RE: A Conscious Universe
February 3, 2015 at 7:45 pm
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2015 at 8:24 pm by ManMachine.)
(February 3, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Surgenator Wrote:(February 3, 2015 at 7:03 am)ManMachine Wrote: This is an extrapolation from available evidence. I accept there is talk at the moment that some fundamental particles may be divisible, notwithstanding that for the moment (ultimately it doesn't change my position just the make-up of the standard model) the standard model is considered to be the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
Electromagnetic force is part of the standard model and is part of what makes up of what we perceive of as 'matter' (such as the human brain), it also provides the electrical impulses that are our thoughts, however they manifest. Unless you are suggesting a more metaphysical construction, in which case I simply don't agree with you. That may seem like reductionism but the standard model is anything but simple.
MM
A thought/idea is a series of electrochemical processes in the brain. A fundamental particle is a thing. A process is fundamentally different from a thing. Eventhough a process is a composite of things, the things do not get the same properties as the process because the process requires interactions between things.
What arrant nonsense.
You need matter (or energy) to create a process
INPUT -> ACTION -> OUTPUT = PROCESS
When the INPUT is electrochemical, the ACTION is electrochemical/biochemical and the OUTPUT is electrochemical/biochemical how can thought not be made up of fundamental particles?
What results from this process is nothing more than can result from this process, regardless of whether or not we understand it. If you are suggesting a 'thought process' has some magical property not possessed by the interaction of its constituent parts then you're just making things up, and if you're not then you have no point to make.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
