| Subject: Clarification |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/24/02 3:28pm
In reply to:
Primordial
's message, "and again....." on 02/24/02 12:44pm
>
> 'tis this last statement that conjures up the
>perceptions and misperceptions I feel exist within the
>realm of "relgious indoctrination". Or even, for
>example, the evolution of burial rituals. A truly
>grand leader "should" have something "special", or at
>least something "different" from the common folk. What
>to do for this leader?......and thus, each "clan"
>would perform something different. Add some time and
>we arrive at what we humans do, "currently",
>explaining, perhaps, why different cultures vary in
>the burial practices.
>
>Conventional law would evolve to demand that a grand
>leader take fewer risks and thus ensure he/she be
>around for an optimal amount of time. What happens to
>the "adult indoctrination" of a leader with "swollen
>head" syndrome? Rules would be modified to further
>ensure the longevity of the family of the leader. So,
>natural law would struggle to "rid" of a weak "son"
>since conventional law would find the whole tribe
>protecting the individual.
I think I fundamentally agree with this.
>
> My understanding of quantum mechanics is, I
>admit, limited; but I don't see how consciousness is
>part of the equation in solving "physical problems"
>using appropriate mathematical methods. Or are you
>oversimplifying to prove your point?, i.e.
>subjectivity surely weakens this argument; and then
>there is the problem with consciousness vs
>perception of matter vs logic.
I am not a master of quantum mechanics myself, but I do understand many of the basic principles it is founded upon. Basically, what I was referring to is called a "State vector collapse" when the many probabilities of an object as determined by the Schroedinger equations collapse into one state when an observer steps in and measures it, or observes it in some way. It would seem that from this principle, that the mind has some influence on matter, or the observer has some effect on the outcome of the experiment.
The problems you mentioned are in conflict with one another, and some authors suggest with the outcome of Bell's Theorem (that being the idea that there was some invisible mechanism guiding the photons of light to behave a certain way ) being consistant with the predictions of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics rather that Bell's postulated "hidden variable notion" that the idea of objective reality that is totally independant of an observer is antiquated, and that science needs to readjust its methodology.
> Am I way off base here? You go into a synaptic
>experiment below.....which is more how messages are
>transmitted and ultimately perceived. So, are you
>saying there is a direct relationship between what we
>perceive and what our consciousness is? I view these
>things as related, but separate.
Well, sort of... the idea is that when we have a memory our body has a choice of potential synapses to fire. We can paint a picture of the probability that one of the synapses will fire out of the entire picture of possible firings. Our consciousness, or so it has been offered, in some way determines which of these synapse's fires, and to a degree, since all observers are in actuality equivalent, other people do as well.
>
> I agree. Will a Universal Theory be within
>man's grasp? Is a Universal Theory necessary?....will
>it prove the ultimate question: God, no God?
I think that when we get this so called universal theory, we may end up with more questions than answers. However, far down the road if we don't obliterate ourselves, I think we will through the methods of science or some very similar discipline, answer the question of whether or not God exists.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 