Lets stop debating on God. Does Love exist ?

[ChristineM]

Maybe so, but conditional care is different than non conditional care.

I would like to see an MRI scan showing the difference.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The basic building blocks of life are found in space, already assembled so the odds are not that high.



The idealism vs materialism is an ongoing debate.


"Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a 17th-century German philosopher, and mathematician, did not specifically prove that the mind is separate from the brain. However, he did propose a concept called "Monadology," which is a metaphysical theory about the nature of reality that could be interpreted as supporting the idea of the mind being separate from the brain.


Leibniz believed that the universe was composed of simple, indivisible, and immaterial entities called "monads." Each monad represents a unique perspective of the world and is independent of other monads. Monads are not physical entities, like neurons in the brain, and they are not reducible to simpler components.


According to Leibniz's Monadology, monads can be seen as the fundamental constituents of both material objects and immaterial minds. In this sense, one could argue that Leibniz's monads might be seen as supporting the idea that the mind is separate from the brain. However, this interpretation would be a philosophical stance rather than a scientific proof.


It is important to note that the concepts of mind and brain were not as clearly defined in Leibniz's time as they are today. Modern neuroscience and cognitive science have advanced our understanding of the relationship between the brain and the mind considerably, and there is ongoing debate about the nature of consciousness and the mind-brain relationship."


does idealism prove materialism cannot be true


"Idealism and materialism are two opposing philosophical views about the nature of reality. Idealism posits that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial, while materialism asserts that reality is fundamentally physical or material. These positions represent contrasting perspectives, but the existence of one does not necessarily disprove the other.


The debate between idealism and materialism has been ongoing for centuries, and it is unlikely to be resolved definitively. Both positions have their strengths and weaknesses, and they appeal to different aspects of human experience and understanding.


Idealism can provide compelling explanations for certain phenomena, such as the nature of consciousness and subjective experience. For example, idealists might argue that our conscious experiences are proof of the existence of a non-physical, mental reality.


On the other hand, materialism has been successful in explaining a wide range of empirical observations, particularly in the natural sciences. The progress in fields like physics, chemistry, and biology has largely been based on the assumption that the natural world is composed of material entities that follow predictable laws.


Ultimately, whether one believes that idealism proves materialism cannot be true depends on one's philosophical inclinations and worldview. It is important to recognize that both idealism and materialism have contributed valuable insights to human understanding, and the ongoing dialogue between these positions can help deepen our knowledge of reality."

Idealism and materialism are assumed to be mutually exclusive perspectives or philosophical positions, but perhaps they just two different ways of looking at the same reality. Attempts have been made to integrate them, one example being Participatory Realism, articulated here by Christopher Fuchs https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360v3.pdf

The premise here is that objective reality does exist independently of us, but that all conscious observers have a role in defining reality, by virtue of being active participants therein. Integrated Information Theory, which I linked to in post #157, is another attempt to address a self-evident conundrum; that reality is necessarily always more than any third person perspective can ever capture.

The notion that we can observe the universe, or any phenomenon, as if we were outside it looking on, belongs to the old Newtonian physics. It is necessarily incomplete at extremes of scale (quantum or cosmological). At some point an account has to be given for perspective, and in particular for the unique, conscious perspective, of the observer.

The measurement problem Measurement problem - Wikipedia in QM has prompted nearly a century of speculation among philosophically inclined theoretical physicists. Eugene Wigner's assertion that the consciousness of the observer causes the collapse of the wave function, is very much a marginal interpretation, but it isn't the wackiest, by any means. The issue in a nutshell is that observed particles appear to behave differently than unobserved particles, if indeed an unobserved particle can be said to have any meaningful existence at all, until it is measured.

Wherever our consideration of reality causes us to wander, we arrive at the seemingly irresolvable problem; that the object, the observer, and the act of observation are inseparable, and distinctions between them always more or less arbitrary (which will make perfect sense to anyone inclined towards philosophical monism).

 

[joelr]

Idealism and materialism are assumed to be mutually exclusive perspectives or philosophical positions, but perhaps they just two different ways of looking at the same reality. Attempts have been made to integrate them, one example being Participatory Realism, articulated here by Christopher Fuchs https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360v3.pdf

The premise here is that objective reality does exist independently of us, but that all conscious observers have a role in defining reality, by virtue of being active participants therein. Integrated Information Theory, which I linked to in post #157, is another attempt to address a self-evident conundrum; that reality is necessarily always more than any third person perspective can ever capture.

Yes I think one solution is quantum mechanics. Berkely was correct the material world was not as real as we thought. There is a quantum field of probabilities and a measurement seems to collapse a state. It doesn't require a soul. It just requires consciousness.

The notion that we can observe the universe, or any phenomenon, as if we were outside it looking on, belongs to the old Newtonian physics. It is necessarily incomplete at extremes of scale (quantum or cosmological). At some point an account has to be given for perspective, and in particular for the unique, conscious perspective, of the observer.

The measurement problem Measurement problem - Wikipedia in QM has prompted nearly a century of speculation among philosophically inclined theoretical physicists. Eugene Wigner's assertion that the consciousness of the observer causes the collapse of the wave function, is very much a marginal interpretation, but it isn't the wackiest, by any means. The issue in a nutshell is that observed particles appear to behave differently than unobserved particles, if indeed an unobserved particle can be said to have any meaningful existence at all, until it is measured.

It could be that Many Worlds is the answer, which Sean Carroll supports and shows the math is fairly simple.
It could be consciousness causes a frame of reference similar to photons where in one frame they are outside of time and experience no causality and from our frame they take time to get from one location to another.
It doesn't need to be a soul that is collapsing wavefunctions.

Wherever our consideration of reality causes us to wander, we arrive at the seemingly irresolvable problem; that the object, the observer, and the act of observation are inseparable, and distinctions between them always more or less arbitrary (which will make perfect sense to anyone inclined towards philosophical monism).

Yes there are many ideas that come from this, although the science isn't complete. I just don't think it is something to be used as a proof that everything is mind which goes back to one mind being God. It's not impossible but not a proof of anything. There is more to understand in these fields.

 

[ppp]

Yes I think one solution is quantum mechanics. Berkely was correct the material world was not as real as we thought. There is a quantum field of probabilities and a measurement seems to collapse a state. It doesn't require a soul. It just requires consciousness.

I am unaware of any peer reviewed work that provides evidence for state collapse requiring consciousness. Just an interaction with a macroscopic system.

 

[DNB]

Hi atheist !
Lets stop debating on God.

Now the question is:
Does love exist ? what do you say ?

Not without God.

 

[joelr]

I am unaware of any peer reviewed work that provides evidence for state collapse requiring consciousness. Just an interaction with a macroscopic system.

The original Copenhagen Interpretation required consciousness, it was later revised to just include a measurement which does not require consciousness. It could be many worlds or decoherence.
I'm saying there that even if consciousness is somehow related it doesn't prove a soul, it just shows consciousness can observe a frame of reference where one probability plays out.
Consciousness is not part of modern physics in any known way. The mystery of collapse makes it seem like it might be but we don't know.
This is the conclusion of Fred Kuttner, Bruce Rosenblum, a physicist and a mathematician professor in the book Quantum Enigma.
Others like Sean Carroll would say it's completely solved by many-worlds or steady state theory.

But to be fair I was responding to your post which said "The premise here is that objective reality does exist independently of us, but that all conscious observers have a role in defining reality, by virtue of being active participants therein. "

So I was speaking in your terms, consciousness has a role in defining reality, not saying it's part of an accepted theory in QM?
So to pull that "peer-reviewed " BS was kind of lame.

 

[ppp]

The original Copenhagen Interpretation required consciousness

Bohr and Heisenberg's work did not explicitly require consciousness. You are looking at some of the philosophical debates that their work sparked and attempting to assign those philosophical inferences back to the originals Copenhagen interpretation.

Consciousness is not part of modern physics in any known way.

Correct.

But to be fair I was responding to your post which said "The premise here is that objective reality does exist independently of us, but that all conscious observers have a role in defining reality, by virtue of being active participants therein. "

So I was speaking in your terms, consciousness has a role in defining reality, not saying it's part of an accepted theory in QM?
So to pull that "peer-reviewed " BS was kind of lame.

You are conflating me with @RestlessSoul. A mistake that is both amusing and bizarre.

 

[joelr]

Bohr and Heisenberg's work did not explicitly require consciousness. You are looking at some of the philosophical debates that their work sparked and attempting to assign those philosophical inferences back to the originals Copenhagen interpretation.

I know what constitutes an observer wasn't stated and it might have been associated with "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, at any rate at some point I think it was upgraded to distance itself with consciousness completely.

You are conflating me with @RestlessSoul. A mistake that is both amusing and bizarre.

I'm dealing with long nonsense posts that go in circles and am rushed so yes I missed that.

 

[Audie]

Idealism and materialism are assumed to be mutually exclusive perspectives or philosophical positions, but perhaps they just two different ways of looking at the same reality. Attempts have been made to integrate them, one example being Participatory Realism, articulated here by Christopher Fuchs https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360v3.pdf

The premise here is that objective reality does exist independently of us, but that all conscious observers have a role in defining reality, by virtue of being active participants therein. Integrated Information Theory, which I linked to in post #157, is another attempt to address a self-evident conundrum; that reality is necessarily always more than any third person perspective can ever capture.

The notion that we can observe the universe, or any phenomenon, as if we were outside it looking on, belongs to the old Newtonian physics. It is necessarily incomplete at extremes of scale (quantum or cosmological). At some point an account has to be given for perspective, and in particular for the unique, conscious perspective, of the observer.

The measurement problem Measurement problem - Wikipedia in QM has prompted nearly a century of speculation among philosophically inclined theoretical physicists. Eugene Wigner's assertion that the consciousness of the observer causes the collapse of the wave function, is very much a marginal interpretation, but it isn't the wackiest, by any means. The issue in a nutshell is that observed particles appear to behave differently than unobserved particles, if indeed an unobserved particle can be said to have any meaningful existence at all, until it is measured.

Wherever our consideration of reality causes us to wander, we arrive at the seemingly irresolvable problem; that the object, the observer, and the act of observation are inseparable, and distinctions between them always more or less arbitrary (which will make perfect sense to anyone inclined towards philosophical monism).

Who are "we'? This sounds like your
problem.