addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Plato's Cave - The Orlando Philosophy Meetup Group Message Board › Is it possible for the conscience to transcend its accepted bounds?

Is it possible for the conscience to transcend its accepted bounds?

Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 265
There aren't 'mind particles' capable of being entangled.

Ever make love?
christopher
user 11174629
Casselberry, FL
Post #: 104
Thank you Chris. I suppose what I mean by neutrinos is not really neutrinos at all, for I am no particle physicist. And perhaps what were detected as neutrinos arriving 60ns early, are not in exact fact neutrinos as neutrinos are known. Despite all human advancement there is still a lot of mystery left out there in the physical world. So what is it that I am trying to get at and why might I feel it important?

My intention was to better understand how it would be that instantaneous communication might occur. Then my ideal mind must of dreamed, "well if information could be transmitted without the limits of c then why not ourselves?

The information you're talking about when referencing the mind is the cascade of signals occurring between neurons, which happens at a speed below c. Our scientific picture of the world is generally accurate at most scales, save the very very small and the very very fast (eg, it would be very surprising to find that we were way off in our theories about electronics and chemistry because then we have to account for why all of our technology works properly). The processes at work in the brain (electronics, chemistry, and some form of computational architecture) do not admit room for the kind of physics mysteries you're relying on to allow for a 'soul'(assuming that 'soul' here is supposed to reference something more meaningful than just being a trite metaphor for, I dunno, 'personality' or something).

Now, it may turn out to be possible to attune or entangle two neural networks so that whatever happens in one happens instantaneously in the other, but I'll bet that's a lot more prosaically 'naturalistic' than what you're going for here.
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 267
For the purposes of this discussion then, what of soul as metaphor; let's say this word means 'person'.
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 270
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 271
Ben Forbes G.
Epicurean306
Orlando, FL
Post #: 251
Regarding soul "as a metaphor" — there are many better ways to describe "a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity" without invoking the preposterous, unfounded, and imprecise metaphysical baggage that comes with the word soul.
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 423
I read your point. Souls is too incomprehensible, the history is reprehensible, you seek freedom from a dark past; we both have learned from it and while you seek escape/avoidance or outright elimination, else at least abandonment, I seek only learning and advance. I will stand by the title of this thread. I listened this morning to Buffalo Springfield realizing the video released ten years before my birth. I think at least, we all can agree that, ideas transcend time


Jairo M.
JamyangPawo
Winter Park, FL
Post #: 1,488
According to the doctrine of Spiritism, and others, a soul is that which occupies a body and gives it life. And a spirit is that same essence but without a body. But I paraphrase the best I can. Now, what about consciousness? Is that equivalent to the soul and to the spirit? Well maybe they overlap, but it might be practical to distinguish them. I am starting to think that consciousness is the mind being aware of whatever it chooses or desires, if not by free-will, then by habit. So as you read this you are using your mind and you are conscious as time flows of whatever word you come across and you are also aware of what thoughts are generated by those words you read. So consciousness is ever flowing. And that, my friends, is supernatural, because you can't find that in the natural. Therefore debunking miracles is pointless, because all miracles happen in the mind, even if you can't prove it happened. If I tell you I thought of a number just a second ago, how can you prove that I didn't? So yes it is not falsifiable, but it still happened, and it was a supernatural event because there is no way that science can capture my thought, yet, but maybe some day.
So all the religious miracles are not to be taken literally but are to be used for the deep teaching that it provides. So yes, ignorant and less educated people may be used through stories of miraculous events, but how do we know that when these stories were first expressed that the listeners did not already understand that the story was going to be a fantasy, a sort of a science fiction story, except that over time the story became part of the religious tradition and eventually people had to accept it as part of their "Bible" study and how it really happened. So all these stories came to be known as myths. The interesting thing about the Greek myths and their gods is that at one time that was their religion. And suddenly Christianity came to the Greeks and wiped it away. But on the other side of the world, the Hindus had religions very similar to the Greeks with all their gods and wonderful stories, but they decided to keep their beliefs and traditions.

Now out of India came the Buddha and Buddhism. And the interesting difference between Hinduism and Buddhism has to do with the soul. I think they both still believe in the soul, except that Buddhism renames the soul as mind and that is closely connected to the western way of thinking about consciousness. But more technically, in Buddhism they call it "The Mental Continuum" and that is independent of the person or the identity, because after one dies, the mental continuum continues [I mean, goes on] to inhabit another body or life form.
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 441
Our scientific picture of the world is generally accurate at most scales, save the very very small and the very very fast (eg, it would be very surprising to find that we were way off in our theories about electronics and chemistry because then we have to account for why all of our technology works properly).
I am still getting over the inherit weirdness of quantum physics. And of late I've been taking in as many feynman videos as I can, primarily because he is so easy to follow and so personable a character. So here is a question for anyone willing to posit an answer, or at least willing to make a run at it: What if our technology were all fundamentally dependent upon the observer, or mind, in order to function to conclusion. I am of course speaking of the double-slit experiment and am wondering, or rather am still caught up with the idea that it requires an observer in order for the waveform possibilities to collapse either here or there. Realizing that in essence, this is sort of like a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound, only I would like to address it in the form of a computing system. I use this kind of system because we all understand the computer in a way, or ways, and we all understand that it does things because people, or minds, set them up to do those things; so for us this system is a sandbox for finding conclusions to our classical questions in philosophy.

Now, it may turn out to be possible to attune or entangle two neural networks so that whatever happens in one happens instantaneously in the other, but I'll bet that's a lot more prosaically 'naturalistic' than what you're going for here.
Now what you frame as naturalistic I regard simply as observable. There are many things which can be taken in and considered, and certainly there are many ways to consider any object and/or phenomenon. What fascinates me beyond the many ways is the fact that we don't only get to compare notes, but that by way of argument we get to establish, defend, defeat, or comply our rational positions in order to find a finer truth. I don't know everything, but then who does? How might we come together at any time to advance any truth with the least effort, while remaining true? Is it by arguing over styles of speech, or by looking past specific vocabularies and checking the structures behind our own, or each others' speech? I appreciate you Chris, the second time in this thread, for pointing out my earlier non sequitor. Then again I also wonder if I understand something that I am too dumb to be able to communicate?
Rami K.
Rammy
Orlando, FL
Post #: 442


Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy