Dualism = Idealism

[s0cratus]

How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?

In the name of reason and common sense:
How can dualism be equal to idealism ?
=.
To solve the problem of dualism of particle in physics is
equal to solve the problem of idealism in philosophy.
Dualism = Idealism.
Why?
Because in physics we have two ( 2) conceptions of impulse:
a) Newtonian/ Classical physics explains conceptions of impulse
as an outside effect.
b) Quantum physics explains conceptions of impulse as
an inside – inner effect.
==.
What it means ? My explanation.

According to Quantum theory the elementary particle quantum
of light can be in three ( 3) states:

a) Quantum of light can be in potential state,
then its inner impulse and speed is zero: h=0, c=0.

b) Quantum of light can be in the state of constant and straight
motion ( in vacuum) then its inner impulse according to Planck
is h=E/t and according to Einstein it is h=kb.
Einstein proved that h= E/t = kb =1
Using this impulse quantum of light moves in a straight line
with constant speed c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1.
We call such quantum of light - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular.

c) According to Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck quantum of light
can rotate around its axis by its inner impulse h* = h / 2pi.
In such movement quantum of light has charge and produce
electric waves ( waves property of particle).
We call such quantum of light - ‘ electron’ . The speed of rotating
electron is faster than when it moves in a straight line : c>1.
The speed of rotating electron we call ‘frequency’ ( f ).
Now is possible ‘visual’ to understand the formula of electron’s
energy: E=h*f.
==.
Quantum of light can be in three ( 3) states:
a) h=0 (potential state)
b) h=1 ( be as a photon in a straight constant movement)
c) h* = h/ 2pi ( be as an electron – rotates around its own axis)

The reason of these different kind of motions is its inner impulses. (!)
What this mean?
It means that quantum of light has free will to choice in which state to be.
To have possibility to choice needs some kind of consciousness.
This consciousness cannot be statically.
This consciousness can develop.
The development of consciousness goes, as ancient Indian Veda says,
“ from vague wish up to a clear thought ”
It means that quantum of light not only object but subject too and
therefore I wrote: Dualism = Idealism.
=.
P.S.
Of course, when we think about behavior of quantum of light we need
to take in attention its reference frame – Infinite Vacuum: T= 0K.
====.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==============.
.

 

[snafupants]

How can intelligence be physical ?

The brain. Is that a serious question?

 

[Da Blob]

Everyone has a brain, but only a few minds use it intelligently.

 

[Nezaros]

Everyone has a brain, but only a few minds use it intelligently.

The more intelligent brains are physically different from the rest.

 

[Da Blob]

All parts of the body are modified by user's choices, including the brain. There are some users that prefer to exercise their muscles, instead of their brains. The muscles display evidence of that use.

 

[Nezaros]

They were predisposed towards using their bodies over their minds due to extant physical properties of the brain from the very beginning. Just about every property of the mind has been connected to a physical part of the brain. There is no unknown, other factor that lifts an intelligent mind above an unintelligent one.

 

[Duxwing]

All parts of the body are modified by user's choices, including the brain. There are some users that prefer to exercise their muscles, instead of their brains. The muscles display evidence of that use.

You're dodging the question: Is the mind determined by the brain?

-Duxwing

 

[joal0503]

...the notion that are brains are simply the receivers, much alike the inner workings of a television that receive the signal and vie us a coherent images...the brain isnt solely responsible for intelligence, ideas, emotion, any of that...its simply a complex unit of networks that tap in to the broadcast of information and revealing it to us in the fashion we call 'reality'.

im not saying i 100% believe this, but its an interesting take fo sho

 

[Da Blob]

They were predisposed towards using their bodies over their minds due to extant physical properties of the brain from the very beginning. Just about every property of the mind has been connected to a physical part of the brain. There is no unknown, other factor that lifts an intelligent mind above an unintelligent one.

So a body builder has no choice, an Olympic athlete was doomed to birth to endless hours of self-inflicted pain due to being "They were predisposed towards using their bodies over their minds due to extant physical properties of the brain from the very beginning"?

You're dodging the question: Is the mind determined by the brain?

Yes and No!

There are statistical correlations between mind and brain, but correlation is not causality.

Both Mind and Brain are valid concepts when viewed from appropriate valid points of view: the objective for the object and the subjective for the subject.

Once again, one is discounting the subjective POV, while in the very process of using the subjective POV. This seems to be a common trait of those who adhere to a nondual philosophy and frankly i can't understand how a mind can be closed to the point of trying to deny its own existence as a Subject.

 

[Cognisant]

The mind does not exist as a thing in of itself but rather a process, the brain is not the mind, rather it is what the brain does, just as motion is the process of a running engine, still without the engine there can be no motion, likewise without a brain there can be no mind.

A mind in absence of the brain wouldn't make sense, minds exist to look after and direct bodies, without a body a mind has no purpose, I mean who would you be if you could not move, see, speak, or do anything?

 

[joal0503]

A mind in absence of the brain wouldn't make sense, minds exist to look after and direct bodies, without a body a mind has no purpose, I mean who would you be if you could not move, see, speak, or do anything?

@Cognisant

Spoiler

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/1.long

 

[snafupants]

Yeah idealism and dualism are the same thing because when I can pull down two chicks at a bar that's ideal.

 

[Cognisant]

How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?

In the utmost simplest form there's BEAM robotics, little solar powered insect like robots that work on analog signal modulation, like insects it's hard to say whether or not they feel pleasure or pain, they're certainly not complex enough to exhibit anything like the psychosomatic body language we do. They do however experience bias, typically they're designed to pursue light, using trial and error to strive in a very lifelike way towards that which is their proverbial life source, adapting their movements as necessary to climb, run, sometimes even to swim, as their inherent bias compels them.

Arguably their biased experience of light is no different to our experiences of pain and pleasure, just as they do we respond to positively biased input (pleasure) by continuing or repeating the behaviour that caused it, likewise we respond to negatively biased input (pain) by ceasing or avoiding the cause of it, so in theory if someone were to build a highly sophisticated BEAM robot, capable of handling multiple such biases, and using both memories of the past and predictions of the future to optimise it's behaviour, then it could be just like an animal or even a human being.

Suffice to say a human being is an INCREDIBLY sophisticated machine, truly mind blowing, comprised of countless other such ingenious mechanisms, so please understand I don't mean to devalue people in any way by saying we're machines of flesh, blood and bone, quite the opposite in fact, I consider being called a machine quite the compliment because I understand what an incredible machine I am.

But still, there's nothing supernatural about us.
Frankly the truth is more fantastic then any fantasy could ever be.

 

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/1.long

Plants still have bodies, and yes in some cases they're even capable of feeling and limited movement, that dosen't refute my point.

My point is that a disembodied mind, like a ghost, has no reason for its mind to exist unless it has a body of some description, and is that really a ghost?

 

[Black Rose]

qualia

Link

The way we experience is in form of and duration of qualia. We are aware of different combinations but there is of current explanation for how electric impulses create experience like green. This is the hard problem of consciousness. Why do positioned areas correlate with specific experience and not others. If the cortex is uniformly the same why the difference of the five senses and emotions. Clearly it is the shape of the brain and where in which electricity produced in a intensity related to other areas being on or off is when we derive the difference. Brain waves create circuits that preform the specific experience. Lucid Dreams are the result of brainwave activity. Meditation can eliminate time and space well activating the pleasure center of bliss. DMT and Psilocybin create alter states where you access your subconscious.

 

[Black Rose]

Plants still have bodies, and yes in some cases they're even capable of feeling and limited movement, that dosen't refute my point.

My point is that a disembodied mind, like a ghost, has no reason for its mind to exist unless it has a body of some description, and is that really a ghost?

By quantum physics what is matter.

Many-worlds interpretation

 

[Nezaros]

So a body builder has no choice, an Olympic athlete was doomed to birth to endless hours of self-inflicted pain due to being "They were predisposed towards using their bodies over their minds due to extant physical properties of the brain from the very beginning"?

Basically. A combination of internal and external factors shaped him into becoming an Olympic athlete. He may have thought he could choose, but in the end, everything considered, there was only one possible result. This is starting to move away from the original topic, however.

 

[Da Blob]

Basically. A combination of internal and external factors shaped him into becoming an Olympic athlete. He may have thought he could choose, but in the end, everything considered, there was only one possible result. This is starting to move away from the original topic, however.

This just so lame. I wonder why it is so prevalent a school of thought, the idea that humans have no will, no intent, or no choice? Good grief, I just made a dozen different choices in choosing how to respond to this comment. If a person can make even trivial choices, deliberately make the slightest of differences - does not this idea that humanity is just a passive victim of environment and genetics lose all credibility?

The relationship between minds and brains is primarily one of POV. As far as where minds can exist once divorced from a particular brain, I believe that is what the OP was suggesting, that even quanta of light can be a potential host for disembodied minds.

 

[Reluctantly]

What definitions are you using for dualism and idealism?

I'm asking because I looked up idealism and apparently it's the belief that the world is a construct of the mind. Dualism however (as far as I understand it) asserts that reality is a construct of the mind and independent from it. That said, you seem to have made a case for physics being idealism, but not dualism. Unless, you're saying the lines are blurred and it's just a word game, which I would agree with.

 

[Nezaros]

The relationship between minds and brains is primarily one of POV. As far as where minds can exist once divorced from a particular brain, I believe that is what the OP was suggesting, that even quanta of light can be a potential host for disembodied minds.

I'm actually open to this idea, but it's just as impossible to prove as it would be to disprove. I don't believe, however, that anything is responsible for intelligence or personality besides the innumerable factors that exist in the physical world.

This just so lame. I wonder why it is so prevalent a school of thought, the idea that humans have no will, no intent, or no choice? Good grief, I just made a dozen different choices in choosing how to respond to this comment. If a person can make even trivial choices, deliberately make the slightest of differences - does not this idea that humanity is just a passive victim of environment and genetics lose all credibility?

Think about how anybody makes a decision. It all comes from experience, or some other component of their psychology. What might comprise free will? Decision-making is all based in the physical brain. If free will is supposed to be the ability to make decisions detached from that, it cannot exist. There is nothing, no outside factor, that might play a part. There is only one possible path that events may take, because the universe is a closed system and every single object within it has only one state at any given moment, and from there everything will progress naturally. The only way this may possibly be violated is through the randomness espoused by quantum physics, of which I am extremely skeptical.

 

[joal0503]

Plants still have bodies, and yes in some cases they're even capable of feeling and limited movement, that dosen't refute my point.

My point is that a disembodied mind, like a ghost, has no reason for its mind to exist unless it has a body of some description, and is that really a ghost?

just as motion is the process of a running engine, still without the engine there can be no motion, likewise without a brain there can be no mind.

A mind in absence of the brain wouldn't make sense, minds exist to look after and direct bodies, without a body a mind has no purpose, I mean who would you be if you could not move, see, speak, or do anything?

@Cognisant

i was refuting this. ^

if we apply this to plants...what would there 'engine' be? i

you say a mind requires a vehicle, be it an engine, a brain, whatever. something that actively is able to produce 'intelligence', requires a structure able to produce it. thats my understanding of your position.

so id say, what about plants? no identifiable 'brain' structure, but obviously a body of some sort..what would you attribute the limited amount of intelligence and 'mind' exhibited by plants in the absence of engine, brain, etc?

my issue is that for the most part, id whole heartedly agree with your position ...you need a concrete structure in able to produce spirit/mind....but then i see something like the plant kingdom, and i have to wonder about thepossibility that these plants are able to communicate/act/think/respond to their environment via some unknown process or brainless, undiscovered form of existence, and then it just opens a personal can of worms.

 

[Cognisant]

I just think you've gone off the deep end.

A venus fly trap can feel the fly on its petals and close them, but that's just a simple mechanistic response, it's no more contemplative than a mousetrap, it doesn't think, it doesn't evaluate the sensation of the fly crawling on it, because it doesn't have to, the stimuli excites sensory receptors and beyond a given threshold of stimulation the trap closes, it's not fucking magic

I can build exactly the same thing out of analog circuitry, heck mate I can do more, I can make little BEAM robots that follow light sources to feed themselves, and the positive and negative bias in its reaction to stimuli is no different to how we feel pleasure and pain, does that mean it has a mind, does that mean it has a soul, does that make me a fucking god?

You tell me.

What frustrates me is I know how pointless this discussion is, if you want to believe souls exist then I cannot possibly educate you enough, because as long as you have an iota of ignorance you will find room for some excuse, so sure mate it's magic, it's all fucking magic, unicorns, wizards, and a big bearded man in the sky.

 

[joal0503]

I just think you've gone off the deep end.

yes, proud to have

A venus fly trap can feel the fly on its petals and close them, but that's just a simple mechanistic response, it's no more contemplative than a mousetrap, it doesn't think, it doesn't evaluate the sensation of the fly crawling on it, because it doesn't have to, the stimuli excites sensory receptors and beyond a given threshold of stimulation the trap closes, it's not fucking magic

you didnt read that article i linked, did you?

I can build exactly the same thing out of analog circuitry, heck mate I can do more, I can make little BEAM robots that follow light sources to feed themselves, and the positive and negative bias in its reaction to stimuli is no different to how we feel pleasure and pain, does that mean it has a mind, does that mean it has a soul, does that make me a fucking god?

machines are not living organisms, if you ever are able to make one of those, then i can consider this as an argument

You tell me.

What frustrates me is I know how pointless this discussion is, if you want to believe souls exist then I cannot possibly educate you enough, because as long as you have an iota of ignorance you will find room for some excuse, so sure mate it's magic, it's all fucking magic, unicorns, wizards, and a big bearded man in the sky.

the sentiment of changing perception is mutual it does seem futile...but im not trying to change your mind. just more or less guaging opinions of other people out there and discussing the possibilities surrounding the topic. Probably my own fault for not conveying that clearly enough, and ill just point out magic unicorns and wizards are not my thing

reeeeed

 

[Cognisant]

machines are not living organisms, if you ever are able to make one of those, then i can consider this as an argument

Define "living" and I will.

Heck I can probably point you to a machine that already exists.

 

[joal0503]

Define "living" and I will.

Heck I can probably point you to a machine that already exists.

i wont define 'living', as the word i WILL define encompasses it inside its own definition. unless you were just trying to trick me into an easily refutable rebuttal...hmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

An organism may be either unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many cells) describes any organism made up of more than one cell.

 

[Cognisant]

In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

Response to stimuli is easy enough.

Reproduction, there's factory bot's that build factory bots, you may argue that they build them from very specific materials, but well so do we, as much as a factory gets its materials from smelters and such we require developed organic material to consume, without a supporting ecosystem humans wouldn't be able to reproduce either.

Growth, well unless we're strictly talking about cellular division, there are plenty of modular robots that can be "grown" by the addition of modules, or someone could build a robot intelligent enough to modify itself, a difficult but not impossible task.

Development, well again that's pretty ambiguous, but there's plenty of AIs that can learn and develop more complex/optimal behaviours, and the afore mention self modification bot could modify itself to perform different tasks.

Maintenance, if anything machines are better at this than we are, if so designed they can just swap out parts, then there's shape memory materials and regenerative metals if you want something more obviously analogous to biological healing.

Homeostasis as a stable whole, the heck does that even mean?

 

[joal0503]

to me theres a clear distinction between organisms and machines...but i will say the future, synthetic biology...the infusion of aspects from both combined with other related fields, is most definitely possible and intriguing as hell.

 

[just george]

The mind does not exist as a thing in of itself but rather a process, the brain is not the mind, rather it is what the brain does, just as motion is the process of a running engine, still without the engine there can be no motion, likewise without a brain there can be no mind.

How can you be sure?

A mind in absence of the brain wouldn't make sense, minds exist to look after and direct bodies, without a body a mind has no purpose, I mean who would you be if you could not move, see, speak, or do anything?

Your question is flawed. The correct thing to ask is what would you be, if you could not move, see, speak, or do anything. A westerner would answer with the word "observer", while an easterner would likely say something a little different.

 

[Nezaros]

As much sense as physicalism makes I have to question it. An organism with no properties beyond the apparent physical wouldn't technically possess consciousness. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical zombie) But I know for a fact that I am a consciousness, my mind is rooted to the same human being it has been rooted to for the past eighteen years. I can't say for sure that other people possess consciousness, and I can't even say for sure that those eighteen years actually happened; by the time I hit post I may very well have imagined typing all this.

But at any given moment the present is certain, and at present I am in a human body. I don't have the faintest idea how I ended up here out of all the billions of people that have ever existed on planet Earth, or out of every single living organism in this galaxy or any other, and I don't know what will become of my consciousness once it ceases to inhabit this body. Simply evaporate? Sounds unlikely. Nearly fourteen billion years of existence thus far and I personally experience a few decades of it at some arbitrary point in time and then completely vanish?

Wishful thinking aside, that's incredibly implausible. And the idea of an afterlife is even moreso. Nothingness into short somethingness into eternal floating about? Yeah, no. The only possibility that carries an iota of plausibility is the existence of a continuously reincarnating soul.

 

[joal0503]

Wishful thinking aside, that's incredibly implausible. And the idea of an afterlife is even moreso. Nothingness into short somethingness into eternal floating about? Yeah, no. The only possibility that carries an iota of plausibility is the existence of a continuously reincarnating soul.

interesting...you completely dismiss presence in a dimension...but are open to the possibility that it changes via reincarnation...hmmmm...

multiverses. possibility that a spirit goes on to exist in another dimension AS a form of reincarnation?

 

[Cognisant]

Stalin was too tolerant and Hitler was an underachiever.

Someday, somehow, I will kill all the stupid people.

 

[joal0503]

Stalin was too tolerant and Hitler was an underachiever.

Someday, somehow, I will kill all the stupid people.

after the day of cognisance, can i be your boots shiner?

 

[Cognisant]

Your skull can crunch pleasantly beneath my hyper-alloy toes.

 

[Nezaros]

interesting...you completely dismiss presence in a dimension...but are open to the possibility that it changes via reincarnation...hmmmm...

multiverses. possibility that a spirit goes on to exist in another dimension AS a form of reincarnation?

I suppose that's possible but there's still the issue of where the spirit was prior to moving into a living body.

Stalin was too tolerant and Hitler was an underachiever.

Someday, somehow, I will kill all the stupid people.

Just add cyanide to the McRib sauce. Or release an airborne neurotoxin at all sporting events.

 

[Da Blob]

humans have access to 7 POVs, each valid . Unfortunately, few bother to change their POV from the default setting, Ego...

Minds Viewing Brains
[bimgx=700]http://intpforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1928&stc=1&d=1360009280[/bimgx]