Is Matter Self Aware?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


No, but you seem incapable of putting in words what your problem is with the conclusion of this double slit vid, and comparable conclusions made by others.

The point is, something extraordinairy happens in these experiments which can only be explained by the role of consciousness.

I am trying to get you to be more specific, and tell how you account for these strange quantum results.

Yet, sofar it seems that you have no idea what these results are, why people conclude these things and you are just avoiding to actually say something of substance.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

No, but you seem incapable of putting in words what your problem is with the conclusion of this double slit vid, and comparable conclusions made by others.

The point is, something extraordinairy happens in these experiments which can only be explained by the role of consciousness.

I am trying to get you to be more specific, and tell how you account for these strange quantum results.

Yet, sofar it seems that you have no idea what these results are, why people conclude these things and you are just avoiding to actually say something of substance.

edit on 16-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

The only thing we know is there is a wave-particle duality. Why must we conclude one interpretation or theory is better than another? Because someone put out a youtube video? This goes against all scientific method.

What I was basically saying, is that a youtube video isn't enough evidence to fall in line behind a theory. It is conjecture (what I said originally). I was only telling him to at least remain critical. I don't support any interpretation myself.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


You see, you are just not well informed enough.

Different variations of the DS experiment, especially the last years have gotten results that go way beyond wave/particle duality, where results seem to travel through time where event B influences the results made earlier in time at A.

And even the DS exp. in its from presented in the YT vid shows more than wave/particle duality can explain and it's based on real experiments by real scientists.

Like I expected, like many skeptics, you don't even know what you are talking about exactly.

I sure hope you are not talking about teh ancient Young DS experiment, cause that would be hilarious.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

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.

"Omniscient enough?"
I wish you were able to make as much sense as you pretend to be making.

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?

You still have not addressed my questions at all. If you think you have, then I can tell my questions are a little too deep and thought provoking for someone of your apparent intelligence. Just as I had suspected earlier when you began your temper tantrum and name calling.

I don't hold ideals dearly. Idealists do.

Aren't we all idealists in some way? You certainly are clinging onto your ideals quite dearly.

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.

I hadn't planned on convincing you nor affecting your mood. If I wanted a conversation based on emotions I would talk to my girlfriend. I am simply asking you to back up and prove the line of thinking that you are portraying as being absolute. I can let you in on a little secret though. There is no known mechanism in the human brain responsible for the conscious experience, so your "logical" physical consciousness hypothesis is just as silly as you view others beliefs to be, although I know you cringe at that idea. It's only logical.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

You see, you are just not well informed enough.

Different variations of the DS experiment, especially the last years have gotten results that go way beyond wave/particle duality, where results seem to travel through time where event B influences the results made earlier in time at A.

And even the DS exp. in its from presented in the YT vid shows more than wave/particle duality can explain and it's based on real experiments by real scientists.

Like I expected, like many skeptics, you don't even know what you are talking about exactly.

I sure hope you are not talking about teh ancient Young DS experiment, cause that would be hilarious.

edit on 16-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

That's your problem, you expect too much. Show me anything besides a youtube video that corroborates your claims.

Here was the original assertion I made that caused you to have a hissy fit:

"consciousness wouldn't exist without matter."

It still stands unscathed, despite your attempts and mockery.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Temper tantrum? where? Name calling? Where?

Your entire posts are temper tantrums based on the emotions attached to your ideals. You've failed to address any questions I've asked. You've failed to back up your thesis repeatedly. Now all you are doing is trolling, avoiding the questions, and dragging the topic way way off course.

Once again, there is no physical mechanism known to science which is responsible for the conscious experience of the brain. How silly to claim consciousness is physical as a fact.

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Temper tantrum? where? Name calling? Where?

Your entire posts are temper tantrums based on the emotions attached to your ideals. You've failed to address any questions I've asked. You've failed to back up your thesis repeatedly. Now all you are doing is trolling, avoiding the questions, and dragging the topic way way off course.

Once again, there is no physical mechanism known to science which is responsible for the conscious experience of the brain. How silly to claim consciousness is physical!

That is not what I asserted. Look again.

Find the place I said consciousness is physical. You'll be looking for a long time.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

That is not what I asserted. Look again.

You're now trying to say you are not asserting that consciousness is simply a construct of the physical brain?
Why are you trying to backpedal? Because you realized claiming your assertions as fact is just as silly as any other belief structure?

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

That is not what I asserted. Look again.

You're now trying to say you are not asserting that consciousness is simply a construct of the physical brain?
Why are you trying to backpedal? Because you realized claiming your assertions as fact is just as silly as any other belief structure?

Because that's not what I said... at all. Why put words in my mouth? Read the statement I originally made that you jumped on. I dare you, it's fairly easy. Where does it say what you hope it says? Maybe in your ideals, but not in real life.

This is why you don't let emotion guide your every move.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Because that's not what I said... at all. Why put words in my mouth? Read the statement I originally made that you jumped on. I dare you, it's fairly easy. Where does it say what you hope it says? Maybe in your ideals, but not in real life.

You are saying thought (which is consciousness) is a purely physical mechanism of the brain. I am not denying there is a physical aspect, but rather I am inferring that there is an outside source of influence. Hell, you even created a thread saying consciousness does not exist. There can't possibly be a more unintelligent statement made that I can think of. That is the most fundamental fact to our existence, and you are saying it does not even exist.

This is why you don't let emotion guide your every move.

Exactly. Because then you make statements like "consciousness doesn't exist." No one would want to sound that unintelligent, would they?

reply to post by warpig221


Very thought provoking posts, keep it up

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Because that's not what I said... at all. Why put words in my mouth? Read the statement I originally made that you jumped on. I dare you, it's fairly easy. Where does it say what you hope it says? Maybe in your ideals, but not in real life.

You are saying thought (which is consciousness) is a purely physical mechanism of the brain. I am not denying there is a physical aspect, but rather I am inferring that there is an outside source of influence. Hell, you even created a thread saying consciousness does not exist. There can't possibly be a more unintelligent statement made that I can think of. That is the most fundamental fact to our existence, and you are saying it does not even exist.

This is why you don't let emotion guide your every move.

Exactly. Because then you make statements like "consciousness doesn't exist." No one would want to sound that unintelligent, would they?

Thought isn't consciousness. Here's a definition to clarify:

consciousness |ˈkänCHəsnəs|
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings: she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later.
• the awareness or perception of something by a person: her acute consciousness of Mike's presence.
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world: consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.

Is consciousness still thought?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


You know I don't know one way or the other if matter is self aware.....it does appear some might be....and the properties found in water are amazing...and some brilliant scientific studies done on this, I posted a YT video earlier in this thread....that was very informative and professionally done documentary by respected scientists....why would it coming from YT make it somehow less crediable? There's alot more to YT then songs, and wanna-be celeberties...it's a shame cause some great information there too....but there seems to be a "stigma" attached for many.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


Thought isn't consciousness. Here's a definition to clarify:

consciousness |ˈkänCHəsnəs|
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings: she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later.
• the awareness or perception of something by a person: her acute consciousness of Mike's presence.
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world: consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.

Is consciousness still thought?

Yes, it is. Your mind is about as deep as a puddle. You're not even trying to comprehend the definitions you are posting. You're arguing for the sake of argument which only serves to make you look silly. Let's break this down, shall we?

The state of being aware of one's surroundings. Can you be aware of something without thinking? Come on. You have a physical brain. Use it, don't waste it.

The philosophy of mind has given rise to many stances regarding consciousness. Any attempt to impose an organization on them is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. Stuart Sutherland exemplified the difficulty in the entry he wrote for the 1989 version of the Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology:

Consciousness—The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of equating consciousness with self-consciousness—to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it has evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it.[8]

Most writers on the philosophy of consciousness have been concerned to defend a particular point of view, and have organized their material accordingly. For surveys, the most common approach is to follow a historical path by associating stances with the philosophers who are most strongly associated with them, for example Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. The main alternative, followed in the present article, is to organize philosophical stances according to the answers they give to a set of basic questions about the nature and status of consciousness.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thought is consciousness.

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


Thought isn't consciousness. Here's a definition to clarify:

consciousness |ˈkänCHəsnəs|
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings: she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later.
• the awareness or perception of something by a person: her acute consciousness of Mike's presence.
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world: consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.

Is consciousness still thought?

Yes, it is. Your mind is about as deep as a puddle. You're not even trying to comprehend the definitions you are posting. You're arguing for the sake of argument which only serves to make you look silly. Let's break this down, shall we?

The state of being aware of one's surroundings. Can you be aware of something without thinking? Come on. You have a physical brain. Use it, don't waste it.

The philosophy of mind has given rise to many stances regarding consciousness. Any attempt to impose an organization on them is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. Stuart Sutherland exemplified the difficulty in the entry he wrote for the 1989 version of the Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology:

Consciousness—The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of equating consciousness with self-consciousness—to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it has evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it.[8]

Most writers on the philosophy of consciousness have been concerned to defend a particular point of view, and have organized their material accordingly. For surveys, the most common approach is to follow a historical path by associating stances with the philosophers who are most strongly associated with them, for example Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. The main alternative, followed in the present article, is to organize philosophical stances according to the answers they give to a set of basic questions about the nature and status of consciousness.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thought is consciousness.

You forgot percepts, the senses and the object which is being perceived—which are not thought.

ETA: Bravo.

reply to post by warpig221


I'm not discussing the idealistic version of consciousness. But the real one.

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by g2v12

 

Thank-You for the clarification....I couldn't remember all the details. Some really facinating experiments have been done on water also, Dr. Emoto has done some amazing things showing how water seems to react to "emotions"....wild stuff.......here is a great video on the subject.

www.youtube.com...

You are entirely welcome. I viewed the video. Thanks for sharing.

I have an open mind so its great when I receive new information. The unique information you shared has fostered an interest in your beliefs. I'd like to know more about them.

If its off topic perhaps we can meet in the chat room or exchange PMs.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

You forgot percepts, the senses and the object which is being perceived—which are not thought.

ETA: Bravo.

No, you just seem to either have reading troubles, comprehension troubles, or you just like to continue looking silly after having the floor wiped with every single one of your posts.

Did you even read what was pasted?

Consciousness—The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness

Can you have perception without thought? Can you be aware without thought? You seem to conveniently ignore my questions. I wonder why that could be?

Why even bother posting in the philosophy forum when you seem utterly incapable of philosophizing?

By the way, it can be argued that objects being perceived are indeed only thought. An object is merely an illusory perception driven by apparent electrochemical impulses of the brain. All that is real is consciousness. The mere fact that I am undoubtedly experiencing. I can doubt everything except for the fact that I am experiencing. Sensory perceptions are secondary. Cogito ergo sum.

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

You forgot percepts, the senses and the object which is being perceived—which are not thought.

ETA: Bravo.

No, you just seem to either have reading troubles, comprehension troubles, or you just like to continue looking silly after having the floor wiped with every single one of your posts.

Did you even read what was pasted?

Consciousness—The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness

Can you have perception without thought? Can you be aware without thought? You seem to conveniently ignore my questions. I wonder why that could be?

Why even bother posting in the philosophy forum when you seem utterly incapable of philosophizing?

By the way, it can be argued that objects being perceived are indeed only thought. An object is merely an illusory perception driven by apparent electrochemical impulses of the brain. All that is real is consciousness. The mere fact that I am undoubtedly experiencing. I can doubt everything except for the fact that I am experiencing. Sensory perceptions are secondary. Cogito ergo sum.

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

I said a percept, not a perception. Your classy remarks shine light on your hypocritical ways. A percept needs to have an object that is perceived. If it can be argued that objects are indeed only thought, why don't you do so? I am interested to hear how you can deny the universe and all the evidence that shows otherwise.

Consciousness is thought

Finally. An argument. It's about time you grew a pair and entered the ring.

Your argument is liken to me saying Dog is a cat. If this is what you think consciousness is, why didn't you just use the word 'thought' in the beginning? We apparently weren't even arguing about the same thing.

Now that we have your initial contradiction sorted out, and I am finally conscious of the fact you think that every single thing in the universe is thought rather than consciousness, I finally have a grasp on your foundation.

First of all, there is no empirical evidence to support your claims. Even descartes thought the physical world existed (but you would only know that if you read his work), yet you have the audacity to use his overused quote to support your claim.

Second, if the universe is illusory, then all your thoughts, ideas, consciousness and every ideal you cling to would be illusory as well. Or do they somehow not reside in the universe?

Third, how you can even conceive of mind without matter defies all logic and common sense. Even Descartes knew this. All one has to do is be conscious of his surroundings to realize that he is nothing without his surroundings.