train yet for that".

vid wrote:
Not all of them are funny. But all of them purely theoretical, not needed to explain anything, never observed, etc... Feel free to demonstrate me opposite.
How am I supposed to demonstrate it? Giving videos? same as NASA did (the fake moon videos)?

(not claiming that I can do it, but just a question).

vid wrote:
Because this hypothesis maked predictions which turned out to be true, because it is testable and passed all tests, and because it is consistent with observations. You can't say that about fairies, souls, or invisible pink unicorns.
Who maked predictions? The spherical atom? Not at all, actually it can have any shape as I remember.

vid wrote:
difference is that we KNOW how devices we use work :]
Do we? What we know about them is what people write down in books/articles about them. Is that how truly they work?

To answer we need to examine the device.. and unless we know physics (or whatever is required) it'll be impossible for us to know how it works. That's why it's called 'faith' -- the texts/articles about them can be whatever they want.

But now what if you require a different branch specialization to understand my own built device? You can't understand it with physics Wink

vid wrote:
You mean with my touch, hearing, etc? Remember example of colorblind guy who "saw" colors using his hearing.
No, I wrote it wrong.

It was supposed to be "just as testable your eyes are" meaning that the third eye has same properties as eyes (i.e testable).

also I doubt you ever doubted an article and read it with sound Laughing

vid wrote:
Straw man. Materilists say that they can predict something with such little chance of failure that we can dismiss it. Do you think "shit, I can break my leg now" before every step you take? And that's quite higher probability than those you are talking about.
According to materialism, and thus determinism (or am I wrong), the things in the Universe are not chance-based -- there's no chance a particular work will fail. Isn't this determinism?

Then how will materialists say that they can be wrong?


vid wrote:
Agree. If current theory that best explains evidence is such that they "don't like" it, they try to find evidence contrary to it, or try to find just as good (or better) theory. But until they do, the theory remains still valid scientific theory. Even if no one on planet besides author likes the theory, if it explains evidence, it is valid.
What about explaining logically rather than evidence? I guess this sense (logic; I call it a sense though) is not as important as your eyes. Some people prefer evidence over logic, dunno why.

(you get why I like math)
Post 30 Apr 2008, 15:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
if i say you to tell me a random number between 1-10, will it be real random ? Wink
Post 30 Apr 2008, 15:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
So what's important in science? Faith in authorities (serious sources) or the message contained therein. I guess that the second applies to people who prefer logic over empirical evidence.


The message (result of experiment) is important, but "serious source" makes it much more probable that experiment was performed properly as it should

Quote:
How will he know that the device you build for him will work properly?

Again the same - argumenting that something can be wrong. Yes it can. Even one without

For asking me "how can I be sure it is right" on everything, you basically are asking me to reproduce testing of every single claim science ever did. If something is accepted as scientific theory, it underwent much more testing your souls and 3rd eyes ever did, as thus it's pretty sure. Can't say that about this new age stuff.

Quote:
Well there's the problem with 'explanation'. Going back to the cave example, the blind people there would have not even known light existed. It's simple for you to say that you can build a device that converts light to sounds for blind people, as long as you see light. But now put yourself into a blind's position -- you don't even know light exists (let's say the people with eyes don't exist). So how are you supposed to build a device for something that you don't even know it exists (not even the slightest idea of it)?

Quote:
Unless of course a guy that sees does that. Remember, for something to be done (e.g build a device) you need to believe in what you're doing. You can't build a device that converts light to sound if you don't even know light exists!

Bullshit. Apply same argumentation to everything that we can't observe directly, but we observed it indirectly. Black holes, atoms, ultraviolet light, magnetic waves, oxygen density, dark matter ... We are blind in these cases, and we did build device to detect them. Because things that really exist (pun intended on "soul") exhibit themself more than one way - light heats things so you can detect it's result with touch, sound is pressure pulsation and can be felt and seen, etc.

Quote:
There is a difference between "7th sense doesn't exist" and "I don't know whether it doesn't exist because I didn't train yet for that".

I stand for second one, but there are so many contradicting claims about "other senses", most of them completely silly, that it's not possible to bother with them. Until you put forward any evidence, why just "soul" and "3rd idea" are any better than other zounds of ideas, I don't see any reason to consider them any more possible than invisible pink unicorn, or killer ninja rabbits in 67th dimense causing us to masturbate.

Quote:
How am I supposed to demonstrate it?

Same way as we demonstrated all things which can't be observed directly. Some examples were already given, thousands other can be thought of with a bit sense.

Quote:
Who maked predictions? The spherical atom? Not at all, actually it can have any shape as I remember.

I focused on atom part, not at it's shape. Doesn't matter anyway, I talked about methodology, not particular example. For something to be accepted as scientific theory, it has to be testable / falsifiable, has to be actually tested, and should make predictions which turn out true during testing. Other ideas, just for being "possible", doesn't make them any more real than those killer ninja rabbits.

Quote:
Do we? What we know about them is what people write down in books/articles about them. Is that how truly they work?

Again you are asking me to reproduce entire body of knowledge we have. Of course I can't replicate every experiment myself. But what you do leaves you with completely nothing - if you dismiss all knowledge (just because there is 0.0000001% probability it's worng), then you can go back up to trees.

If we didn't know how devices work, we wouldn't be able to build them so greatly in first place (remember many of them can be easily built at home, outside "science conspiracy").

Quote:
It was supposed to be "just as testable your eyes are" meaning that the third eye has same properties as eyes (i.e testable).

Testable by other senses, and coherent with what you gather by other senses, like sight is?

Quote:
According to materialism, and thus determinism (or am I wrong), the things in the Universe are not chance-based -- there's no chance a particular work will fail. Isn't this determinism?

According to some latest scienctifical models, things are chance-based in a way. From other point of view (where atom is defined as something that can exhibit itself at various places, and doesn't have strictly defined point position), they aren't chance based. There are currently multiple equally valid models.

Quote:
What about explaining logically rather than evidence? I guess this sense (logic; I call it a sense though) is not as important as your eyes. Some people prefer evidence over logic, dunno why.

(you get why I like math)

There are infinte logically possible things that can be described by math, and yet they aren't real. Natural science is interested in what is real in this world (in behavior this world exhibits, regardless if we are in virtual reality or whatever). Logic by itself doesn't tell you which of infinite possibilities is the one in this world.
Post 01 May 2008, 09:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
The message (result of experiment) is important, but "serious source" makes it much more probable that experiment was performed properly as it should
Where's the device that measures that? Wink

vid wrote:
For asking me "how can I be sure it is right" on everything, you basically are asking me to reproduce testing of every single claim science ever did. If something is accepted as scientific theory, it underwent much more testing your souls and 3rd eyes ever did, as thus it's pretty sure.
aka faith Wink

vid wrote:
Bullshit. Apply same argumentation to everything that we can't observe directly, but we observed it indirectly.
I'll take each one separately:
vid wrote:
Black holes
Light, or the absence of it, can be observed. Thus it is a 'direct' observation.
vid wrote:
atoms
We did observe atoms, but not even indirectly. We only observe the electromagnetic or energy that they emit. Thus, this observation is direct. However, the observation of their 'shape' is not even indirect. It is no observation at all.
vid wrote:
ultraviolet light
Again, not a good analogy, are you listening to me? Ultraviolet light, Infrared light, etc.. are still electromagnetic waves. Once you have a certain EM wave with a frequency that you see, it's easy to modify it to generate 'unseen' light. But nevertheless, UV is still light. This is not the same as comparing sound to light.

Sound has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic waves (not as light has).

If you want a better example, consider that we were living in outer space, where there is no gravity. Now, what would people say about gravity when they encounter it (for a short time period)? They will try to find alternative explanations to it than just "a new field type". In this way, you can have "soul fields" as well but I guess they will try to find different alternative explanations for the 'unexplainable'. Just like the gravity stuff.

Or, perhaps they will dismiss it as illusions (again it would have been experienced only for a short time period).

I'm going to dark matter now. Wait, did we build devices to measure dark matter?? Confused

vid wrote:
light heats things so you can detect it's result with touch
Heat emits infrared light -- thus still EM waves are generated.

vid wrote:
Until you put forward any evidence, why just "soul" and "3rd idea" are any better than other zounds of ideas, I don't see any reason to consider them any more possible than invisible pink unicorn, or killer ninja rabbits in 67th dimense causing us to masturbate.
Like I said, nothing beats a dismissed evidence (i.e "that's not evidence, it was an illusion")

vid wrote:
Again you are asking me to reproduce entire body of knowledge we have. Of course I can't replicate every experiment myself. But what you do leaves you with completely nothing - if you dismiss all knowledge (just because there is 0.0000001% probability it's worng), then you can go back up to trees.
1. How do you measure this probability? Any formula or device?

2. Religious people say the same, but you choose to trust science (also you calculate a low probability of it being false, religions do that too, actually they say 0% of failure).

vid wrote:
If we didn't know how devices work, we wouldn't be able to build them so greatly in first place
You're confusing me because you use "we" in the phrase. Of course, the guys that built the devices know how they built them. But the question is, do we (aka the guys that didn't)?

What we're fed up with is some books/articles written for them, by those that built them.

If we're not physicists it's unlikely we'll understand how to build a device that requires physics. So you see, we'll have to place trust, but the question is, in who? Of course many answer science but that's just similar to religion.

Now of course I'm not claiming religion is any better at all in any way -- so don't get me wrong. In science, you place trust in physicists (or whoever built the device). In religion, you place trust in priests. In science, you can become a physicist and understand the devices (though you'll have to become one to truly know for yourself, rather than take my word or anyone else's for it). In religion, you can become a priest and understand the "whatever" stuff is there.

Both require trust and no better than another. Of course science can be more 'practical', but again I am not talking about that, but rather knowledge, which both lack outside the scope of trusting.

vid wrote:
Testable by other senses, and coherent with what you gather by other senses, like sight is?
Maybe, but I think you'll consider it an illusion Wink

vid wrote:
There are infinte logically possible things that can be described by math, and yet they aren't real.
Actually that makes them real. Since of course all we experience is our thoughts. But that's just a philosopher talking.
Post 01 May 2008, 10:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Where's the device that measures that?

it is the "common sense" device located inside human neural system Razz Wink

Quote:
aka faith

Call it whatever you want, i am not fond of wordplays. I 'd call it choosing the best option available as the source of knowledge.

Quote:
Like I said, nothing beats a dismissed evidence (i.e "that's not evidence, it was an illusion")

Sensations during meditation might either be true, or illusion. We need to explore both possibilities, check how coherent they are with what we know, and how well their predictions turn out true. AFAIK the "illusion" explanation turns out better in this manner, and doesn't require any extra presupposing of things like "soul", "higher plane", etc, which are otherwise not observed. One example for many, it explains why you see various shapes during meditation and not others, AFAIK not explained by "3rd eye" hypothesis. Unfortunately, I haven't studied neither side very deeply on this topic to provide enough arguments Sad

Quote:
1. How do you measure this probability? Any formula or device?

I just meant to say "very low probability". All your arguments are that something CAN BE false. Okay, if such things are common, refer me to few examples of forgeries in science which went unnoticed for long time. You shouldn't have problem finding many of them, should you?

Quote:
If we're not physicists it's unlikely we'll understand how to build a device that requires physics. So you see, we'll have to place trust, but the question is, in who?

Those who build devices also provide description of how they built them and how they work. Anyone can follow this description (yes, it takes time) and replicate devices. If the description would be false, such homemade device wouldn't work.

Quote:
Actually that makes them real. Since of course all we experience is our thoughts. But that's just a philosopher talking.

You have too weird definition of "Real". By "real" I mean behavior that world around us exhibits, and there is just single one. Math and logic allow you many things, but what-I-call-reality is just single one.
Post 01 May 2008, 11:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Call it whatever you want, i am not fond of wordplays. I 'd call it choosing the best option available as the source of knowledge.
Sorry I wasn't playing with words Wink

I understand sometimes I don't write explicit enough, but hey it's my fault. I was referring that you place faith in these scientists/experiments, saying that they have tested very deep. Of course, after that, the common sense tells you it's very unlikely to be false. Which I agree.

However you start from a wrong point -- that the experiments are tested deeply, etc.. this first assumption is the one that causes a chain reaction to the probabilities you imagine. Smile

(sorry if that doesn't make sense)

vid wrote:
Sensations during meditation might either be true, or illusion. We need to explore both possibilities, check how coherent they are with what we know, and how well their predictions turn out true.
Of course we have to take both possibilities, i never said that illusions don't exist.

What I'm saying is that evidence from your 'eyes' can be illusions just as much as the ones during meditation (your third eye, but I hate that term). Of course we should take both possibilities into consideration (true/false) but we should take them for meditation and 'normal-state of consciousness' (you know). without favoring one or the other.

hope you get what I mean

vid wrote:
AFAIK the "illusion" explanation turns out better in this manner, and doesn't require any extra presupposing of things like "soul", "higher plane", etc, which are otherwise not observed.
Well it's always easier to just bury your head in the sand if you don't need something that (as far as you know) might not affect you. Of course I'm not claiming that you should. What I say is that "extra" knowledge, whether it is practical or not, is still knowledge. Wink



vid wrote:
I just meant to say "very low probability". All your arguments are that something CAN BE false. Okay, if such things are common, refer me to few examples of forgeries in science which went unnoticed for long time. You shouldn't have problem finding many of them, should you?
My arguments are not that everything CAN BE false, because that is already an assumption. Yes of course everything can be false, but my arguments are that some people prefer to place emphasis on one thing more than another -- which is, by itself, trusting in that respective belief (whatever that may be). For example, when you said that Neal Adams was not "reliable" enough, that meant you placed emphasis on other reliable scientists and not him. Both can be false of course but that is not my point. My point is that you, in this trusting or belief, assign more probability to the ones you trust (i.e reliable sources, in your opinion), and less to others. This 'imbalance' is my point Wink

vid wrote:
Those who build devices also provide description of how they built them and how they work. Anyone can follow this description (yes, it takes time) and replicate devices.
Yes, anyone can follow this description, but to fully be sure, you'll have to do it yourself. And by the way, just because the description says how you should build the device does not mean that it explains how it works. You can follow a step-by-step guide in "writing a hello world" program without understanding how it works (assembly level of course). Wink

vid wrote:
You have too weird definition of "Real". By "real" I mean behavior that world around us exhibits, and there is just single one. Math and logic allow you many things, but what-I-call-reality is just single one.
Ok I admit I'm weird, but reality is not absolute. Remember the relativity theory -- "reality" is in every of us, every one of us defines it. Yes there are certain rules that you might call "real" as absolute, but in the end the 'reality' we speak of is relative.

EDIT: unless of course you mean that imagination, for example, is not real. But that means, since it exists (of course everyone has imagination) then it is out-of-this-world (since it's not real). or what do you call reality?
Post 01 May 2008, 11:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
asmhack wrote:
what you think about deterministic theory ? do you believe in what it says or you believe in persons free will ? the only sure thing is that the person interacts with the whole universe taking so much influences and domino effects so that remains to him is just to choose between available options.. or just to take the influences..
is there fate or no ? is this world randomness ?

Confused

(you could never read this post, but you did.. it was written that you would Razz )
All knowledge disproves real (not pseudo, which is determinable given enough processing power/knowledge of the algorithm/etc) randomess, and nothing proves it, so..

Yes, determinism/causality/physics (the laws that events aren't caused by nothing) exist.


Last edited by Azu on 16 Jan 2009, 16:53; edited 1 time in total
Post 16 Jan 2009, 15:57
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.