RE: A Conscious Universe
February 4, 2015 at 12:22 pm
(This post was last modified: February 4, 2015 at 12:34 pm by ManMachine.)
(February 3, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Surgenator Wrote:(February 3, 2015 at 7:45 pm)ManMachine Wrote: 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
You're committing the fallacy of division. Just because A is composite of B's doesn't mean the property A has, B also has. A process REQUIRES interactions, things do NOT.
Well of course A does not have the same properties as B? Otherwise it's not a process.
Yes, a process requires interactions, as stated above (as identified by Chas).
So back to my point, you claim 'thought' is an identity we give to a particular process - fine, no problem with that so far - and by that definition, needs an interaction - again no problem with that.
Then we come to your statement (paraphrased) - bear in mind I began my point on a Quantum Level - "... 'things' do NOT [require interactions]". (square parenthesis's mine)
Given that you and those that have shown support for your posts are among the people who I consider to have a better grasp of QM in this forum, can you or anyone else give me an example of any 'thing' that is not, on a Quantum Level, in a state of perpetual quantum (procedural) flux?
If you can, I'll accept your definition, acknowledge the distinction and concede the point.
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)
