OK, now all we need
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, let me ask the question this way. If we are to propose this cemf hypothesis, is it possible to reduce it to a more basic, elemental theory. Do not all of these components reduce to underlieing physical interactions? Isn't there some hypothecial partical of magnetism? The monopole or whatever its called. Isn't an ion merely an atomic nucleus with too few or too many electrons? Doesn't this model suggest that the basic unit of consciousness is somehow an interaction at this level? I'm open to that concept, but I simply do not understand why conscioiusness would be any more likely to be generated by that model than by me banging on a rock with a hammer.
Because it most likely comes from some kind of organized interaction, the roots of which, probably lie in quantum mechanical interactions. I think the key is "organization" on some level. A hammer on a rock isn't a sustained process that displays some kind of organization. Electromagnetic fields can resonate an produce peculiar effects as well. So there are lots of possible mechanisms to investigate, and possibly mechanisms to discover as well. You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
73Zeppelin wrote:
You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
But don't you find that to be intellectually unsatisfying? Are we saying that consciousness is simply unreducible to more fundamental processes? Frankly, I do find that to be a weak point in the entire mechanistic interpretation of the physical universe. If a natural phenomenon cannot be reduced to more elemental processess (ie - the basic unit of consciousness is partical A interacting with partical B in manner Z) than the possibility must be considered that it is an elemental state of nature in its own right. To me that is an altogether glaring alternative explanation for the phenomenon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than it isn't good enough, is it?
Certainly it is sad whenever that happens but no system is 100% fail-safe.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why is it a given that government has to be empowered to force a particular version of such compassion upon all of society
That is because they have the financial power and consequently, the organisational power, to do both good and ill (evil if you wish). And you send your representatives to State and National level to do good that benefits all within their constituency. I'm sure your representatives do not get elected to do nothing but ill.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Certainly it is sad whenever that happens but no system is 100% fail-safe.
But the underlieing logic of the original justification demands an unrelenting effort to make it so.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is because they have the financial power and consequently, the organisational power, to do both good and ill (evil if you wish). And you send your representatives to State and National level to do good that benefits all within their constituency. I'm sure your representatives do not get elected to do nothing but ill.
But than you are confronted with the question of whether a society dependent upon government for its most basic security can trully be considered a democracy at all regardless of how free the people are to cast a vote. Dependency upon government introduces a non-democratic factor into the entire equation of democracy. Will not most people simply tend to vote for which ever platform is most likely to provide them with their basic needs? The question becomes who will those in the safety net vote for? Those who will help them out of it, or those who will simply make the net more comfortable? And would it not be in the interest of any government to put as many people as possible into the safty net merely to get their votes?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
You can boil it all down to individual particles if you like, but it's well known that groups of particles demonstrate much different behaviour than a single isolated particle. So I think that consciousness probably arises somewhere at the boundary between classical and quantum physics (i.e. between organized groups and individual electrons, lets say). It seems to be plausible that there are effects that occur near this boundary that we don't understand - simply because the boundary between classical and quantum physics is poorly understood.
But don't you find that to be intellectually unsatisfying? Are we saying that consciousness is simply unreducible to more fundamental processes? Frankly, I do find that to be a weak point in the entire mechanistic interpretation of the physical universe. If a natural phenomenon cannot be reduced to more elemental processess (ie - the basic unit of consciousness is partical A interacting with partical B in manner Z) than the possibility must be considered that it is an elemental state of nature in its own right. To me that is an altogether glaring alternative explanation for the phenomenon.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Sure it's unsatisfying; especially from my viewpoint as a physicist. The boundary between classical and quantum has always troubled me. However, I'm not really active with physics anymore. I wasn't smart enough to handle the deeper mathematics, so I couldn't build a career on purely theoretical physics. I had to go into other things. I think about these things, but at the moment I don't have much time - I'm occupied with a million other things. I try to follow the popular press and read articles by scientists I know are working on the problem. Aside from that, there isn't much that I can do in a realistic sense to add to the solution or debate.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I'm not interested in debating God
That's good. God doesn't want to debate anyone today, either. He told me so.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That's good. God doesn't want to debate anyone today, either. He told me so.
Yeah, we're still at war, but we've agreed to a Christmas Truce.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Certainly it is sad whenever that happens but no system is 100% fail-safe.
But the underlieing logic of the original justification demands an unrelenting effort to make it so.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That is because they have the financial power and consequently, the organisational power, to do both good and ill (evil if you wish). And you send your representatives to State and National level to do good that benefits all within their constituency. I'm sure your representatives do not get elected to do nothing but ill.
But than you are confronted with the question of whether a society dependent upon government for its most basic security can trully be considered a democracy at all regardless of how free the people are to cast a vote. Dependency upon government introduces a non-democratic factor into the entire equation of democracy. Will not most people simply tend to vote for which ever platform is most likely to provide them with their basic needs? The question becomes who will those in the safety net vote for? Those who will help them out of it, or those who will simply make the net more comfortable? And would it not be in the interest of any government to put as many people as possible into the safty net merely to get their votes?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the underlieing logic of the original justification demands an unrelenting effort to make it so.
I agree
Stan Shannon wrote:
Dependency upon government introduces a non-democratic factor into the entire equation of democracy
And a situation of compulsion becomes evermore evident especially in times of expanding unemployment
Stan Shannon wrote:
And would it not be in the interest of any government to put as many people as possible into the safty net merely to get their votes
No because to keep people there becomes extortionately expensive. Not just in financial terms but in terms of peoples self worth. Yet, politically, in a Parliamentary democracy such as UK, this could happen as the government is the political party that (usually - hung parliament not withstanding) has most seats in Parliament, but in a Presidential style democracy such as USA, it is doubtful as the sitting President is the leader of the relevant political party rather than the tool of the political party as the limitations of a President is restricted to 2 terms. Thus the concept of a political party having its "way" is perhaps relegated to some localised or Congressional activities.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And he was able to arrive at that conclusion after consideration of the system in its most elemental terms - a falling apple.
I am so glad we have wise and hard thinking folks like you to explain Newton to the rest of us. I am sure that many folks have compared you to Asimov. However, some few of us holdouts who don't recognize your insights quite as well as I am sure your friends and family do, think that what made Newton great was he realised how complex the answer had to be to explain the apple falling down and the moon remaining in orbit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
he realised how complex the answer had to be to explain the apple falling down and the moon remaining in orbit
Sorry Jon, but Stan is right. Newton saw past the complexity of all the different situations. He really did come up with the simple explanation. It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics. (Hence the name. :laugh: )
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Like the time Charles Firth from The Chaser's War on Everything interviewed and began flirting with one of the male members during some roadside sign-flaunting. :laugh:
That was *awesome*
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I read that hells angels go out to stand between them and bereaved families they are trying to intimidate.
The Hells Angels may have done this, but you may also be confusing them with the Patriot Guard.[^]
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Hmmm... I think you may be right, I am going on my recollection of reading about it in Time, and I'd have sworn it was Hells Angels, or at least, an existing group, not one formed for the purpose. But, I've been wrong before. I mean, how many groups can there be, when there's only 15 odd phelpses ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Is this American Dream (of success, fame and wealth through thrift and hard work) then just a glorified myth that only the rich and powerful can aspire to, yet out of reach of the poor and weak ?
It is the most well tested and validated political mechanism for minimizing poverty and maximizing opportunity for the greatest possible number of people. Is it perfect? Nope. But it is the best system we have and has been historically validated to be so.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
The trouble is, it's judged and validated by those for whom the system works. The people who have been crushed by it, are rarely asked and if they were, their opinion would not be counted to matter, much. That's the point. You judge a system that, you agree, crushes the weak, based on how satisfied the strong are with the result.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Perhaps hand-holding has its uses and benefits especially for those whose vulnerability is evident. A cradle to grave system does ensure that those who suffer such vulnerabilities do not fall below a certain safety net.
The problem is that no social safety net is ever safe enough. Once you have rationalized the need for one in the first place, there is no such concept as a 'minimal acceptable level of social security'. The same logic the justifies the existence for one at all justifies the existence of the most secure and comprehensive safty net any government can achieve.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is that no social safety net is ever safe enough
Rubbish. If every person has the opportunity for a roof, food and medical care, then it's enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Electrical activity within the brain.
The brain's functioning is more chemical than electrical.
Well, sort of. I mean, it's electrical activity that makes it work, but it's all caused by chemical reactions. Just like a chemical reaction is why a battery gives you electricity. It's not a dichotomy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I read that hells angels go out to stand between them and bereaved families they are trying to intimidate.
The Hells Angels may have done this, but you may also be confusing them with the Patriot Guard.[^]
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Oakman wrote:
he realised how complex the answer had to be to explain the apple falling down and the moon remaining in orbit
Sorry Jon, but Stan is right. Newton saw past the complexity of all the different situations. He really did come up with the simple explanation. It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics. (Hence the name. :laugh: )
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics.
You are right, of course, but compared to the simplicity that Stan prefers (e.g. Pi=3.0) the explanation is quite complex.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Sure it's unsatisfying; especially from my viewpoint as a physicist. The boundary between classical and quantum has always troubled me. However, I'm not really active with physics anymore. I wasn't smart enough to handle the deeper mathematics, so I couldn't build a career on purely theoretical physics. I had to go into other things. I think about these things, but at the moment I don't have much time - I'm occupied with a million other things. I try to follow the popular press and read articles by scientists I know are working on the problem. Aside from that, there isn't much that I can do in a realistic sense to add to the solution or debate.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Aside from that, there isn't much that I can do in a realistic sense to add to the solution or debate.
Then take Stan's word for it: God touched Adam's forehead and said: "Thimk!"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
That's good. God doesn't want to debate anyone today, either. He told me so.
Yeah, we're still at war, but we've agreed to a Christmas Truce.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is that no social safety net is ever safe enough
Rubbish. If every person has the opportunity for a roof, food and medical care, then it's enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
we've agreed to a Christmas Truce
I prefer a Christmas Spruce myself. The teal color goes nicely in my livingroom.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I prefer a Christmas Spruce myself. The teal color goes nicely in my livingroom.
"Teal". Gah. I have a complex about that word.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
If every person has the opportunity for a roof, food and medical care, then it's enough.
Not educational opportunity, too?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, I don't see how that's possible. My kids will obviously have more opportunities than the kids of a single, drug addicted, illiterate mother. But, you're right, in that access to education is something that all people should receive. But that's not welfare, that' just something that should exist by default in society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Well, I don't see how that's possible. My kids will obviously have more opportunities than the kids of a single, drug addicted, illiterate mother. But, you're right, in that access to education is something that all people should receive. But that's not welfare, that' just something that should exist by default in society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
I have always admired what I understand the Japanese model to be. Free education as long as you can pass the exams. And the exams, especially for the good schools, are tough.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, education is essentially free here, but the fact is, kids from more educated households will have a head start. But, in theory, anyone can get any sort of education here, which is perhaps why it did not occur to me to mention it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.