Is Matter Self Aware?

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


You should look into the double split experiment a bit more and read the what the physicists and reviewers have to say.

Or how about you tell us what these 'physicists and reviewers have to say' instead, since you are bringing it up?

Or are you avoiding that because it does support your thesis? At any rate, I think Richard Feynman is much more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself.

"a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]."

edit on 7-16-12 by warpig221 because: (no reason given)

No where did I assert anything. My interpretation rubbed you the wrong way and you reacted. That's not my fault. Why does it bother you so much?

Somehow you can imagine consciousness without matter. How? I am unsure. Why don't you explain how you were able to reach your conclusion and maybe attempt to convince me before you resort to the attitude of an upset child?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


I am sorry you took that post as me being upset or having an attitude.
Maybe it's just you projecting your feelings onto me, therefore you feel that you have to resort to name calling. That shows very weak intelligence. I would have much rather you addressed the statement in which I told you to please tell us what 'physicists and reviewers' have to say about the double slit experiment since you seem very confident in your assertions that you repeatedly fail to back up.

I will answer your question with another question before I begin to explain my take on the matter from personal experience.
What is thought?

reply to post by warpig221


Why don't you tell us why the assertions made in that Double Slit experiment vid are wrong?

Originally posted by warpig221
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

I am sorry you took that post as me being upset or having an attitude.
Maybe it's just you projecting your feelings onto me, therefore you feel that you have to resort to name calling. That shows very weak intelligence.

This is hypocritical and contradictory. This shows a weak intelligence with a mix of hypocrisy.

I will answer your question with another question before I begin to explain my take on the matter from personal experience.
What is thought?

edit on 7-16-12 by warpig221 because: (no reason given)

thought 1 |THôt|
noun
1 an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind: Maggie had a sudden thought | I asked him if he had any thoughts on how it had happened | Mrs. Oliver's first thought was to get help.
• (one's thoughts) one's mind or attention: he's very much in our thoughts and prayers.
• an act of considering or remembering someone or something: she hadn't given a thought to Max for some time.
• (usu. thought of) an intention, hope, or idea of doing or receiving something: he had given up all thoughts of making Manhattan his home.

reply to post by TraitorKiller


I don't think the assertions made are wrong...

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

This is hypocritical and contradictory. This shows a weak intelligence with a mix of hypocrisy.

Yet another hit and run statement. I notice you have trouble backing up almost anything you say. Have you ever taken a basic writing class? After you state your thesis you are supposed to provide support for said thesis. You fail to do this on everything you write.

thought 1 |THôt|
noun
1 an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind: Maggie had a sudden thought | I asked him if he had any thoughts on how it had happened | Mrs. Oliver's first thought was to get help.
• (one's thoughts) one's mind or attention: he's very much in our thoughts and prayers.
• an act of considering or remembering someone or something: she hadn't given a thought to Max for some time.
• (usu. thought of) an intention, hope, or idea of doing or receiving something: he had given up all thoughts of making Manhattan his home.

I know the definition, but I find it the condescending attempt quite cute.
I want your personal definition of thought, not what you are taught thought is.

Although I find that definition quite hilarious. "A thought is produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind." Oh really now? A thought is thinking? Tell me it aint so!

What is thinking? How does a thought occur suddenly? Leave your little box, open your mind, and let's explore this concept. Can you touch a thought? Can you taste it? Put it in a jar? Is there a specific chemical process for a specific thought that can be recreated?

All you are doing is fighting against what you already know.
A thought is beyond the limits of language. It is intangible. Consciousness is software, and our brain is hardware. A conduit through which we are able to interpret and explore an artificially constructed reality. A thought (an outside influence) is able to manifest itself in physical form here in our reality. It's pretty amazing.

Do I get a smile if I sing "I am a Rock, I am a ROCK, I-i-I am" now?

If rocks were self-aware ... don't you figure they'd do something to avoid being stepped on, tossed, thrown, or catapulted?

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

This is hypocritical and contradictory. This shows a weak intelligence with a mix of hypocrisy.

Yet another hit and run statement. I notice you have trouble backing up almost anything you say. Have you ever taken a basic writing class? After you state your thesis you are supposed to provide support for said thesis. You fail to do this on everything you write.

thought 1 |THôt|
noun
1 an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind: Maggie had a sudden thought | I asked him if he had any thoughts on how it had happened | Mrs. Oliver's first thought was to get help.
• (one's thoughts) one's mind or attention: he's very much in our thoughts and prayers.
• an act of considering or remembering someone or something: she hadn't given a thought to Max for some time.
• (usu. thought of) an intention, hope, or idea of doing or receiving something: he had given up all thoughts of making Manhattan his home.

I know the definition, but I find it the condescending attempt quite cute.
I want your personal definition of thought, not what you are taught thought is.

Although I find that definition quite hilarious. "A thought is produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind." Oh really now? A thought is thinking? Tell me it aint so!

What is thinking? How does a thought occur suddenly? Leave your little box, open your mind, and let's explore this concept. Can you touch a thought? Can you taste it? Is there a specific chemical process for a specific thought that can be recreated?

All you are doing is fighting against what you already know.

edit on 7-16-12 by warpig221 because: (no reason given)

Your ad hominem attacks are week. Your attempts at discrediting me are futile and vain.

A thought is beyond the limits of language. It is intangible. Consciousness is software, and our brain is hardware. A conduit through which we are able to interpret and explore an artificially constructed reality. A thought (an outside influence) is able to manifest itself in physical form here in our reality. It's pretty amazing.

A thought doesn't manifest itself. How absurd. Name one thing that manifests itself. We manifest our thoughts. How do you come up with this stuff?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

You should look into the double split experiment a bit more and read the what the physicists and reviewers have to say. The only ones who assert that it is consciousness affecting the result are pseudo-scientists such as Deepak Chopra who aim to fit it into their biased metaphysics and men who are trying to sell books.

Why don't you tell us why the assertions made in that Double Slit experiment vid are wrong?

reply to post by warpig221


Jeah, sorry, had the wrong guy.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

You should look into the double split experiment a bit more and read the what the physicists and reviewers have to say. The only ones who assert that it is consciousness affecting the result are pseudo-scientists such as Deepak Chopra who aim to fit it into their biased metaphysics and men who are trying to sell books.

Why don't you tell us why the assertions made in that Double Slit experiment vid are wrong?

They are theories. Nothing more. It's not my fault if someone wants to cling to them as if they were truth.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


Your ad hominem attacks are week. Your attempts at discrediting me are futile and vain.

Like your thought process?

A thought doesn't manifest itself. How absurd. Name one thing that manifests itself. We manifest our thoughts. How do you come up with this stuff?

That is what I was meaning. Through an outside influence (thought) the conduit (our brains) are able to manifest these thoughts into physical form.

Without thought, there is nothing to manifest. Now, would you be so kind as to address where thought/the process of thinking comes from? What are the specific chemical reactions that occur? Where does a thought start, and where does it end?

Come on, if you are a physicalist this should be easy since all physical processes within reality are tangible.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


That is not an answer.

I asked you why they are wrong exactly.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


They are theories. Nothing more. It's not my fault if someone wants to cling to them as if they were truth.

Gravity is a theory. It's not my fault if someone wants to cling to it as if it were truth.

Originally posted by warpig221

That is what I was meaning.

Could've fooled me.

Through an outside influence (thought) the conduit (our brains) are able to manifest these thoughts into physical form.

Without thought, there is nothing to manifest. Now, would you be so kind as to address where thought/the process of thinking comes from? What are the specific chemical reactions that occur? Where does a thought start, and where does it end?

Come on, if you are a physicalist this should be easy since all physical processes within reality are tangible.

It starts in the head. It ends in the head. Common sense is on my side. I cannot see or perceive thoughts outside my head. What do you base your argument on? As an idealist, you should have at least a logical idea of what and why you're able to assert as you do.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

That is not an answer.

I asked you why they are wrong exactly.

Show me where I said it was wrong.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


Could've fooled me.

Now now, let's play nice. I know you are getting angry, but it's not my fault. A challenge is good sometimes, even though I can tell it hurts your ego.

It starts in the head. It ends in the head.

Where? How? Do I really have to keep asking this question?

Common sense is on my side.

Where?

I cannot see or perceive thoughts outside my head.

I am not arguing this. What I am arguing is the origin of thought itself. What kick starts the firing of neurons? Where does the influence for the signal come from? How? In what way is this signal responsible for specific, logical thought? What is the process? I am trying to ask these questions in the simplest way I can word them. I am not asserting that my position is the correct one as you are. I am simply challenging you to support your physicalist ideas. If something is physical, it is a tangible concept able to be understood as within our plane of existence.

Therefore, if you are saying something is physical, but unable to describe its physical process, then it doesn't sound very physical now does it?

What do you base your argument on? As an idealist, you should have at least a logical idea of what and why you're able to assert as you do.

I have not made an argument. I am not in the position to make an argument for my beliefs, because they are based on intangible spiritual experiences. I am simply asking questions and telling you to support your ...ehem..."logical" thought process, if that's what you like to call it.

It is a natural defense mechanism to take opposition as a personal attack on the ideals that you hold so dearly, so I can not fully blame you. All I can do is ask you to take a couple deep breaths and respond to my questions coherently.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

That is not an answer.

I asked you why they are wrong exactly.

Show me where I said it was wrong.

It seemed that you don't agree with the theories made in that vid,

You should look into the double split experiment a bit more and read the what the physicists and reviewers have to say. The only ones who assert that it is consciousness affecting the result are pseudo-scientists such as Deepak Chopra who aim to fit it into their biased metaphysics and men who are trying to sell books.

Where is that vid wrong in this assertion that you describe, and clearly disagree with, here?

Now now, let's play nice. I know you are getting angry, but it's not my fault. A challenge is good sometimes, even though I can tell it hurts your ego.

On the contrary sir. You are not omniscient enough to know my state of mind. You only hope you are having that affect. Hope often leads to disappointment.

Where? How? Do I really have to keep asking this question?

In the physical head, which is physical. In the body, which is physical. On the planet, which is physical. In the universe, which is physical. What's your guess?

It is a natural defense mechanism to take opposition as a personal attack on the ideals that you hold so dearly, so I can not fully blame you. All I can do is ask you to take a couple deep breaths and respond to my questions coherently.

I don't hold ideals dearly. Idealists do. You have neither affected my mood or convinced me of anything. I'm sorry if it isn't working out the way you planned. If my interpretations have affected you negatively and caused to to recoil in horror, thats not my fault.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

That is not an answer.

I asked you why they are wrong exactly.

Show me where I said it was wrong.

It seemed that you don't agree with the theories made in that vid,

You should look into the double split experiment a bit more and read the what the physicists and reviewers have to say. The only ones who assert that it is consciousness affecting the result are pseudo-scientists such as Deepak Chopra who aim to fit it into their biased metaphysics and men who are trying to sell books.

Where is that vid wrong in this assertion that you describe, and clearly disagree with, here?

Are you are incapable of arriving at your own opinion?