Ok I didn't hear the nihilistic part in your comment, but yeah if your creating your own meaning that kinda lends itself to nihilism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dead Matter to Live Aware Matter
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Nihilism as I use it is the position that there is no objective truth. Truths are just constructs created by man.
I see this as meaning I'm free to create the truth as I see fit. I see truth as relative. My truth doesn't have to be your truth.
I think objective truth exists even though we are not privy to it most of the time.
I can't say you're wrong. Just if we can't access it, it doesn't seem to matter much.
Personally it's all been said already. Anima Mundi simple as that. I can say it" like 2+2=4. But saying that does not give comprehension. Comprehension is an interesting topic to say the least.
I can articulate what anima mundi is I can go on and on. You can read what I said but that is not it. We can argue it, dissect it, philosophize about it abstract about it but that is not comprehension of it at all in any way shape or form. So the topic is easy and very difficult at the same time the problem is not with topic it's with us. In the beginning was the logos. Not hard and nearly impossible at the same time.
We do have access to plenty and the rabit hole just keeps getting crazier.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ellite-achieves-spooky-action-record-distance
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Going back to your statement that non-conscious does most the work but that's the case for anything in a deterministic universe. However their appears to be a deeper aspect appearing as non-determinism leaving room for cognitive choices.
What, exactly?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
keeping to some notion that life is aware.......
well then ...at what level?
if the form is small and primitive.....it would seek only what it can within reach
and if it has no reach....or sight....or hearing....
then it's awareness is only on point at a point of contact
completely reflexive and only reflexive ...on contact
but as long as it does react......
well then ...at what level?
if the form is small and primitive.....it would seek only what it can within reach
and if it has no reach....or sight....or hearing....
then it's awareness is only on point at a point of contact
completely reflexive and only reflexive ...on contact
but as long as it does react......
As far as I can tell about qm, electrons can be in two places at once and this pretty much established fact now with the spooky distance record being shattered in space. That shows a non-deterministic universe and it isn't just random either or that would be useless for quantum computer calculations.
QM is part of physics, and the physical sciences are my frame for materialism.
As for determinism, I freely acknowledge the possibility, though to the best of my knowledge it's not yet been demonstrated, that quantum effects may randomly alter processes of the brain.
I think brains could be quantum computers, they do simultaneous processing, a hallmark of quantum computing.
>This claim< from 2011 is the only one I'm aware of that claims to have demonstrated quantum effects being used by live creatures.
I'm not aware of that any claim of that kind has ever been demonstrated in human brain function.
But there's Roger Penrose's hypothesis in the original The Emperor's New Mind ─ that consciousness is due to unspecified quantum effects in 'microtubules' operating in an unspecified manner. Without ruling out the possibility that some parts of the brain or organs employ quantum effects, that particular one has always sounded like half-baked nonsense to me.
You may be familiar with this material >here<. As it says, only one of the hypotheses claims to be falsifiable ie scientific.
Last edited:
I think your over thinking that a bit but I know what your talking about. Just the fact that brains run on electricity is a quantum affect. You can't take the quantum out of energy.
Any entity in physics has a quantum aspect, but here the macro aspect is the important part. It's when the QM aspect becomes the important part that ... but you know this already.
Yea but I also think everything is really energy.
Excellent! That's my intuition too.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
I wonder where this popular notion came from. As far as I know, energy is not a substance but a shorthand way of keeping track of the states of objects. That makes word salad of your statement.
That's not really how I understand matter, the force exhibited from matter is gravity, almost an inverse of what we think energy is. As far as scientists can tell they are able to turn almost any atomic type into anything else like alchemy for atomisists.