EU ETI

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:45 pm

when lifeforms are born, they are given drives like to survive by previous events, in the form of their dna, all the way back to the first humans, all the way back to the first lifeforms. the ones who did not have a drive to do things like breathe, would have died before being able to reproduce, common sense.

I agree that constantly making assertions without any evidence doesn't make it right. I noticed you didn't say I was doing this, because I'm not, I'm using evidence. A technical paper is not the only form of evidence. Merely the fact that a baseball doesn't teleport around a baseball game is evidence of cause-effect, it behaves regularly. There is evidence for determinism everywhere in the real world. In essence, there is evidence that everything in the real world is caused by all previous events up to that point. A free will decision cannot be made if all decisions are a consequence of previous events, because previous events have one singular finite past, they do not change.

I know nothing is pointless because everything that ever happens affects the series of events, affects its surroundings. Merely breathing air displaces that air for other lifeforms, it makes an impact on the universe in some way, no matter how small. No action is free of consequence, everything is interacting with one-another.

I already told you how life has purpose and makes it purposeful, I do not 'appear' to be using the word, I am using the word in my recent post.
the definition of purpose as I used it:
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

that reason being that previous events created (from pre-existing parts) lifeforms/humans, in totality
humans are just complex arrangements of simpler parts, the reason humans exist is the same reason those parts exist, those parts are also less complex arrangements of even simpler parts
any given thing, a star, a planet, an ant, a human, is defined by its own nature, that is how we tell it apart from everything else, but they are all made up of the same stuff fundamentally, and all obey the same fundamental physics, and are equally important. Without planets, stars, etc. humans could not exist, and without intelligent life like humans, a pepsi can could not exist. In determinism, there is no negative connotation to anything; nor an inherent positive connotation to anything, the purpose of all existence is whatever was required for it to exist in the first place. For a human, that means not dying at least until you have a child which can fend for itself, a way to preserve that type of DNA, for a star, that means not dissipating instantly, a way to preserve the complex arrangement of the core of a star, so that it does not break down to its individual parts. These are not intelligent choices humans or stars make, it is their nature, defined by what makes up them up. What makes them up is defined by previous events that led to its formation.

I keep mentioning 'magic' because that is what free will is; it is the notion that although everything else behaves according to its past 100%, humans have some kind of magical power to rise above this, even though there is no evidence to support this; only human emotion and your buddies patting you on the back for such a feel-good idea.

Basically, if we were able to time travel (which is impossible), but if we were, people who believe in free will believe that if they go back in time merely as an observer not taking up any physical body, they would see things like a river flow the exact same way that it did the first time. They would see deer behave the exact same way they did the first time, but somehow, they think humans have the capacity to make different decisions, given the same exact circumstances.

In reality, determinism is right; choices, no matter how seemingly vast, can only have one finite result, and whatever reasons a person has for making any given choice, is completely determined by all past events that lead up to that moment. That does not mean merely human memories are events, everything, including what the person ate, how many synapses have fired in the brain (resulting in some memory loss or fading of ideas), etc. adds up to what that person will do at any given moment, just as all external factors like the exact composition of the sun determines what surface activity it will have; no matter how complex, when narrowed down, everything behaves according to cause-effect. You cannot merely zoom out and look at something complex as a whole, and surmise that magic is going on, when the individual parts do not behave magically.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby moses » Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:03 pm

lw1990, how much have you looked into magic, or would that be a waste of time. There is a huge amount of information about unexplained events, but, again, I cannnot see you spending much time looking into such.

The existence of something non-physical that can produce physical action, is so significant that an enormous effort is required before dismissing this. The difference between a universe that can be influenced by something non-physical compared with an uncontrolled universe, is monumental.

I agree that free will is rarely seen yet much believed in. That non-physical something would be pretty dumb to have to keep influencing the physical. Clearly to have a nearly automatic system is the expected intelligent option. That is until the life-form becomes skilled enough for it to be expected that the non-physical something would see value in producing action in that life-form.

Your absolute belief in materialism, or determinism, is therefore risky. Take care.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:00 am

Philosophy 281: Philosophy of Magic, Witchcraft, and The Occult
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/C ... 0Magic.htm

The Logic of Magic
https://philosophynow.org/issues/5/The_Logic_of_Magic

A Descritption of the Natural Place of Magic in Phiosophy and Religious Studies
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... c_WaV_piuQ
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:43 pm

The amount of information about unexplained 'events' pales in comparison to the amount about explained events. But you don't see news headlines because someone parked their car in a garage, and nothing strange happened. Just because it doesn't make headlines, doesn't mean these events don't vastly outnumber the 'unexplained' ones. Furthermore, throughout history, every previously unexplained event, when it does become explainable, has absolutely no magical origin. That is the only trend we have to go on. Never is there a case where the final answer to something in science has been 'it's just magical'. Finally, 'unexplained' is not evidence for magic nor against determinism, it's merely unexplained.

The rest of your post makes no sense to me, I'm confident it wouldn't make much sense to most other people either so there's not much point addressing it. In a nutshell, just because a magical thing existing would be significant, if there is absolutely no verifiable evidence for this, then there is no reason to not dismiss it. Just because it is dismissed, does not mean it wouldn't be reanalyzed if verifiable evidence came to the table; but people can't be expected to pay attention to and value any superstition just because 'it would be cool if it was true'.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:41 pm

lw1990,
You should spend some serious time learning how to think and write logically, rationally and coherently. Your posts are full of non sequiturs, irrelevancies and redundant blather.

Neither the sciences or the humanities rely on assertions and tin-pot analogies for serious discourse.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:04 pm

@grey cloud
if you have something of substance to say, say it, don't just link to websites with merely a headline or make unsubstantiated claims, it just makes it look like you have nothing to say and are merely venting in frustration or grasping at straws by linking to websites with no context.

one way to start having meaningful discussion again would be to show what parts of my writing don't make logical sense to you, and then explain why, rather than just blow steam by vaguely complaining.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby moses » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:37 pm

lw1990, my post made no sense to you because you have never seriously considered magic by postulating there was magic and following the logic of it. You cannot do this simply because of your psychological state. It would hurt you to do this.

You probably like the word 'determinism' because you are very determined. And I see many people like you on forums, most of whom I ignore because there is no point hitting one's head up against an unmovable object. I can imagine great passion for those that argue for god, but why are those who argue against it so passionate. Where does all that feeling come from.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:16 am

lw1990 wrote:@grey cloud
if you have something of substance to say, say it, don't just link to websites with merely a headline or make unsubstantiated claims, it just makes it look like you have nothing to say and are merely venting in frustration or grasping at straws by linking to websites with no context.

one way to start having meaningful discussion again would be to show what parts of my writing don't make logical sense to you, and then explain why, rather than just blow steam by vaguely complaining.



lw1990,
The links for the magic sites were not aimed specifically at you - hence I did not put 'lw1990' at the start of the post.
The links were for people like Moses and others who have an interest in these things. I didn't expect you to read them as you already 'know' all there is to know on the subject.
Two of the three sites were universities which somewhat undermines your summary dismissal of the subject.

What unsubstantiated claims are you referring to?

How have the websites no context when they all three deal with the subject of magic which was what was being talked about?

One way to have meaningful discussion would be for you to provide evidence for your assertions. I have challenged your posts on various points throughout this dialogue. You have repeatedly failed to directly address the majority of them. Those you have addressed has generally resulted in more unsubstantiated assertions and sweeping generalisations.

Your posts are on the forum and my responses are there too. People are free to read both and make up their own mind. If anyone feels the need to leap to your defence then I will respond to them (though I'm not holding my breath).

As a trivial example of redundancy: '@Grey Cloud'. There is no need for the @ sign, the name alone makes it obvious who is being addressed. This is not Twitter (that bastion of intellectual endeavour).

Now I've got some serious computer gaming to get in.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:46 am

@moses
the part that I didn't understand was the following

That non-physical something would be pretty dumb to have to keep influencing the physical. Clearly to have a nearly automatic system is the expected intelligent option. That is until the life-form becomes skilled enough for it to be expected that the non-physical something would see value in producing action in that life-form.

Your absolute belief in materialism, or determinism, is therefore risky. Take care.


I didn't understand where you concluded:
a non-physical something would have intelligence or lack thereof (dumbness)
a non-physical something would influence the physical
why a nearly automatic system is an 'expected intelligent option'
why a nearly automatic system is an option in the first place
specifically, why a 'nearly' automatic system instead of fully or none at all is a good option for anything
how a lifeform can become skilled enough to influence a non-physical something
etc

Just seemed like detached ideas drawn from nothing in particular, but then you said absolute belief in determinism was 'risky', as if it was obvious; I can only assume you said this because there is evidence to the contrary somewhere, but I have not seen any yet, although you seem to think you have shown some, can you point it out?
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:58 am

@grey cloud
twitter did not invent the @ thing lol, it has traces all the way back to email addresses, and perhaps further, if you don't like it then suck it up, you're a big boy

just because we are discussing some topic, like magic or hello kitty, merely linking to websites on magic or hello kitty with only headlines is pretty useless. why would we not be able to google for such things ourselves? what insight did you want anyone to get from the links? do you expect someone to read three or more webpages just because it has the same genre of the discussion at the time? we all have a search engine, we can find relevant pages to the genre of 'magic' on our own.

the unsubstantiated claims I'm referring to are all claims you have made without any kind of example given beneath them, including all character attacks.

I don't know what assertions you are referring to which have no evidence, you just call them 'assertions' and never specifically point any out. All 'assertions' that seem non-trivial to me have evidence given for them in my posts. I can't know what you're talking about unless you give me a way to specifically find them. For example, the assertion that everything happens by cause-effect is supported by the evidence of common everyday events, like a baseball game, supported by what doesn't happen as well as the limited amount of things which do happen. Baseballs do not magically teleport around, or instantly transform into unicorns. Baseballs behave regularly; as has everything else in science over the test of time.

As I've already pointed out, my position is very unpopular, and your position in support of free will relies solely on the backs of other people 'supporting' your cause. The fact that statistically not many people will support my idea means nothing for finding the truth. At one time, most people believed the Earth was flat. Just because a lot of people believe it, does not make it so.

By the way, you made a case for redundancy by pointing out I use the '@' character, yet when you address me as lw1990 you use the ',' comma character after it. Basically, you are 100% as 'redundant' as I am in this regard, you just use a different symbol after my name rather than before it. While I don't think this is 'redundant' at all, and is an extremely poor choice of an example of redundancy, going by your definition you show that you, and indeed moses, use the same 'redundancy' of character count in addressing me. Therefore, 100% of your evidence that I'm redundant, so far, is shown to be ridiculous, not a good start.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:54 pm

lw1990,
I didn't say that Twitter invented the @ sign. I said that your use of it is redundant. I am a big boy, I was using email addresses when you were still in nappies.
The @ sign wasn't invented for emails either. I was using it in the construction industry before you were born.

In formal English letter writing there should be a comma after the name of the addressee.

Any other subjects you would like to demonstrate your ignorance of?

BTW I do not subscribe to free will and nowhere in my posts against you will you find me advocating it. ;)
BTW 2 I see you have discovered the Caps Lock key.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby moses » Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:51 pm

OK lw1990,
I am proposing that the non-physical can produce physical action. Then it is very likely that this non-physical something existed before physicality, that is before the physical universe. From the proposition that the non-physical produces physical action it follows that the non-physical started the physical universe.

Because experiencing is non-physical it follows that the non-physical something can produce action in us through experiencing. Or you can take this as part of the proposition. Thus the universe was produced so that the non-physical can gain something through the attachment to the physical. So the non-physical has intelligence.

Of course this proposition is not mine, but has been considered by the ancients and appears in their writings, usually as consciousness instead of experiencing.

Now one can expand on this proposition, and the ancients certainly did. An enormous amount could be written, and again the ancients did. But we will consider why the non-physical would prefer an almost automatic system rather than one where continual input is required by the non-physical. Obvious.

Much more interesting is why understanding all this is important. Clearly if the proposition is true then we can help facilitate what the non-physical is after. This becomes the most significant thing in one's life. Life becomes about losing the self so that one's actions come easily from the non-physical through the connection to experiencing, compared with having no good reason to lose the self. So there is a lot on the line when considering the proposition.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby lw1990 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:28 pm

@grey cloud
your entire post was geared towards fruitless discussion on your inability to adapt to how people online can address each other nowadays, change happens, your nostalgia is not important to me

@moses
first you claim non-physical can produce physical action; any examples in real life that make you think this?
I suppose you think 'experiences' are non-physical things by reading the rest of your post, why then, does removing a physical brain also remove an individuals ability to 'experience'? The logic does not follow.

about conciousness; every night when we sleep we lose conciousness, and gain it when we wake up. what makes you think this is anything more than a mechanical process? would you not agree there is more scientific evidence (disregarding all emotional feelings on the subject) that it is a mechanical or physical process rather than a non-physical process? Ask yourself, if there is more evidence for the position you are not agreeing with, could it be that you have an emotional bias for your current position?

When something, like non-physical consciousness, 'could be true', it is irrational to believe in if it is less likely than another option. We can keep our eyes peeled for evidence that it is true, that's fine, but arguing that it has any merit before such evidence is found has no basis other than emotional bias or need for it to be true, the universe doesn't care what we humans think should be true or would be nice if it was true.

Drawing some grandiose manifesto of human behavior based on a supposition of facts (non physical conciousness) is again getting ahead of yourself based entirely on emotional bias, and a lack of hard evidence. We cannot be expected to all buy into one flavor of baloney just because we would theoretically get along better or make great progress if we all shared the same delusion, as it won't hold up to scrutiny in the long run, nor be useful for things like inventing technologies to harness the world around us (in a false theory). And, a false theory, is exactly what you will get when you use a supposition of facts as your foundation.
lw1990
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:56 am

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby moses » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:19 pm

lw1990,
Experiencing occurs when brain nerve impulses enter somewhere in the brain. If such impulses are blocked, as in sleep, then no experiencing will occur. Experiencing is only involved in the present, it has no memory that we know of. Memory comes from brain storage producing nerve impulses.

Light, colour, scent, beauty, sound, etc, are non-physical. This is entirely clear if you could free your mind from your beliefs. May I ask you whether you have investigated the origins of your beliefs, right back to early childhood. As you do not believe in free will then your beliefs are a result mainly of your environment, and especially your early environment.

Your arguments continually presuppose that there is no non-physical intelligence. It is clear that I have investigated both side of this issue whereas you have not. If you looked into the evidence that you say does not exist, then your words would be worth considering.

Having non-physical intelligence is grandiose, not having it would be terrible. Just the facts.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU ETI

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:32 pm

lw1990,
@grey cloud
your entire post was geared towards fruitless discussion on your inability to adapt to how people online can address each other nowadays, change happens, your nostalgia is not important to me
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. My comments were more to do with literacy, grammar, &cetera. FYI I have no problem using 'computer-speak' on the gaming fora I use.

I suppose you think 'experiences' are non-physical things by reading the rest of your post, why then, does removing a physical brain also remove an individuals ability to 'experience'? The logic does not follow.
Removing the brain kills the organism that is the body, that is to say, the body can no longer have the experience (or there is nothing for the experience to act upon). The consciousness (sic) is still in the same place, it just has no means of interacting with the body. The brain is just a transceiver. The are many well documented cases of people who had parts of their brain missing or deformed yet who still lived a functional life.

about conciousness; every night when we sleep we lose conciousness, and gain it when we wake up
Wrong again. We do not lose consciousness when we sleep - we enter a different state of consciousness. You dream when asleep, you remember the dream when you awake; you are asleep, a noise awakens you.

would you not agree there is more scientific evidence (disregarding all emotional feelings on the subject) that it is a mechanical or physical process rather than a non-physical process?
No, I would not agree. There may be more scientific opinion that it is a physical process (at least in the West). As far as I am aware they are still looking for the 'seat of consciousness' or whatever they call it these days. They don't know where memories are kept either.

Drawing some grandiose manifesto of human behavior based on a supposition of facts (non physical conciousness) is again getting ahead of yourself based entirely on emotional bias, and a lack of hard evidence.
Moses is not 'drawing some grandiose manifesto of human behaviour - he is drawing on a vast literature, eastern and western, ancient and modern. Google 'consciousness studies', it's a huge and growing industry - it's not the 'done and dusted' subject you think it is. You should try doing some reading about Philosophy of the Mind and Metaphysics generally before you go making silly statements.

And, a false theory, is exactly what you will get when you use a supposition of facts as your foundation.
Good advice, you should take it.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests