|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 9, 2023 20:43:58 GMT
The meter and the meter reader are one and the same. If you break the meter it is no longer able to take measurements. It's pretty straightforward conceptually. No need to invoke all this metaphysical nonsense. The meter possessed by humans evolved the same way as the one found in flies, although the human one is much more complicated: 200 thousand neurons for flies and 100 billion for humans. You just contradicted yourself with your first sentence and your second sentence. If you break the meter, it is no longer able to take measurements, so it can't be the meter reader to begin with. You're flailing away with wishful thinking and not looking at it in a mathematical way. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 9, 2023 22:21:36 GMT
The meter and the meter reader are one and the same. If you break the meter it is no longer able to take measurements. It's pretty straightforward conceptually. No need to invoke all this metaphysical nonsense. The meter possessed by humans evolved the same way as the one found in flies, although the human one is much more complicated: 200 thousand neurons for flies and 100 billion for humans. You just contradicted yourself with your first sentence and your second sentence. If you break the meter, it is no longer able to take measurements, so it can't be the meter reader to begin with. You're flailing away with wishful thinking and not looking at it in a mathematical way. Not only can the meter be the meter reader but all available evidence suggests that it is so. Your dualist view is the one that lacks evidence. There's not a shred of evidence that mind exists outside of a living brain. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jul 9, 2023 23:34:12 GMT
You just contradicted yourself with your first sentence and your second sentence. If you break the meter, it is no longer able to take measurements, so it can't be the meter reader to begin with. You're flailing away with wishful thinking and not looking at it in a mathematical way. Not only can the meter be the meter reader but all available evidence suggests that it is so. Your dualist view is the one that lacks evidence. There's not a shred of evidence that mind exists outside of a living brain. A mind is not a meter reader. Your view is the one that has zero evidence. All the evidence points to the meter reader not being the brain or the neurons or the nervous system. There is not one shred of evidence pointing to the meter reader being the meter. Not one shred. It's just your wishful thinking. Everyone would love to just end when the meter runs out. No one has ever woken up from an operation and felt good about being back in a human body. No one. At least not in the instant it happened. It's wishful thinking that it all ends when the brain dies. The brain only reads a tiny iota of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a trillionth of what could be read in the Universe, at the very most. It's a tiny meter. It's the chief portion of the "parasite" that drains the spirit. You flunked Math, didn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jul 10, 2023 6:49:24 GMT
Not only can the meter be the meter reader but all available evidence suggests that it is so. Your dualist view is the one that lacks evidence. There's not a shred of evidence that mind exists outside of a living brain. A mind is not a meter reader. Your view is the one that has zero evidence. All the evidence points to the meter reader not being the brain or the neurons or the nervous system. There is not one shred of evidence pointing to the meter reader being the meter. Not one shred. It's just your wishful thinking. Everyone would love to just end when the meter runs out. No one has ever woken up from an operation and felt good about being back in a human body. No one. At least not in the instant it happened. It's wishful thinking that it all ends when the brain dies. The brain only reads a tiny iota of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a trillionth of what could be read in the Universe, at the very most. It's a tiny meter. It's the chief portion of the "parasite" that drains the spirit. You flunked Math, didn't you? Human consciousness produced solely in the human brain is neither a meter nor a meter reader. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 10, 2023 15:02:17 GMT
Not only can the meter be the meter reader but all available evidence suggests that it is so. Your dualist view is the one that lacks evidence. There's not a shred of evidence that mind exists outside of a living brain. A mind is not a meter reader. Your view is the one that has zero evidence. All the evidence points to the meter reader not being the brain or the neurons or the nervous system. There is not one shred of evidence pointing to the meter reader being the meter. Not one shred. It's just your wishful thinking. Everyone would love to just end when the meter runs out. No one has ever woken up from an operation and felt good about being back in a human body. No one. At least not in the instant it happened. It's wishful thinking that it all ends when the brain dies. The brain only reads a tiny iota of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a trillionth of what could be read in the Universe, at the very most. It's a tiny meter. It's the chief portion of the "parasite" that drains the spirit. You flunked Math, didn't you? I got all A's in math, including university courses leading to a BS degree. I'm quite good at it actually. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Jul 12, 2023 21:41:21 GMT
Not only can the meter be the meter reader but all available evidence suggests that it is so. Your dualist view is the one that lacks evidence. There's not a shred of evidence that mind exists outside of a living brain. There is not one shred of evidence pointing to the meter reader being the meter. Not one shred. ... If I'm following this unusual metaphor correctly, physicists believe the research awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics is exactly that evidence. Gist of the relevant portion is the universe isn't locally real, that observation changes reality. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 13, 2023 11:17:59 GMT
Gist of the relevant portion is the universe isn't locally real, that observation changes reality. Careful with that. It isn't "observation" that changes reality, but the physical interactions that are necessary for observation. They can occur (and change reality) without any observing conscious entity being involved. I'm pretty sure you already know this. I'm just stepping in to clarify since the language around the "measurement problem" often inspires mispleading interpretations of the science. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jul 13, 2023 17:52:07 GMT
Gist of the relevant portion is the universe isn't locally real, that observation changes reality. Careful with that. It isn't "observation" that changes reality, but the physical interactions that are necessary for observation. They can occur (and change reality) without any observing conscious entity being involved. I'm pretty sure you already know this. I'm just stepping in to clarify since the language around the "measurement problem" often inspires mispleading interpretations of the science. Reality happens independent of observation. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jul 13, 2023 17:56:17 GMT
Reality happens independent of observation. Yep, but as you know, there are aspects of quantum physics that confuse a lot of people into thinking otherwise. And there are aspects of QM that violate the normal realism where you can safety assume all properties exist independently before we look at them. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jul 13, 2023 18:05:41 GMT
Reality happens independent of observation. Yep, but as you know, there are aspects of quantum physics that confuse a lot of people into thinking otherwise. And there are aspects of QM that violate the normal realism where you can safety assume all properties exist independently before we look at them. Like a map is not a territory, it’s our perception of reality that’s always changing. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Jul 15, 2023 9:08:53 GMT
Gist of the relevant portion is the universe isn't locally real, that observation changes reality. Careful with that. It isn't "observation" that changes reality, but the physical interactions that are necessary for observation. They can occur (and change reality) without any observing conscious entity being involved. I'm pretty sure you already know this. I'm just stepping in to clarify since the language around the "measurement problem" often inspires mispleading interpretations of the science. True, observation doesn't require a person, but that doesn't change the gist that most physicists seem to interpret the results as observation changes reality. I get the feeling that not everyone is onboard. I've watched dozens of videos by PhD's and I'm still not sure what it means. My education is in biology, not physics, so it's tough for me to judge. I have my own opinion which isn't worth squat because I'm not a physicist. I had an opinion on dark matter which was overturned by a young woman fresh out of college. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Jul 15, 2023 9:14:06 GMT
Yep, but as you know, there are aspects of quantum physics that confuse a lot of people into thinking otherwise. And there are aspects of QM that violate the normal realism where you can safety assume all properties exist independently before we look at them. Like a map is not a territory, it’s our perception of reality that’s always changing. Our perception of reality, and reality, are not the same. Intuitively we reason that 2+2=4, but that isn't always true. The world around seems real, seems solid, but physically it is closer to a Star Trek holodeck than what we perceive is reality. Effectively it doesn't matter because our perception is good enough to eat, fuck, and reproduce, but the "real" world is not what most imagine. The interesting thing about humans is what you mentioned... that our perception modifies our reality. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jul 15, 2023 17:44:24 GMT
Like a map is not a territory, it’s our perception of reality that’s always changing. Our perception of reality, and reality, are not the same. Intuitively we reason that 2+2=4, but that isn't always true. The world around seems real, seems solid, but physically it is closer to a Star Trek holodeck than what we perceive is reality. Effectively it doesn't matter because our perception is good enough to eat, fuck, and reproduce, but the "real" world is not what most imagine. The interesting thing about humans is what you mentioned... that our perception modifies our reality. I think large-scale reality is just as we see it or more like it’s what we expect it to be. It’s at our perception levels where reality can get skewed. There are probably layers of reality we are not aware of though, it’s a matter of learning how to “see” them. |
|
