43 replies to this topic

[johnross47]

This is the problem of unfalsifiable arguments

Well, some unfalsifiable arguments are fruitless (God exists, but doesn't want to be known, and is all-powerful, therefore you can't know him, and since he doesn't want to be known the universe acts as if he doesn't exist). Other unfalsifiable arguments are interesting, but sometimes useful (The world that you experience is that of your own imagination, the real world exists outside yourself but you can't ever really know it, therefore you can create your own "reality").

You not only can create your own reality, we all do create our own reality. Included in that reality is other people. Problems arise when an individual's reality doesn't match the apparent reality of others. You really have to accept that the apparent is real, or there is no way of resolving the problems. You have to accept that there really are others out there, each existing in their own bubble of brain created reality. It's not something you could ever prove, it's just the only practical way to live outside of an institution. It doesn't make any sense to ask what the world really looks like. "Looks" only applies to the experience in a brain. The world doesn't really "look" at all, but if you accept that there is some reasonably useful correspondence between reality and its appearance, you can cope with what comes at you. When I see a tree it makes sense to assume that there is some gross accumulation of particles acting in a way that correlates with my idea of a tree. The stream of photons interpreted by my brain as a tree thirty yards away is caused by a real object. To say that we are free to create our own reality is slightly off reality as I see it. We can't do anything else, so to call it freedom is IMHO empty.

Mind and consciousness may be the ground of being? Interesting

I can see where you might try to take that, but it's nowhere near what I mean. I am saying nothing about divine minds or ultimate creators or whatever of that sort. They are even further beyond proof than our apparent immediate surroundings, and there is massively less evidence for them. To say that my brain creates my experience of what I assume is the external reality is not the same as saying it creates that reality itself, or that it is all created by some other brain or intelligence. If my experience does reflect some external reality, that reality has some separate existence and origin other than my brain, no matter how little of it is represented by my brain.

[shadowhawk]

This is the problem of unfalsifiable arguments

Well, some unfalsifiable arguments are fruitless (God exists, but doesn't want to be known, and is all-powerful, therefore you can't know him, and since he doesn't want to be known the universe acts as if he doesn't exist). Other unfalsifiable arguments are interesting, but sometimes useful (The world that you experience is that of your own imagination, the real world exists outside yourself but you can't ever really know it, therefore you can create your own "reality").

You not only can create your own reality, we all do create our own reality. Included in that reality is other people. Problems arise when an individual's reality doesn't match the apparent reality of others. You really have to accept that the apparent is real, or there is no way of resolving the problems. You have to accept that there really are others out there, each existing in their own bubble of brain created reality. It's not something you could ever prove, it's just the only practical way to live outside of an institution. It doesn't make any sense to ask what the world really looks like. "Looks" only applies to the experience in a brain. The world doesn't really "look" at all, but if you accept that there is some reasonably useful correspondence between reality and its appearance, you can cope with what comes at you. When I see a tree it makes sense to assume that there is some gross accumulation of particles acting in a way that correlates with my idea of a tree. The stream of photons interpreted by my brain as a tree thirty yards away is caused by a real object. To say that we are free to create our own reality is slightly off reality as I see it. We can't do anything else, so to call it freedom is IMHO empty.

Mind and consciousness may be the ground of being? Interesting

I can see where you might try to take that, but it's nowhere near what I mean. I am saying nothing about divine minds or ultimate creators or whatever of that sort. They are even further beyond proof than our apparent immediate surroundings, and there is massively less evidence for them. To say that my brain creates my experience of what I assume is the external reality is not the same as saying it creates that reality itself, or that it is all created by some other brain or intelligence. If my experience does reflect some external reality, that reality has some separate existence and origin other than my brain, no matter how little of it is represented by my brain.

Even your consciousness is part of this, if you think you have a consciousness. Does your brain cause it or only represent it? Did some other mind cause it? Who?

[johnross47]

This is the problem of unfalsifiable arguments

Well, some unfalsifiable arguments are fruitless (God exists, but doesn't want to be known, and is all-powerful, therefore you can't know him, and since he doesn't want to be known the universe acts as if he doesn't exist). Other unfalsifiable arguments are interesting, but sometimes useful (The world that you experience is that of your own imagination, the real world exists outside yourself but you can't ever really know it, therefore you can create your own "reality").

You not only can create your own reality, we all do create our own reality. Included in that reality is other people. Problems arise when an individual's reality doesn't match the apparent reality of others. You really have to accept that the apparent is real, or there is no way of resolving the problems. You have to accept that there really are others out there, each existing in their own bubble of brain created reality. It's not something you could ever prove, it's just the only practical way to live outside of an institution. It doesn't make any sense to ask what the world really looks like. "Looks" only applies to the experience in a brain. The world doesn't really "look" at all, but if you accept that there is some reasonably useful correspondence between reality and its appearance, you can cope with what comes at you. When I see a tree it makes sense to assume that there is some gross accumulation of particles acting in a way that correlates with my idea of a tree. The stream of photons interpreted by my brain as a tree thirty yards away is caused by a real object. To say that we are free to create our own reality is slightly off reality as I see it. We can't do anything else, so to call it freedom is IMHO empty.

Mind and consciousness may be the ground of being? Interesting

I can see where you might try to take that, but it's nowhere near what I mean. I am saying nothing about divine minds or ultimate creators or whatever of that sort. They are even further beyond proof than our apparent immediate surroundings, and there is massively less evidence for them. To say that my brain creates my experience of what I assume is the external reality is not the same as saying it creates that reality itself, or that it is all created by some other brain or intelligence. If my experience does reflect some external reality, that reality has some separate existence and origin other than my brain, no matter how little of it is represented by my brain.

Even your consciousness is part of this, if you think you have a consciousness. Does your brain cause it or only represent it? Did some other mind cause it? Who?

The important part of what I said there is that I am not agreeing with "Mind and consciousness may be the ground of being", whatever that might mean. As I've said before, I don't go along with solipsism, not because I or anyone else can disprove it, but because it wastes your life, real or otherwise. I am however aware of the nature of the brain/sensory system and the relationship it has to the sensed world.

[shadowhawk]

what is the ground of being? Do you believe there are other minds? (brains) A yes, would show you don't go along with solipsism in reality.

[johnross47]

what is the ground of being? Do you believe there are other minds? (brains) A yes, would show you don't go along with solipsism in reality.

One of the apparent phenomena I accept as real, is other people, along with all the other "objects/things" in the world. As I have said repeatedly, just because you can't disprove solipsism, doesn't mean you have to accept it. I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts on this subject.

[johnross47]

Guys, this doesn't prove or disprove God... move along now, nothing to holy war about, here.

No body say that in the whole post, the title of the post is "...Brain the Center of the Universe", it is not talking about god...

Is interesting to see that the people that more talk about god are the atheist people.

The basic point of the original post has been pretty much dismissed, unless I am misreading. In the sense that appears to be intended, the answer is no the brain is not the "centre of the universe"; the brain does not control reality, not even in the quantum sense; but the brain of each individual does control their experience of reality, which is not quite the same thing. I think the topic is exhausted.

[shadowhawk]

Guys, this doesn't prove or disprove God... move along now, nothing to holy war about, here.

No body say that in the whole post, the title of the post is "...Brain the Center of the Universe", it is not talking about god...

Is interesting to see that the people that more talk about god are the atheist people.

The basic point of the original post has been pretty much dismissed, unless I am misreading. In the sense that appears to be intended, the answer is no the brain is not the "centre of the universe"; the brain does not control reality, not even in the quantum sense; but the brain of each individual does control their experience of reality, which is not quite the same thing. I think the topic is exhausted.

You dismissed it but speak for yourself http://www.longecity...se/#entry643621
You know that mind is not the center of the cosmos. How do you know that.

[cats_lover]

...the brain does not control reality, not even in the quantum sense...

Well, im not totally sure about that.

You also must search about Bohr's resarches aka "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" were you can see more evidence supporting the influence of the brain (or the will of a person) on external media (or reality).

Of course, this does not prove that the brain creates reality in which we live, only proof certain control over it.

I think it's very probable that the brain create the reality in which we live and that the information is transmitted between different brains so that reality depends not only you, but all individuals.

In other words, for more than your brain wants to win the lottery, you have million brain wanting the odds works the way we expect them ...

Then reality is balanced

[johnross47]

...the brain does not control reality, not even in the quantum sense...

Well, im not totally sure about that.

You also must search about Bohr's resarches aka "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" were you can see more evidence supporting the influence of the brain (or the will of a person) on external media (or reality).

Of course, this does not prove that the brain creates reality in which we live, only proof certain control over it.

I think it's very probable that the brain create the reality in which we live and that the information is transmitted between different brains so that reality depends not only you, but all individuals.

In other words, for more than your brain wants to win the lottery, you have million brain wanting the odds works the way we expect them ...

Then reality is balanced

What, then, controlled the universe before life? The religious explanations are clearly just made up. Personally I think this is just an over-interpretation of curious results in quantum research. As was pointed out before, what influences the results is not the presence of a mind but the interaction of the particles and the detector.

[cats_lover]

What, then, controlled the universe before life?

I dont know, maybe there is no universe without life. Anyway i can also ask: what controlled the universe before there was time and matter?

The religious explanations are clearly just made up.

You do not need to think about religion to explore one of these theories. Do not let the fear of thinking in a "religious" way (or thinking in a way that may be confused with the thought of a religious person) prevents you from exploring new theories.

Personally I think this is just an over-interpretation of curious results in quantum research. As was pointed out before, what influences the results is not the presence of a mind but the interaction of the particles and the detector.

Of course, once these results were found scientists explored them thoroughly. Have been made in the last years very many investigations into this and the observations are very similar.

It has been ruled that the observer generates some kind of interference which caused the result. It has been ruled too that the result was because the interaction of the particles and the detector machine (in the double slit experiment, which was repeated in different conditions).

[johnross47]

...the brain does not control reality, not even in the quantum sense...

Well, im not totally sure about that.

You also must search about Bohr's resarches aka "Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research" were you can see more evidence supporting the influence of the brain (or the will of a person) on external media (or reality).

Of course, this does not prove that the brain creates reality in which we live, only proof certain control over it.

I think it's very probable that the brain create the reality in which we live and that the information is transmitted between different brains so that reality depends not only you, but all individuals.

In other words, for more than your brain wants to win the lottery, you have million brain wanting the odds works the way we expect them ...

Then reality is balanced

What, then, controlled the universe before life? The religious explanations are clearly just made up. Personally I think this is just an over-interpretation of curious results in quantum research. As was pointed out before, what influences the results is not the presence of a mind but the interaction of the particles and the detector.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[show]

Part of a series of articles on theparanormal
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn. Despite the name, the project had little to do with engineering but rather was dedicated to the study of parapsychology.^[1]
PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises purporting to examine telekinesis and remote viewing.^[2] The program had a strained relationship with Princeton, and was considered "an embarrassment to science."^[3] The laboratory concluded its University-based operations in February 2007.^[3]
Parapsychological Activities[edit]

PEAR employed random event generators (REGs), to explore the ability of test subjects to use telekinesis to influence the random output distribution of these devices to conform to their pre-recorded intentions to produce higher numbers, lower numbers, or nominal baselines.^[4] Most of these experiments utilized a microelectronic REG, but experiments were also conducted with a mechanical device which dropped balls down a peg-covered board.^[5] PEAR also conducted exercises involving groups of volunteers which, they claimed, produced more pronounced results.^[6][7] In all cases, the observed effects were very small (about one tenth of one percent), but over extensive databases they compounded to statistically significant deviations from chance behavior.^[8] The baseline for chance behavior used did not vary as statistically appropriate (baseline bind). Two PEAR researchers attributed this baseline bind to the motivation of the operators to achieve a good baseline.^[9] It has been noted that a single test subject (presumed to be a member of PEAR’s staff) participated in 15% of PEAR’s trials, and was responsible for half of the total observed effect.^[8] PEAR’s results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility. In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR’s results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.^[9] An attempt by York University’s Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR’s results.^[8] PEAR’s activities have also been criticized for their lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics.<sup>[8][10][11]

This doesn't look like anything I would want to devote much time to, or would give much credence.</sup>

[cats_lover]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[show]

Part of a series of articles on theparanormal
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn. Despite the name, the project had little to do with engineering but rather was dedicated to the study of parapsychology.^[1]
PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises purporting to examine telekinesis and remote viewing.^[2] The program had a strained relationship with Princeton, and was considered "an embarrassment to science."^[3] The laboratory concluded its University-based operations in February 2007.^[3]
Parapsychological Activities[edit]

PEAR employed random event generators (REGs), to explore the ability of test subjects to use telekinesis to influence the random output distribution of these devices to conform to their pre-recorded intentions to produce higher numbers, lower numbers, or nominal baselines.^[4] Most of these experiments utilized a microelectronic REG, but experiments were also conducted with a mechanical device which dropped balls down a peg-covered board.^[5] PEAR also conducted exercises involving groups of volunteers which, they claimed, produced more pronounced results.^[6][7] In all cases, the observed effects were very small (about one tenth of one percent), but over extensive databases they compounded to statistically significant deviations from chance behavior.^[8] The baseline for chance behavior used did not vary as statistically appropriate (baseline bind). Two PEAR researchers attributed this baseline bind to the motivation of the operators to achieve a good baseline.^[9] It has been noted that a single test subject (presumed to be a member of PEAR’s staff) participated in 15% of PEAR’s trials, and was responsible for half of the total observed effect.^[8] PEAR’s results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility. In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR’s results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.^[9] An attempt by York University’s Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR’s results.^[8] PEAR’s activities have also been criticized for their lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics.<sup>[8][10][11]

This doesn't look like anything I would want to devote much time to, or would give much credence.</sup>

Well, you're right, it was bad on my part have cited PEAR investigations

[Deep Thought]

Nothing here.

Edited by Deep Thought, 17 May 2014 - 05:46 PM.

[serp777]

This is preposterous. You clearly do not have an understanding of quantum physics.

 

You cite the double slit experiment as evidence for observation of the mind affecting the body's physiology, which is completely baseless.

 

First, by observation, physicists are refering, in part, to the uncertainty principe, which essentially says that the momemntum and position are proportionally uncertain to a constant known as H, or the planck constant. When you shine light on an electron for example, it's position is known to a very high degree by the scattering of the photon. However, because the photon has transferred some of it's momentum to the electron, the momentum is highly uncertain. When the momentum is known to a high degree of accuracy on the other hand, it is impossible to know the exact position of the electron, and so it takes on wave like properties thus exhibitng wave particule duality. With wavelike properties you can get things like quantum tunneling and interference patterns when going through slits with small distances. The interference occurs when the wavelength, lambda, is somewhat close to the size of the slit.

 

You might ask why the human body doesn't diffract when walking through a door frame, for example. This is because the de broglie wavelength(lambda) of the human body is ridiculously small-like 1*10^-34 meters. A human could never walk through a door frame that small, so quantum effects are not really relevant. Thus your theory is unreasonable and scientifically unsound. 

 

So essentially the wave like properties of matter are not relevant on larger scales, like that of a solar system or a human body.

 

And obviously the brain cannot be the center of the universe. There are many brains all across the planet, possibly alien brains as well, and computer brains. To say that all these brains are the center is incoherent without some proof.