Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What comes first, mind or matter?
102 views
Skip to first unread message
Otangelo Grasso
Feb 20, 2016, 12:24:47 PM2/20/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
What comes first, mind or matter?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1380-what-comes-first-mind-or-matter
The argument of the mind of all matter in the universe
1. "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'the notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'"
2. The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe's nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe what is for atheists the unbelievable -- that the Universe is mental.
3. According to Sir James Jeans an astronomer, mathematician and physicists of Princeton University: "the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
4. Matter cannot produce mind but rather a thoughtful mind can produce structures of matter. If we leave all the molecules or atoms of the brain on a pile under Mother Nature's sky no brain or mind will ever be produced by thunderbolts, high pressures or typhoons. But a person with a mind can create e.g. a computer.
5. This means mind pre-existed to matter.
6. A mind is a property of a person and the mind of the universe can only be God's.
7. God exists.
- Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Eugene Wigner, theoretical physicist and mathematician. He received a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963
"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."
what about R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , "The Mental Universe" ; Nature 436:29,2005) ? He wrote:
"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a "mental" construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: "The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."
Newton called light "particles", knowing the concept to be an 'effective theory' -- useful, not true. As noted by Newton's biographer Richard Westfall:
"The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'" Newton knew of Newton's rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called 'wave/particle duality'.
As Sir Arthur Eddington explained:
"It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character."
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1380-what-comes-first-mind-or-matter
The argument of the mind of all matter in the universe
1. "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'the notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'"
2. The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the Universe's nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe what is for atheists the unbelievable -- that the Universe is mental.
3. According to Sir James Jeans an astronomer, mathematician and physicists of Princeton University: "the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
4. Matter cannot produce mind but rather a thoughtful mind can produce structures of matter. If we leave all the molecules or atoms of the brain on a pile under Mother Nature's sky no brain or mind will ever be produced by thunderbolts, high pressures or typhoons. But a person with a mind can create e.g. a computer.
5. This means mind pre-existed to matter.
6. A mind is a property of a person and the mind of the universe can only be God's.
7. God exists.
- Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
Eugene Wigner, theoretical physicist and mathematician. He received a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963
"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness."
what about R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University , "The Mental Universe" ; Nature 436:29,2005) ? He wrote:
"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a "mental" construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: "The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."
Newton called light "particles", knowing the concept to be an 'effective theory' -- useful, not true. As noted by Newton's biographer Richard Westfall:
"The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'this notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves.'" Newton knew of Newton's rings and was untroubled by what is shallowly called 'wave/particle duality'.
As Sir Arthur Eddington explained:
"It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character."
Bill Rogers
Feb 20, 2016, 12:34:47 PM2/20/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus*
Feb 20, 2016, 12:54:47 PM2/20/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I find it problematic to look at physical quirkiness and jump to a
mentalistic conclusion. Sure the double slit stuff as explained by
Hawking in _The Grand Design_ is weird and over my wee brain. I'm not
going to allow my ignorance to prompt me into mentalism. Humans have
mind-brains. We are wired to attribute such to others, including the
inanimate. When I've bonked my noggin on a trunk lid, I felt my car was
out to get me and was enraged. People do that. Are we warranted to jump
to conclusions that because trunk lids are sentient, so is the universe?
Mind is a product of matter (brainstuff wetware). The causal arrows
don't go the other way, despite your wishful thinking. And as for this
webpage you keep linking and (cut/paste?) I choose to be, on return on
investment AND opportunity costs considerations, to remain rationally
ignorant. I'd rather re-read Dennett's _DDI_.
Now this heuristic shortcut of agency attribution can be a sort of foil
to explore, as Coyne does in _Why Evolution is True_. It's a global
sentient optimality (intelligent design argument) to subvert with so
many examples of local suboptimality around us. I call it biotheodicy,
an antidote to IDiocy.
RonO
Feb 20, 2016, 2:34:47 PM2/20/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
scrutiny or are you misinterpreting something? How did you verify your
interpretation?
Ron Okimoto
Kalkidas
Feb 20, 2016, 3:39:46 PM2/20/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2/20/2016 10:21 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> What comes first, mind or matter?
>
>
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1380-what-comes-first-mind-or-matter
>
>
>
> The argument of the mind of all matter in the universe
> 1. "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'the notion of
bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute and independent reality
in themselves.'"
of atheism is envy of God.
> 2. The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem of the
Universe's nature. Bright physicists were again led to believe what is
for atheists the unbelievable -- that the Universe is mental.
form by God's intent.
> 3. According to Sir James Jeans an astronomer, mathematician and
physicists of Princeton University: "the stream of knowledge is heading
towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like
a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be
an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail
it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
well.
> 4. Matter cannot produce mind but rather a thoughtful mind can
produce structures of matter. If we leave all the molecules or atoms of
the brain on a pile under Mother Nature's sky no brain or mind will ever
be produced by thunderbolts, high pressures or typhoons. But a person
with a mind can create e.g. a computer.
> 5. This means mind pre-existed to matter.
> 6. A mind is a property of a person and the mind of the universe can
only be God's.
call "matter", but material nonetheless. Again, he is confused and is
using "mind" in too broad a sense.
> 7. God exists.
Duh.
Mark Isaak
Feb 20, 2016, 3:49:46 PM2/20/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2/20/16 9:21 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
> What comes first, mind or matter?
>
> What comes first, mind or matter?
>
> The argument of the mind of all matter in the universe
> 1. "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'the
> notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute
> and independent reality in themselves.'"
> 2. The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem
> of the Universe's nature. Bright physicists were again led to
> believe what is for atheists the unbelievable -- that the
> Universe is mental.
Not even close to true.
> 1. "The ultimate cause of atheism, Newton asserted, is 'the
> notion of bodies having, as it were, a complete, absolute
> and independent reality in themselves.'"
> 2. The 1925 discovery of quantum mechanics solved the problem
> of the Universe's nature. Bright physicists were again led to
> believe what is for atheists the unbelievable -- that the
> Universe is mental.
> 3. [...]
> 4. Matter cannot produce mind but rather a thoughtful mind
> can produce structures of matter.
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
> can produce structures of matter.
> 5. This means mind pre-existed to matter.
> 6. A mind is a property of a person and the mind of the universe can only be God's.
> 7. God exists.
'That I am cursed by them.' " - Aristophanes
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good
intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack
understanding." - Albert Camus, _The Plague_
John Stockwell
Feb 23, 2016, 12:04:40 PM2/23/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The "observer" in quantum mechanics is an object that is governed by the rules of classical physics, such as a laboratory apparatus. It has nothing to do with a "conscious observer".
Whatever "mind" might be, there is no evidence that it is separate
(and considerable evidence that it cannot be separate) from the brain.
-John
Whatever "mind" might be, there is no evidence that it is separate
(and considerable evidence that it cannot be separate) from the brain.
-John
Dale
Feb 25, 2016, 4:04:29 PM2/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
John Stockwell wrote:
> The "observer" in quantum mechanics is an object that is governed by the
> rules of classical physics, such as a laboratory apparatus. It has nothing
> to do with a "conscious observer".
>
> Whatever "mind" might be, there is no evidence that it is separate
> (and considerable evidence that it cannot be separate) from the brain.
>
> -John
>
has consciousness ever been isolated or independently reproduced? if not it
> The "observer" in quantum mechanics is an object that is governed by the
> rules of classical physics, such as a laboratory apparatus. It has nothing
> to do with a "conscious observer".
>
> Whatever "mind" might be, there is no evidence that it is separate
> (and considerable evidence that it cannot be separate) from the brain.
>
> -John
>
remains a another singularity in culpable terms, since it may be capable of
abstraction it might not even be culpable with logic or mathematics or the
scientific process
for instance an abstract consciousness might be a set with negative
ordinality
consciousness is a factor, lab apparatus can be represented as part of the
wave equation
I don't think consciousness is the mind, a "mind" merely "minds" things,
even plants mind their sensory functions
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
John Stockwell
Feb 25, 2016, 4:39:31 PM2/25/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Look up the "neural correlates of consciousness" which are observations
that strongly support the notion that consciousness is a product of neural activity.
No. There is no reason to believe that there is any effect from the consciousness of the experimenter in QM experiments.
QM is often counter intuitive, but it is not woo.
-John
that strongly support the notion that consciousness is a product of neural activity.
No. There is no reason to believe that there is any effect from the consciousness of the experimenter in QM experiments.
QM is often counter intuitive, but it is not woo.
-John
Dale
Feb 26, 2016, 6:29:30 PM2/26/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
John Stockwell wrote:
> Look up the "neural correlates of consciousness" which are observations
> that strongly support the notion that consciousness is a product of neural
> activity.
does it stand the causal test? perhaps neural activity is a product of
> Look up the "neural correlates of consciousness" which are observations
> that strongly support the notion that consciousness is a product of neural
> activity.
consciousness
>
> No. There is no reason to believe that there is any effect from the
> consciousness of the experimenter in QM experiments.
many worlds fails the statistical test in that if every probability is 100%
then all probabilities is over 100%
transactional fails the same way, if all probabilities go forward and
backward in time then you have 300% probability, you have the present,
future and past
you can't have more than 100%, you can't have less than 100%
there is no other interpretation left besides copenhagen
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
John Stockwell
Mar 2, 2016, 12:39:13 PM3/2/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:29:30 PM UTC-7, Dale wrote:
> John Stockwell wrote:
>
> > Look up the "neural correlates of consciousness" which are observations
> > that strongly support the notion that consciousness is a product of neural
> > activity.
>
> does it stand the causal test? perhaps neural activity is a product of
> consciousness
So far as we know neural activity is consciousness.
> John Stockwell wrote:
>
> > Look up the "neural correlates of consciousness" which are observations
> > that strongly support the notion that consciousness is a product of neural
> > activity.
>
> does it stand the causal test? perhaps neural activity is a product of
> consciousness
>
>
> >
> > No. There is no reason to believe that there is any effect from the
> > consciousness of the experimenter in QM experiments.
>
> what other variable is left?
>
> many worlds fails the statistical test in that if every probability is 100%
> then all probabilities is over 100%
>
> transactional fails the same way, if all probabilities go forward and
> backward in time then you have 300% probability, you have the present,
> future and past
>
> you can't have more than 100%, you can't have less than 100%
>
> there is no other interpretation left besides copenhagen
All attempts to shoot down QM have failed. No need to add mystical
mumbo jumbo.
-John
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
scienceci...@gmail.com
Mar 3, 2016, 1:44:09 PM3/3/16
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"...physics is the present-day equivalent of what used to be called 'natural philosophy".
Richard P Feynman
Aristotle recorded the beginning of 'natural philosophy' taking hold from about 600-500 BC. Mind was not related in that history. Matter was. Even today matter is known by its divisibility to scales the Greeks had no way of knowing. So there is a continuous theme about it in history. Mind logged in much later, around 1500-1600. But is mind even a phenomenon? Not really. Wby? Because one cannot be conscious of consciousness. There is no scale for it. Phenomena must have scale.
SC RED
Richard P Feynman
Aristotle recorded the beginning of 'natural philosophy' taking hold from about 600-500 BC. Mind was not related in that history. Matter was. Even today matter is known by its divisibility to scales the Greeks had no way of knowing. So there is a continuous theme about it in history. Mind logged in much later, around 1500-1600. But is mind even a phenomenon? Not really. Wby? Because one cannot be conscious of consciousness. There is no scale for it. Phenomena must have scale.
SC RED
0 new messages