I Believe God Exists

[Casparov]

Wow, talk about a circle jerk. the "evidence" you provided from Wikipedia is noting but a discussion of a philosophical stance, nothing more.

Scientific experiments that violate Bell's Inequalities are not a "discussion of a philosophical stance", it is a concrete demonstration that Materialism is untenable. This is what we call "evidence."

Your whole argument is based entirely in supposition and theory. You simply set aside anything contrary to your argument and insist it isn't evidence.

This is the most ironic statement I have ever heard... 

[Casparov]

Take two accurate clocks.   Synchronise them.

Leave one clock in one location.  Carry one with you.   After five hours return to the clock you left.

The unobserved clock will have kept time, even though it and its component parts were unobserved.

(This experiment works even if you don't carry another clock with you, it's just a lot harder to return after five hours.)

This is explained by Probability Theory, the unobserved clock exists only as probability distribution when unobserved. Because of the extremely high probability that the clock should continue to have worked properly and recorded time accurately, the probability wave will collapse into this result when it is observed again. This is not proof that the unobserved clock existed as a discrete material object independent of observation, it is only proof that probability prefers consistency.

Now take one clock and leave it in one location, and then take another clock and travel at extremely high speed to Jupiter and back. When you return to look at the unobserved clock you will see that it is somehow ahead of the clock you took with you. This is because reality remains constant only relative to the observer.

[Berati]

You assume that all information is dependent on material, yet every perception of "material" you ever have is the direct result of binary information. You interpret this information into a perception, you then assume that this perception is of an external objective material world that is independent of observation. Then you ask me to "show how you receive or interpret information without any material". But I have not made the same unnecessary assumption that you have.

What you are doing here is assuming your conclusion, then using your conclusion to prove your assumption.
You said you wanted to proceed logically but your not doing that.

In order to believe that there is "material" in the first place there was a series of binary information patterns that gave rise to the sensory information which you have interpreted as "material"....

ANd where was that information kept? In a ghosts head?
Again, I will continue to ask you to shown an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.

In a sly and subtle move you then assume this sensory information represents objective "material."

There is nothing sly or subtle about "I feel therefore its real" This is the most logical place to go right after "I think therefore I am"
Proof of this is that you always do and always will continue to behave exactly as if it were true. Your actions speak louder than your words.

You can only receiver information via perception, if you interpret every sensory perception you ever perceive as "material", then you are simply ignorant of the fact that no sensory perception can arise in your conscious awareness as anything other than interpreted information. A leap from the information you receive to believing that objective material objects exist independent of observation is required on your part, and it is an unjustified leap.
You receive information which you interpret into a representation of the outside world.

And where do you think the information is coming from? A ghosts head?
Again, I will continue to ask you to show an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.

That these sensory perceptions represent a Material Observation-Independent world is an assumption with no proof, no evidence, no justification to back it up other than weak statements like, "It seams that way," "kicking rocks hurts", and "it's obvious." Other justifications just turn out to be bold assertions like, 'It is self evident!" and "Things exist when your are not looking at them!" and "Materialism is true!" Bold assertions made with no justification.

No, not bold assertions, logical conclusions based on our day to day, minute to minute, moment to moment experience.

Matter is that which occupies space and possesses rest mass

.
And has the ability to store and transmit information.

Immaterial is that which does not consist of matter, is incorporeal, occupies no space and possesses no rest mass.

And has no ability to store and transmit information.

Information has zero of the qualities of matter and all of the qualities of being immaterial. It is honestly a surprise to me that someone is attempting to define "information" as equal to "material object", but it makes no difference. We can argue this as long as you want. At best you simply mistake the "medium" for the "message". The "message" or the "data" itself is equal to the information, not the "medium" even when you assume the medium is "material".

Again, I will continue to ask you to shown an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.

You can keep asking me the same question over and over and say "i triple double dog dare you" but realize you are speaking to an Idealist, not a Materialist, therefore I am unconvinced of your foundational assumption that matter produces information rather than the other way around. Every perception you ever have is the result of information.

And I will continue to ask the same question over and over until you understand why you are unable to give an answer or until you give up and go away. Your choice.

[Hakurei Reimu]

From the abstract of the peer reviewed scientific paper that I keep providing but you keep ignoring:

"Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

Did you even read that abstract? The conclusion here is not, "You must dispose of realism," (as if realism = materialism) but, "You get to keep one of realism or locality, but not both." It specifically says that "LOCAL REALISTIC THEORIES" â€" theories that are both realistic and local â€" are untennible. Theories that are realistic but nonlocal are still live; theories that are local but nonrealistic are still live. And they both admit materalistic theories, because, ya know, realism and materalism are not synonyms.

And, of course, none of these nonlocalities can be used to pass information, so special relativity is preserved, which is what is actually feared.

I'm starting to think that you actually have a severe reading problem at this point. Comprehention is vital to communication. I read that abstract, and I find nothing that contradicts materalism. There is nothing here that contradicts realism. The only thing that is contradicted is realism and locality together.

If you think otherwise, then you really are too stupid to be arguing here. You need to go back to school and take remedial reading courses.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Now take one clock and leave it in one location, and then take another clock and travel at extremely high speed to Jupiter and back. When you return to look at the unobserved clock you will see that it is somehow ahead of the clock you took with you. This is because reality remains constant only relative to the observer.

The same would happen if you stayed with the clock and sent a space probe racing to Jupiter and back. It has nothing to do with you. It's all special relativity.

[Jason78]

This is explained by Probability Theory, the unobserved clock exists only as probability distribution when unobserved. Because of the extremely high probability that the clock should continue to have worked properly and recorded time accurately, the probability wave will collapse into this result when it is observed again. This is not proof that the unobserved clock existed as a discrete material object independent of observation, it is only proof that probability prefers consistency.

To say that the clock mechanism stands an extremely high probability of being in the correct configuration to have appeared to have kept time as if it were working as if it were observed is to say that the clock exists independently of observation. 

You're not directly observing the cogs and wheels inside the clock either, but at any position of the hands on the face, you could open up the back of the clock and find the cogs in the exact position you'd expect to find them in.  A probability of 1:1.

Now take one clock and leave it in one location, and then take another clock and travel at extremely high speed to Jupiter and back. When you return to look at the unobserved clock you will see that it is somehow ahead of the clock you took with you. This is because reality remains constant only relative to the observer.

Relativity has nothing to do with this.

[stromboli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Quote:
A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Eugene Wigner, who assumed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. However, modern physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[1] Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons."[2]

The philosopher David Chalmers has argued against quantum consciousness. He has discussed how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[3] Indeed, Chalmers is skeptical of the ability of any new physics to resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[4][5]


Quote:
The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.[22][23]

Read the article. Point being that your argument is by no means conclusive.

There might be someone who comes on here and floors us with a devastating argument. You are not that person. I asked earlier if English was your second language. Hakurei Reimu thinks you might have a severe reading problem.

In any case, people of note in the field of Quantum research do not agree with your viewpoint.

[Solitary]

If succeeds in having a debate, the number one rule should be no Slick Maneuver can be used, and the second one is no  comments from Deepak Chopra as his own. Soluitary

[stromboli]

If succeeds in having a debate, the number one rule should be no Slick Maneuver can be used, and the second one is no  comments from Deepak Chopra as his own. Soluitary

Oh, thats just mean.

[Casparov]

What you are doing here is assuming your conclusion, then using your conclusion to prove your assumption.

If you were speaking into a mirror this sentence would make sense.

ANd where was that information kept? In a ghosts head?

In Consciousness, the only thing we can know with certainty exists.

There is nothing sly or subtle about "I feel therefore its real" This is the most logical place to go right after "I think therefore I am"
Proof of this is that you always do and always will continue to behave exactly as if it were true. Your actions speak louder than your words.

"I feel therefore it's real." is no justification for Materialism. I agree that what we experience is "real", all experience is "real", and I am an Idealist. To say that "Either materialism is true or nothing is real" is a false dichotomy, and the apparent source of your confusion. If Idealism is true, our experiences of reality continue to be just as real as they ever were.

And where do you think the information is coming from? A ghosts head?

Consciousness.

No, not bold assertions, logical conclusions based on our day to day, minute to minute, moment to moment experience.

You mean Naive Realism which is not consistent with current scientific experimentation. Your assertions are based on "intuition" and "gut feelings" rather than evidence.

And has the ability to store and transmit information.
And has no ability to store and transmit information.

Consciousness can store and transmit information. Consciousness is immaterial.

Again, I will continue to ask you to shown an example of information that exists or is transmitted independent of material. Until you answer this your immaterialism is DOA.
And I will continue to ask the same question over and over until you understand why you are unable to give an answer or until you give up and go away. Your choice.

"I exist" is a piece of information that has been received before any external perception has been considered. If all sensory organs stopped working and stopped having the ability to perceive "material objects" information would not stop existing. Even if all I was experiencing was being a point of consciousness floating in an infinite black void, the information of my existence still remains.

The existence of material itself is only apparent to me because I first receive information through sensory perceptions. Consciousness and information come before I even have the chance to assume that material objects exist externally.

What you do is first, ignore the primacy of your own consciousness, then, ignore that perceptions are always and only the result of information, then, assume that what you are perceiving are external material objects that exist independent of your observation, then, based on unjustified assumptions conclude that external material objects are the fundamental and only substance that exist, then, declare that those assumed external material objects produce consciousness, then declare that all information must necessarily depend on those assumed external material objects to exist.

I stop with your first assumption because it is an unjustified and unnecessary one. I know that consciousness exists, and I know that information fundamentally produces the perceptions I experience. What you claim are observation independent material objects arise in my awareness only because of information that I first interpret.

Therefore, when you are asking the question, "show me information that exists or is transmitted by immaterial" as an Idealist, my answer is all of existence is an example of this. As a Materialist, you will disagree with this answer because you believe that all of existence is material or fundamentally the result of material interactions. You believe that information and consciousness are fundamentally matter. Yours is an a posteriori philosophy based on a scientifically and philosophically untenable assumption. Mine is an a priori philosophy based on direct knowledge and direct experience that is consistent with scientific experimentation and philosophically sound.

[Solitary]

He was so excited when he was promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade, he could hardly shave without cutting himself. Solitary

[Icarus]

Consciousness can store and transmit information. Consciousness is immaterial.

What scientific paper did you get this gem from? Bullshit weekly? For someone who claims to want evidence and understands science, you're very fond of making earth shattering statements about how the universe works without providing anything to back it up.

[Casparov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Quote:
A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Eugene Wigner, who assumed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. However, modern physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[1] Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons."[2]

The philosopher David Chalmers has argued against quantum consciousness. He has discussed how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[3] Indeed, Chalmers is skeptical of the ability of any new physics to resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[4][5]


Quote:
The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.[22][23]

Read the article. Point being that your argument is by no means conclusive.

There might be someone who comes on here and floors us with a devastating argument. You are not that person. I asked earlier if English was your second language. Hakurei Reimu thinks you might have a severe reading problem.

In any case, people of note in the field of Quantum research do not agree with your viewpoint.

Congratulations on the most blatant straw-man argument of this very long thread. I am not a proponent of the Quantum Mind Theory and never even indicated that I was.... but good job arguing against that straw-man, way to go! I think you won!

[pioteir]

...
That you snort when you laugh is not an argument,
...

The snort is by far a better argument, than what you've said so far.

31 pages was it? To get that fucking troll banned?

Say Your goodbyes everyone cause Casper is going awaaayyy (hopefully)

[wolf39us]

Last reply on 30!

I'm tempted to lock this ...

but with 450 posts... idk