Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post new topic   Reply to topic

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by LloydK on Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:55 am

Scientists Are Getting Closer to Understanding Where All the Antimatter Has Gone
http://gizmodo.com/scientists-are-getting-closer-to-understanding-where-al-1794034574

Is Matter Conscious? Why the central problem in neuroscience is mirrored in physics
[Nothing can exist outside of consciousness]
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/is-matter-conscious

Scientists measure brightness of the universe with NASA's New Horizons spacecraft
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-scientists-brightness-universe-nasa-horizons.html

LloydK

Posts : 443
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by Nevyn on Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:53 am

LloydK wrote:Is Matter Conscious? Why the central problem in neuroscience is mirrored in physics
[Nothing can exist outside of consciousness]
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/is-matter-conscious

My question is: Is anyone that could ask that question actually conscious?

The article presents falsehoods as fact, turns everything upside down and purposefully looks at it all in the wrong way. If I was bored and had the time, I'd write a paper showing the holes I found in it. I'm sure Miles could do a much better job, but there was enough in there even for me to tackle.

It was refreshing seeing them admit that mainstream physics never tells what things are, only what they do. Then again, this is a philosopher, so he might feel the physics departments are in need of some humbling. Even in admitting that though, they lead you away from a mechanical solution.

Nothing can exist outside of consciousness

Straight up bullshit. I just don't see how people get confused between knowing something and that thing existing. There is no requirement that someone knows about something before it can exist. Logic tells you that it must exist for anyone to know about it. Some might think that we can think up something and then make it, like art, so that means it was known before it existed, but this is false. You haven't actually made anything exist, you have just used what did exist to make something new. In physics, the term exist means something and that is not the same as the every-day usage of the word. If you could imagine a new particle and then make that exist then I would admit to being wrong, but no one is able to do that. If they could, I'm pretty sure the Higg's Boson would exist by now.

This is a well hidden example of the chicken and the egg problem. If nothing can exist outside of consciousness, then how can consciousness exist? That's why they love it. They don't want answers, they want squishy concepts that they can argue about all day long and look like they are contributing to mankind. People actually get paid to talk about this stuff! Can you believe that?

Rant off.

Anyway, back to doing my, unpaid, bit for mankind.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by Nevyn on Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:09 pm

Yes, in this case, I don't sound very open minded, but that is because the arguments being made are just ridiculous to me. It is true that we perceive the universe through consciousness, but that does not lead to consciousness being required. And there is no way that consciousness can exist before the universe exists. You speak of the universe having no meaning without consciousness, but why does the universe require meaning? That is a human trait, and one that is not the result of science but of religion. A religion that needed to control the people and found a very effective method of doing so. A method that science is now using to control again.

We know nothing about consciousness. Nothing. I doubt we even have a solid definition for it. Each philosopher creates their own version that fits with what they want it to do. And there is nothing wrong with re-defining something for your work, but when people start saying that matter is conscious, then I have to disagree. If matter did have consciousness, then science is gone. There is no repeat-ability, because each and every particle could just decide to do something different, at any time.

When we turn on an electric circuit, charge and electrons flow through and things work (however that happens). It doesn't stop and start, the voltage and current don't grow and shrink (assuming an adequate power supply). But if each electron could decide if it wanted to be charged at any given moment, then there would be no constant power supply. Nothing in the universe could operate under such conditions. What if each photon could decide what color it wanted to be at any given time. Can you trust your vision? What does it even mean to see in such a universe? Giving consciousness to matter doesn't provide meaning, it takes it away.

No, science must be based in logical constructs, or it is a waste of time. The fact that these philosophers, and probably even some physicists, think that matter can be conscious just shows how useless and sloppy their theories are. The fact that physics can't give a decent rebuttal shows how fuzzy their theories are.

I don't think it is at all extremist to think that matter is not conscious, in fact, I think it is ludicrously extremist to think that it is. We don't know what consciousness is, stated explicitly in that article, but we do know that it is a very complex thing. Why would you take something that is so complex we can't understand it, and make the smallest and simplest things have that quality? It doesn't make any sense to me at all. It is just people saying 'Hey, we don't know what consciousness is, and we also don't know what the quantum world is, they are both really fuzzy ideas, so how about we throw them together?', also stated in the article (which was refreshing).

So one of the things that makes up consciousness is perceptions. Well, how do you, or they, think that we perceive things? If it isn't through physical, mechanical collisions, then what is it? If consciousness requires perception then it also requires something to perceive and it also requires some way to perceive it. It is matter that allows perception to happen, so how could matter be conscious? It is just illogical and completely up-side-down, as Miles has often shown.

Now, let's look at thought. What are thoughts? No-one knows. Is it neurons flowing through the brain? Well, if so, then what are those neurons made of? Matter. So if you just give consciousness to matter, then you have just dumped the thing you are trying to explain onto the thing you are using to construct it. This is just like the Higg's Boson. Giving consciousness to matter does not explain anything just like the Higg's Boson giving mass to other particles doesn't explain anything. It just takes it back a step so it can be hidden in what we don't know, rather than in what we do.

Let's assume that matter is conscious. Now, how does that apply to you or me being conscious? Am I now a billion, billion little conscious things or am I the conscious one? I don't feel like a billion, billion things all trying to decide what to do, I feel like one conscious being trying to decide. Of course, feeling is not a very scientific argument, but that is where this kind of talk leads. It doesn't lead to solid theories about how and why things work the way they do and that is where I want to go, so I leave such things to others who have time to waste on such silly concepts.

I know that I come down hard on this issue, but I do so because philosophy is a very important subject, especially for science, and ideas like this don't help it, they hinder it. That is a huge loss for science which has already lost its way and could actually use some philosophy to get back on track. Look at what Miles has managed to accomplish with the philosophy that everything must be mechanical. Do you think he could have done that if he had started with everything must be conscious? No, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere and Miles is actually a philosopher (he majored in Philosophy).
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by Nevyn on Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:01 pm

You may not think that it has anything to do with religion, but you are invoking a God, so it is total religion. If you require consciousness before anything else, then you are invoking a God. What else could be conscious and not be part of the universe?

Your reasoning isn't my problem, whether it is religion or not, that is your problem. I don't subscribe to these ideas and am making plenty of progress without them.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by Nevyn on Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:59 pm

Lloyd has deleted his posts from this thread. It now looks like I am arguing with myself, which is not unheard of, just not applicable in this case. Smile
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:26 pm

.
Nevyn, you have a special ability, what did you say to piss him off? Never mind. Now I'm almost sure we're part of an action thriller.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 617
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by Cr6 on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:45 pm

Well this does bring up the question about whether "thoughts, notions, imagination, dreams" are all photon driven?

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 689
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by Nevyn on Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:00 am

Well, if there are only BPhotons, in various configurations, then it is fair to say that everything is photon driven.

It does put a question on the idea of free will. I don't think that most people realise the consequences to our world if there is no free will. Can you punish someone for doing something illegal if there is no free will? The very fabric of the law relies on the concept of free will. If we were to prove that there is no free will, then society falls apart. It would actually be a national security issue, and as such, they will never let that happen. No matter what the evidence says.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 821
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Antimatter; Conscious; Brightness

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon May 29, 2017 1:42 pm

I just stumbled onto this thread and found it to be a decent read, despite Nevyn arguing with himself. Smile

Lloyd, why do you delete your comments? You did this in your gyroscope thread too.

It's okay to be wrong, man. Being wrong shows us where we need to focus, to learn more. Nevyn just told me I was wrong in my Stacked Spin scripting thread like thirty times. He had to tell me - and I had to hear it, to learn and progress. Miles wasn't very helpful even though I linked him to the exact same videos, so the only person in the world I could rely on for help (in being wrong, being called out on it, even if very nicely) was Nevyn. Without this, I'd be refining and pushing bad theory and passing it off as Miles' theory. Not acceptable to me or to anyone involved. If Miles is wrong, I at least need to represent his theory accurately. If he's right, great. I still need to represent him well, not cause problems and show false holes in his theory.

Anyway, relax and have fun a bit. This isn't Facebook. No need to delete comments, nobody is here to attack anyone else.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 240
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum