|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:36 pm
So I have this problem, and it's that there seems to be a huge mass of people convinced that there is only the physical world, and all else is notion and superstition. We could go on to discuss the topics of the soul, and of the mind, and I reckon we probably will. But what I want to discuss primarily, is whether or not there is more to the universe than the physical.
I've been told during many conversations with hardcore scientists, that because there is no evidence to support the idea that there is anything more to the universe than the physical world than, well, the physical world, that any talk of such a thing is absurd and pretty meaningless. I'm not certain if most scientists follow this idea, but I want to discuss it nonetheless.
I assert that, for instance, even though consciousness is the product of chemical and bio-electrical impulses, we are more than just chemical and bio-electrical impulses. The mind can be said to be nothing but this, but I believe that there is more to it than that. It is such a superficial way of looking at it, that it bothers me to think that one can explain all the complexities and simplicities of the human mind and consciousness, with a hand-waving statement like that.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:28 pm
The question of materialism is, like most philosophical questions, beyond the realm of science. Science, by its nature, can only deal with the "physical", i.e. that which can be observed objectively and that which can be derived from these observations.
So suppose you claim that there is more to the mind than the physical and chemical processes that occur in the brain and the general sense/motor system. What, then, is the mind? How can we observe it? How can we perform tests on/with/about it? If we make a statement about the mind, how can we determine if this statement is true or not?
Also, your argument that the mind and consciousness is too complex to be explained via neuroscience is a hand-waving in itself and is verging on demonstrably false. The human brain is remarkably complex physically, much more so than just about any computer or any network of computers. There are ten times as many neurons in a single brain than there are people on Earth, each connected to about 7,000 other neurons, and despite each neuron being supposedly simple there are actually many, many different types of neurons, each specialized to do certain types of processing.
Even with a simplistic view of neurons, that many neurons can do quite a bit. Computer scientists have demonstrated that very simplistic versions of neurons can learn very well very quickly. Chaos theory shows that very complex behavior can arise from very simple objects if there are enough of those objects interacting.
Furthermore, this view completely disregards the non-thought processes in the brain, such as all of the hormones and such which influence our emotional states. We think via electrical pulses but it's dopamine that makes us happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:30 pm
Have you seen the title of my guild? Be open-minded!
I believe that, like a Roman philosophy I once heard of, there is a type of communal spirit between things. Such as you can identify something with a general term even though you haven't seen that specific object before. Like there must be a common spirit for a "chair" or "cat."
I have a little notion about dimensions, too. I believe everything can be a dimension, and every dimension is real.
For example: color, texture, size, luminescence, strength, opacity... basically every adjective that can be a comparative is a dimension.
Likewise, I believe that concepts can be dimensions, too. The real world as we know it is just as real as our thoughts. This world doesn't technically have to exist any more than our thoughts. Since the world we experience is nothing but our senses, can't our other senses be part of this world, too? Can't we feel like things are real even if they're not? Science defines what things we can touch and measure. But there is no science for our feelings, which are equally a part of this "measurable" world. I say that if it has properties, it must be, in some way or another, real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:33 pm
The world is simply what we experience. Anything else we experience, henceforth, is part of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:34 am
In the Hindu religion (which I am Hindu) we beleive that this physical world is an illusion a maya, but there is the supreme spiritual world where in this world we have to ultimately be one with the spiritual self and higher power to gain oneness with God and be in concious with however one describes God. The physical world is only one illusion but one must do their best in this world to attain the spiritual conciousness through meditation, prayer, chanting, and devotional singing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:15 pm
I'd like to have a second opinion on this: should I move this to Philosophy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:01 pm
Jerba2 I'd like to have a second opinion on this: should I move this to Philosophy? Yeah, this is definitely a philosophy question more than a science question, in that the basic tenets of science doesn't allow it to investigate this question any more than the tenets of Christianity allow for questioning the existence of God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:51 pm
Jerba Have you seen the title of my guild? Be open-minded! I believe that, like a Roman philosophy I once heard of, there is a type of communal spirit between things. Such as you can identify something with a general term even though you haven't seen that specific object before. Like there must be a common spirit for a "chair" or "cat." I have a little notion about dimensions, too. I believe everything can be a dimension, and every dimension is real. For example: color, texture, size, luminescence, strength, opacity... basically every adjective that can be a comparative is a dimension. Likewise, I believe that concepts can be dimensions, too. The real world as we know it is just as real as our thoughts. This world doesn't technically have to exist any more than our thoughts. Since the world we experience is nothing but our senses, can't our other senses be part of this world, too? Can't we feel like things are real even if they're not? Science defines what things we can touch and measure. But there is no science for our feelings, which are equally a part of this "measurable" world. I say that if it has properties, it must be, in some way or another, real. I agree equally with you, Jerba, and the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
