PDA

View Full Version : Consciousness, physicalism, and the supernatural


candorgen
September 20th, 2016, 01:07 PM
As Flapjack has requested for this thread, I'm here to set out some starting details. The topics here are mostly being inspired by one of the offshoot discussions in that recent and fiery What's your view on abortion? thread, generally from post #175 to #186 (perhaps we need a dedicated historian for the events of the ROTW threads as it happens :D ).


So here are five questions I invite you to answer. For some of you it may appear obvious that an answer for one question entails a certain answer for another question, but for me I like to be open for discussing diverse ranges of viewpoints, such as an example of someone being a physicalist for human consciousness but who also believes in the 'supernatural' (it's possible).

________________


1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)


2: Do you also see all possible consciousness as necessarily requiring a physical cause? Are you a physicalist for all possible scenarios? (the boltzmann brain idea is fine to mention)


3: Do you see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature? Do you see there to be more than just physical existence? (e.g. the 'supernatural' / 'paranormal' / etc)

- - - - - - - -

These following questions are what motivate me the most here. I'd like to see exactly how some viewpoints are rooted:


4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?


4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?


[optional, but a perhaps-fun extra to answer:]
5: What does it mean for something to be real?

________________


Here's my contribution to this thread, as some thoughts to perhaps consider for those questions, quoting myself from that abortion thread:

Perceiving non-physical entities with features that correlate with features of communicating conscious beings, only suggest that the entities are conscious. Perceiving an entity to be vaguely communicating doesn't logically mean that the entity itself is conscious.


As it comes to mind, what does 'non-physical' (and physical) really mean? The physical world is widely held to have four dimensions as a fundamental base; if an entity is properly non-physical, then it should at least not be manifesting in any pattern of positions within these dimensions. Ghosts are perceived to appear in certain locations. Location is something all physicality has, 'above' the dimensions themselves.


How are ghosts non-physical if they follow ordered paths in dimensions, as well as producing visual and aural forms that can only be perceived by our sensory organs physically?


This whole 'physical'/'non-physical' distinction is getting somewhat vague in its exact definitions, if any.


Just because I perceive some consciousnesses not of physical sustenance/coincidence, doesn't mean that I can justifiably infer that all consciousnesses are necessarily not of physical sustenance/coincidence.


Seeing our consciousnesses in a physicalist manner doesn't give any stable credence to saying then that there is no such thing as ghosts/etc.


If ghosts are non-physical, then there is no way that physical entities can be used to scientifically test through physics for or against their existence. If that is how evidence is to be validated, then ghosts are not in the scope of validation or invalidation.


People believing in the paranormal/etc realm have the burden of explaining how non-physical ghosts really are, if they can intersect with the physical world enough to be seen in certain locations and such.


If 'soul' meant a non-physical entity of pure consciousness, then such scientific tests would get nowhere, as they're not looking right. 'Purely consciousness' needs some defining too though.


PlasmaHam Uniquemind ethan-s Vlerchan Arkansasguy Reise Porpoise101 Ghaem Living For Love

(I'm not intending to mention-spam people, rather only seeing who might be interested in this compared to others, apologies if I saw wrong.)

dxcxdzv
September 20th, 2016, 02:07 PM
1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)


Yes, I do.

2: Do you also see all possible consciousness as necessarily requiring a physical cause? Are you a physicalist for all possible scenarios? (the boltzmann brain idea is fine to mention)

Yes, I do.


3: Do you see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature? Do you see there to be more than just physical existence? (e.g. the 'supernatural' / 'paranormal' / etc)

I see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature.


4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?

This question can pretty much summarize the previous ones.
If something exists, it is physical.
I don't hold it as an affirmation, if it exists it's de facto of physical nature, more than something that physics can explain it's just that reality is physics.
What is existence, it's being physical, what is physical, it's existing.
I don't see why some differentiations are needed to support some hypothesis like God, ghosts or things like that (religious guys triggered).


4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?

Not existing. Though this is pretty tricky here, for example an abstract concept. Can it be resumed to the neuronal interpretation/comprehension of this concept? Or does this concept holds a sort of "truth" independent from whatever interpretation or whatever strictly physical thing can be involved into it?
For example mathematics, basic mathematics. 1+1 = 2.
Okay this is... obvious, this does not require one individual to technically imagine it to be real. 1+1 = 2 is obvious and is a "truth" in itself as completely detached from any referential whether it is physic or mental.
This is the concept of Unit then, does the concept of Unit needs a clear physical representation (whether it is by the existence of "things", "units" like rocks and thus number of rocks or the mental reasoning made by a living being)?
Well, the concept is technically true but does not exist in the absence of any physical object.
If this looks like bullshits, don't worry it's totally normal.


5: What does it mean for something to be real?
as said above, i don't apply any real distinction between "reality" and "existence", I may be wrong though.
Everything in the Universe is physical, it does not mean though that it can't be a motherfucking hardcore stuff technically unsolvable. Like undecidable problems.

Ghaem
September 20th, 2016, 02:21 PM
1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)

My answer. Definitely no.

2: Do you also see all possible consciousness as necessarily requiring a physical cause? Are you a physicalist for all possible scenarios? (the boltzmann brain idea is fine to mention)

My answer. Definitely no, but I believe in necessity of Physics involvement.

3: Do you see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature? Do you see there to be more than just physical existence? (e.g. the 'supernatural' / 'paranormal' / etc)

My answer: Physics is JUST one layer of whole Existence not all of it. So if something cannot be determined by physics it does not make it supernatural. Rather out of physics.
- - - - - - - -

These following questions are what motivate me the most here. I'd like to see exactly how some viewpoints are rooted:


4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?

My answer: Absolute Passiveness and Full Determinism.

4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?

My answer: Relative Activeness and Relative Freedom.

[optional, but a perhaps-fun extra to answer:]

5: What does it mean for something to be real?

Something which has no chance to be considered None. When I say no chance it means no chance.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 03:37 PM
As @Flapjack (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122060) has requested for this thread, I'm here to set out some starting details. The topics here are mostly being inspired by one of the offshoot discussions in that recent and fiery What's your view on abortion? thread, generally from post #175 to #186 (perhaps we need a dedicated historian for the events of the ROTW threads as it happens :D ).
yesss after wring war and peace to Vlerchan I can post here aha xD

1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)
Yep I am 100% a physicallist :') I am honestly very open minded to this but as it stands now I am certain that our consciousness is just the reactions between ions and electons and chemicals and cells :)

1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)
Yep I am 100% a physicallist :') I am honestly very open minded to this but as it stands now I am certain that our consciousness is just the reactions between ions and electons and chemicals and cells :)

4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?

Something that obeys the current established laws of physics.

1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)
Yep I am 100% a physicallist :') I am honestly very open minded to this but as it stands now I am certain that our consciousness is just the reactions between ions and electons and chemicals and cells :)

4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?

I believe that if such a thing was proved that it would then become physical if that makes sense? :P I mean physical in the sense it obeys the laws of physics which I think is the context you're using the word in :)

1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)
Yep I am 100% a physicallist :') I am honestly very open minded to this but as it stands now I am certain that our consciousness is just the reactions between ions and electons and chemicals and cells :)

5: What does it mean for something to be real?

For it to be real it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but for it to be real I guess it would mean accepted by people as correct?:P

PlasmaHam
September 20th, 2016, 04:42 PM
For it to be real it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but for it to be real I guess it would mean accepted by people as correct?:P
People thought for years that the world was flat. Does that mean that the Earth being flat was real? Your view is very odd when you say that a general consensus automatically makes something real. That is somewhat similar to cultural relativism, the idea that society is always correct. That idea falls flat on it's face.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 04:51 PM
People thought for years that the world was flat. Does that mean that the Earth being flat was real? Your view is very odd when you say that a general consensus automatically makes something real. That is somewhat similar to cultural relativism, the idea that society is always correct. That idea falls flat on it's face.
Was the earth being flat proven beyond a reasonable doubt or assumed?

Porpoise101
September 20th, 2016, 05:27 PM
1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)
Yes, but I believe something caused physics.

2: Do you also see all possible consciousness as necessarily requiring a physical cause? Are you a physicalist for all possible scenarios? (the boltzmann brain idea is fine to mention)
I don't know all possible consciousness.

3: Do you see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature? Do you see there to be more than just physical existence? (e.g. the 'supernatural' / 'paranormal' / etc)
Yes, as a living human, it is all physical. As a transient/dead human, no.
- - - - - - - -

These following questions are what motivate me the most here. I'd like to see exactly how some viewpoints are rooted:


4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?
Physical means observable to me.

4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?
Non physical is non-observable. It means that it exists in the mind or on another level of reality itself. To me, the absence of physicality is abstraction.

Living For Love
September 21st, 2016, 04:55 AM
1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist?
Yea, I guess.

2: Do you also see all possible consciousness as necessarily requiring a physical cause? Are you a physicalist for all possible scenarios?
Not necessarily.

3: Do you see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature? Do you see there to be more than just physical existence?
I believe in miracles, so no.

4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?
Relating to the body as opposed to the mind, relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.

4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?
Not relating to or concerning the body, not tangible or concrete.

5: What does it mean for something to be real?
Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

candorgen
September 24th, 2016, 03:58 PM
I see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature.

[...]

Everything in the Universe is physical, it does not mean though that it can't be a motherfucking hardcore stuff technically unsolvable. Like undecidable problems.

Unicorns are things. Are they physical too?

What is the difference between me imagining redness, me seeing redness, and the conjunction of 650 nm wavelength light with my eyes?


If something exists, it is physical.
I don't hold it as an affirmation, if it exists it's de facto of physical nature, more than something that physics can explain it's just that reality is physics.
What is existence, it's being physical, what is physical, it's existing.

So 'physicality', 'existence' and 'reality' are all one and the same for you, correct?


I don't see why some differentiations are needed to support some hypothesis like God, ghosts or things like that (religious guys triggered).

Does this include psychological entities?


[T]his is pretty tricky here, for example an abstract concept. Can it be resumed to the neuronal interpretation/comprehension of this concept? Or does this concept holds a sort of "truth" independent from whatever interpretation or whatever strictly physical thing can be involved into it?
For example mathematics, basic mathematics. 1+1 = 2.
Okay this is... obvious, this does not require one individual to technically imagine it to be real. 1+1 = 2 is obvious and is a "truth" in itself as completely detached from any referential whether it is physic or mental.
This is the concept of Unit then, does the concept of Unit needs a clear physical representation (whether it is by the existence of "things", "units" like rocks and thus number of rocks or the mental reasoning made by a living being)?
Well, the concept is technically true but does not exist in the absence of any physical object.
If this looks like bullshits, don't worry it's totally normal.

Let me say that a physical apple is a certain distribution of mass-energy in a roundish form that reflects either red or green light, as a crude picture.

Can I also say that an imagined apple is completely different, being a certain distribution of neurochemical form in one's brain?

________________

Definitely no, but I believe in necessity of Physics involvement.

So certain physics is necessarily conjunct with consciousness for you then, right?

Why not all physics?


Physics is JUST one layer of whole Existence not all of it. So if something cannot be determined by physics it does not make it supernatural. Rather out of physics.

Do you see there to be a pattern of conjunction between certain physical processes and certain states of consciousness?

If so, if one knows a good list of states of consciousnesses and their conjunctions with certain physical processes, then can one not determine the other (i.e. physics determining consciousness)?


Absolute Passiveness and Full Determinism.

What do you mean by passiveness (and activeness) here?

Is e.g. radioactivity (and a lot of quantum physics) therefore not physical, as its processes cannot be fully determined?


Relative Activeness and Relative Freedom.

Out of curiosity, is God that which is absolutely free, the non-physical relatively free, and the physical absolutely not free / bound?

What does freedom mean here?


Something which has no chance to be considered None. When I say no chance it means no chance.

'None'?
________________

yesss after wring war and peace to Vlerchan I can post here aha xD

I imagine a declared war with Vlerchan would be a long and bitter one... *shudder*


Yep I am 100% a physicallist :') I am honestly very open minded to this but as it stands now I am certain that our consciousness is just the reactions between ions and electons and chemicals and cells :)

Let me see further what you mean by asking what you'd think of me then saying that electrons, chemicals and cells are nothing more than (and just are) consciousness.


Something that obeys the current established laws of physics.

I believe that if such a thing was proved that it would then become physical if that makes sense? :P I mean physical in the sense it obeys the laws of physics which I think is the context you're using the word in :)

[...]

For it to be real it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but for it to be real I guess it would mean accepted by people as correct?:P

So physicality is a quality whose extent is dependent on current scientific theory corroborations then? (i.e. it fluctuates)

An entity is physical if its presence and its variety of forms are all predicted by a certain set of physical 'laws', then.

Dark matter is therefore not physical, and neither is 4-dimensional spacetime itself (not its curvature, its very presence). Physical 'laws' presume the presence of 4-d spacetime, generally.
________________

Yes, but I believe something caused physics.

[...]

I don't know all possible consciousness.

Alright.


Yes, as a living human, it is all physical. As a transient/dead human, no.

So you see consciousness to not be bound by death then? As in it is present both before and 'after'.


Physical means observable to me.

Detected by the sense organs and perceived by the brain then?



Non physical is non-observable. It means that it exists in the mind or on another level of reality itself. To me, the absence of physicality is abstraction.


Relating to the body as opposed to the mind, relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.

[...]

Not relating to or concerning the body, not tangible or concrete.

What is your view on physical form only being observable when one already has concepts to subconsciously comprehend patterns out of the otherwise chaotic sensory qualities?
________________


Yea, I guess.

[...]

Not necessarily.

[...]

I believe in miracles, so no.

Interesting combination. :D



Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

Is that which is real not also imagined/supposed to be such? In other words, everything is imagined/supposed/thought anyway.

Living For Love
September 28th, 2016, 02:28 PM
What is your view on physical form only being observable when one already has concepts to subconsciously comprehend patterns out of the otherwise chaotic sensory qualities?
Something that can only be comprehended using senses can have a physical form (the wind, for instance).

Is that which is real not also imagined/supposed to be such? In other words, everything is imagined/supposed/thought anyway.
Not really. Right now there's a laptop in front of me, I'm not imagining it nor supposing it, it's indeed real, not a thought or mirage.

candorgen
September 30th, 2016, 09:40 PM
Something that can only be comprehended using senses can have a physical form (the wind, for instance).

Yes, we can only comprehend things directly through the senses, or indirectly through imagining them.

The same is with my mind/self though.


Not really. Right now there's a laptop in front of me, I'm not imagining it nor supposing it, it's indeed real, not a thought or mirage.

Could you not have a non-lucid dream where the laptop feels equally as real?
What about hallucinations, also?


That is somewhat similar to cultural relativism, the idea that society is always correct. That idea falls flat on it's face.

I imagine that you don't see consensus or coherence as reliable guides at all when it comes to searching for 'the Truth' then, am I correct?

What are you views relevant to this? If they're perhaps not within any significant consensus, then I am curious.

Uniquemind
October 3rd, 2016, 03:55 PM
So here are five questions I invite you to answer. For some of you it may appear obvious that an answer for one question entails a certain answer for another question, but for me I like to be open for discussing diverse ranges of viewpoints, such as an example of someone being a physicalist for human consciousness but who also believes in the 'supernatural' (it's possible).

________________


1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)

No, but I do hold a belief that consciousness if it is to be stable, is a marriage between the physical world and spiritual one, and that the intersection is within various energy-wave lengths, which is why paranormal investigators get SOME kind of data when using physical instruments, albeit inconsistent data, that tap in to the electromagnetic spectrum.

2: Do you also see all possible consciousness as necessarily requiring a physical cause? Are you a physicalist for all possible scenarios? (the boltzmann brain idea is fine to mention)

No.


3: Do you see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature? Do you see there to be more than just physical existence? (e.g. the 'supernatural' / 'paranormal' / etc)

No, I see that the entirety of existence is physical and beyond what science has currently uncovered and the intellectual wall that science hits is when it tries to investigate realms that aren’t easily broken down in unconscious independent and dependent variables. It’s harder to manipulate something or a force that obviously and think-right-back at you. It’s a similar problem with the field of psychology given all the loops and inconsistent data that can never be “proved” just correlated, and then again that data might not be relevant 50-100 years later given the perspective of analysis. Then you have to factor in sociological variables that change in that given time as well.

- - - - - - - -

These following questions are what motivate me the most here. I'd like to see exactly how some viewpoints are rooted:


4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?

Physical matter for me would be things constructed out of subatomic particles, that are defined further away from energy, but are not necessarily removed from it’s relationship with energy, as they share a common source origin. (E = MC^2) There are some controlled lab experiments I’ve heard of where this has been done albeit I have not read them myself but I am not surprised.

Within that you have the biological (organic) and non-living (inorganic) materials, but I do not believe consciousness is limited by those factors, only the expression of consciousness which I attribute towards the limitations of the physical realm.

The physical realm, is mainly detected by the 5 senses, and spiritual ones by a 6th, which some individuals have attuned themselves too and others have not either by a lack of training, or perhaps a genetic (could be epigenetic) component plays a role in brain-chemistry-wiring, allowing for such perceptibility. To a degree I think everyone has it and we call it intuition (right brain) and some just ignore it by choice; probably due to fear.

I want to make a hypothesis that women are probably more likely to be sensitive to paranormal phenomena given my biased opinion that I think women by nature scan our surroundings better but I digress.

The mind for example is an intersection of spiritual and physicality, a meeting place of both, when they disengage that is called a physical death.



4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?

Something that is rooted primarily in another realm that isn’t the physical layer, but may have a synergistic relationship to energy, which is at least one degree of separation from the physical realm which energy also plays a role, connecting both realms. The physical being an expression of the more broader spiritual one.

I do not hold the belief they are entirely separate, again I have always argued a Venn Diagram type of relationship between the spiritual world and the physical one within space-time.


[optional, but a perhaps-fun extra to answer:]


5: What does it mean for something to be real?

For something to exist with the acknowledgement of it’s existence by a higher force that ordered it.




----

People thought for years that the world was flat. Does that mean that the Earth being flat was real? Your view is very odd when you say that a general consensus automatically makes something real. That is somewhat similar to cultural relativism, the idea that society is always correct. That idea falls flat on it's face.


That's different though, because that's belief due to ignorance, Greece had already proved with math, that the world could not be a flat square, why Spain later in the linear timeline decided to push a flat earth as part of Catholic doctrine, when even passages of Scripture imply a Prophet is taken into space to see "Wheels within wheels" (aka: we know them as Orbits now), and that the shape of the earth was "round" just...I can't even..humanity just lacks discernment of consistency in their beliefs.

Living For Love
October 3rd, 2016, 05:54 PM
Could you not have a non-lucid dream where the laptop feels equally as real?
What about hallucinations, also?
No, because anyone else would be able to prove that the laptop is indeed here just by looking at it. It's not just me saying it, anyone else can also experience it.

I imagine that you don't see consensus or coherence as reliable guides at all when it comes to searching for 'the Truth' then, am I correct?

What are you views relevant to this? If they're perhaps not within any significant consensus, then I am curious.
What do you exactly mean by the Truth?

candorgen
October 15th, 2016, 05:14 PM
No, but I do hold a belief that consciousness if it is to be stable, is a marriage between the physical world and spiritual one, and that the intersection is within various energy-wave lengths, which is why paranormal investigators get SOME kind of data when using physical instruments, albeit inconsistent data, that tap in to the electromagnetic spectrum.

So you are saying that consciousness requires some conjunction with physical forms to be consciousness and not just discordant mental stuff, or something like that, right?

What do you mean by wavelengths, wavelengths of EM radiation?

Does consciousness (and/or mentality) coincide with certain physics in the same dimensions, or is consciousness somewhat separate from spacetime?


No.

You do see consciousness as necessarily coinciding with physics though, right?

What is it that causes certain forms of consciousness to coincide with certain forms of physics?


No, I see that the entirety of existence is physical and beyond what science has currently uncovered and the intellectual wall that science hits is when it tries to investigate realms that aren’t easily broken down in unconscious independent and dependent variables. It’s harder to manipulate something or a force that obviously and think-right-back at you. It’s a similar problem with the field of psychology given all the loops and inconsistent data that can never be “proved” just correlated, and then again that data might not be relevant 50-100 years later given the perspective of analysis. Then you have to factor in sociological variables that change in that given time as well.


So you see physics as only capturing a certain portion of physics then?

I understand the 'intellectual wall' you speak of, if you mean that presumptions and background worldviews from them set up a perspective that does not allow certain ideas seriously.


Physical matter for me would be things constructed out of subatomic particles, that are defined further away from energy, but are not necessarily removed from it’s relationship with energy, as they share a common source origin. (E = MC^2)

I mean, with the mass-energy equivalence, what you're saying is physical is that whose composition is energy.

Spacetime itself is not (by most current theories of physics at least) made of energy.

Those who believe in paranormal phenomena who effect physical objects (e.g. poltergeists), could arguably say that these phenomena are also physical as they alter the energy distributions that the objects are made of.


There are some controlled lab experiments I’ve heard of where this has been done albeit I have not read them myself but I am not surprised.

Tests of the mass-energy equivalence has been and is being done thousands of times continually in varying ways, yes.


Within that you have the biological (organic) and non-living (inorganic) materials, but I do not believe consciousness is limited by those factors, only the expression of consciousness which I attribute towards the limitations of the physical realm.

What do you mean by limitations of the physical realm? What happens at the limit?

I'm reading it that you say consciousness can only coincide with biological material, but not that all biological material coincides with consciousness.


The physical realm, is mainly detected by the 5 senses [...]

That we have five distinguishable senses and no other ones is dubious to me, as we have heat/cold sensations that are distinct from touch, for example.

That aside, none of our senses can detect radio waves or most/all UV, which in itself is an immense part of the EM spectrum which as a whole effectively holds all matter together. There's polarised light also, which we cannot detect unless you have a congenital lack of lenses in your eyes.

We do detect the 'physical' realm, but comparatively very little of it. How many entities/aspects we define as parts of the physical realm also effects this.


[...] and spiritual ones by a 6th, which some individuals have attuned themselves too and others have not either by a lack of training, or perhaps a genetic (could be epigenetic) component plays a role in brain-chemistry-wiring, allowing for such perceptibility. To a degree I think everyone has it and we call it intuition (right brain) and some just ignore it by choice; probably due to fear.

I'm not sure what you mean specifically by the 6th sense of intuition, because at least most intuition is directed at physical entities.


I want to make a hypothesis that women are probably more likely to be sensitive to paranormal phenomena given my biased opinion that I think women by nature scan our surroundings better but I digress.

Right.


The mind for example is an intersection of spiritual and physicality, a meeting place of both, when they disengage that is called a physical death.

Alright.


Something that is rooted primarily in another realm that isn’t the physical layer, but may have a synergistic relationship to energy, which is at least one degree of separation from the physical realm which energy also plays a role, connecting both realms. The physical being an expression of the more broader spiritual one.

So the physical realm is a subset of the spiritual one.

I also don't know specifically what you mean otherwise here.


I do not hold the belief they are entirely separate, again I have always argued a Venn Diagram type of relationship between the spiritual world and the physical one within space-time.

Is the spiritual world 'outside' space-time?


For something to exist with the acknowledgement of it’s existence by a higher force that ordered it.

So you see the world in a 'top-down' model of formation, that greater order 'precedes' lesser order / chaos.

Could I not argue that molecules are formed from more simply ordered subatomic wavicles (wave-particles), rather than the other way around?


No, because anyone else would be able to prove that the laptop is indeed here just by looking at it. It's not just me saying it, anyone else can also experience it.

Right, so the same entity being seen multiple times by many independent observers is what you mean.

However, these 'independent observers' are seeing the same entity with a mind that has a subconscious worldview formed in it - I see a laptop because I have been taught directly/indirectly that certain sensory patterns are called a laptop.

We see what we have learned more than us learning from what we have seen. Of course there is a fundamental tendency for us to pick out entities out of the initial sensory fuzz in our early childhood (which is what starts the 'spiral' of form that is our view of the world), but the vast majority of every thing we learn of is indirect or from other people's views.

Languages shape how we see the world even.


What do you exactly mean by the Truth?

Knowledge of that which is 'responsible' for the world. That which everything has in common.

Uniquemind
October 17th, 2016, 03:33 AM
Yes I believe there are degrees of varying freedom between the spiritual and physical world.

candorgen
October 17th, 2016, 04:18 PM
Yes I believe there are degrees of varying freedom between the spiritual and physical world.

What do you mean by degrees of freedom; do you mean 'magnitudes' of contingency between e.g. an entity X and another entity Y, or free will, or something else?

Uniquemind
October 17th, 2016, 11:24 PM
What do you mean by degrees of freedom; do you mean 'magnitudes' of contingency between e.g. an entity X and another entity Y, or free will, or something else?

So earlier I said or hypothesize the relationship of the physical world (so let's say a 4th dimensional world) and a spiritual one to be of a synergistic relationship. Between that flowing relationship, you experience it as a point on a spectrum that is moving along it.

That point is your consciousness, and for a time and depending where you are the laws and rules (physics and onwards) governing the whole (all of existence) will exert a subjective experience on you.

I suspect that spirits are subject to time always moving forward, I don't think they can go backward through time, but they can subjectively self-delude themselves not having a brain to root them or tie them directly to process information about the physical world, and make it compatible to what everyone else sees. (Ghosts haunting old locations significant to them when they were alive).

So I guess magnitudes of contingency to use your vernacular.

candorgen
October 20th, 2016, 07:50 PM
So earlier I said or hypothesize the relationship of the physical world (so let's say a 4th dimensional world) and a spiritual one to be of a synergistic relationship. Between that flowing relationship, you experience it as a point on a spectrum that is moving along it.


So I guess magnitudes of contingency to use your vernacular.

I'm a bit fuzzy in understanding your view with the analogies though - if you could rephrase it in other ways, that would be appreciated.


That point is your consciousness, and for a time and depending where you are the laws and rules (physics and onwards) governing the whole (all of existence) will exert a subjective experience on you.

Do you see both the physical and spiritual realms as being 'lawful' as well as ordered, in that their order has a purpose, that 'physical laws' are literally of a similar relation of the physical realm as human laws are to a human society?


I suspect that spirits are subject to time always moving forward, I don't think they can go backward through time, but they can subjectively self-delude themselves not having a brain to root them or tie them directly to process information about the physical world, and make it compatible to what everyone else sees. (Ghosts haunting old locations significant to them when they were alive).

So the spiritual realm is within space and time as well, right? If spiritual entities have a necessary relation with time as we (and all physical entities) do with time, then that is what I am seeing here.

Uniquemind
October 21st, 2016, 01:45 AM
I'm a bit fuzzy in understanding your view with the analogies though - if you could rephrase it in other ways, that would be appreciated.




Do you see both the physical and spiritual realms as being 'lawful' as well as ordered, in that their order has a purpose, that 'physical laws' are literally of a similar relation of the physical realm as human laws are to a human society?




So the spiritual realm is within space and time as well, right? If spiritual entities have a necessary relation with time as we (and all physical entities) do with time, then that is what I am seeing here.


You're kind of getting my theory.

No in the sense that human laws are arbitrary at times and in retrospect their premise for existing can be flawed, their purpose superficial. So in that sense no, spiritual laws are not akin to political earthly ones.

As I said before I believe the spiritual realm has a degree of hierarchy(aka: degrees of freedom), and part of the spiritual world is tied to the laws and time of space. As one goes "higher" for lack of a better word, you become further distant from the physical realm and lower levels of the spiritual one.

What's confusing you is I keep drifting between explaining a macro and broad theory of the relationship between the physical world and spiritual one, but I have to flip and then explain a micro individual theory of experience.

It's confusing you.

Nautilus
October 23rd, 2016, 09:31 AM
1: Do you see all known human and/or general Earth-biology-coincident consciousness as caused by physics? In other words, are you a general physicalist? (seeing known consciousness as caused by some physical processes, more than just it being coincident with those processes)

I would say that that properties exist which are non-physical. I am a non-reductionist in that I believe that consciousness is not reducible to matter and has properties of its own; however, I am not sure whether this simply means that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, which would simply entail physicalism, or if consciousness could exist independent of matter.

2: Do you also see all possible consciousness as necessarily requiring a physical cause? Are you a physicalist for all possible scenarios? (the boltzmann brain idea is fine to mention)

I don't know. To know this I would need knowledge of every consciousness.

3: Do you see the entirety of existence as being of physical nature? Do you see there to be more than just physical existence? (e.g. the 'supernatural' / 'paranormal' / etc)

4A: What does it mean for something to be physical? What defines physicality?


4B: 'Consequently', what does it mean for something to be non-physical? What is the absence of physicality?

It is hard to define what is physical -- it might seem that anything which can be verified to exist with certainty it physical. Something unknown might be seen as immaterial, but once it is understood, it is classified as physical. However, I would say that despite this there is a non-physical aspect of reality, in that the subjective experiences we have are "real" things. Each of us sees reality not as actual physical material, but as a series of "experiences"; for instance, when I have a thought, I experience it as a thought, not as the physical matter which might comprise it on a molecular level. Since our knowledge is fundamentally constrained by our subjectivity, the immaterial has the same place in our knowledge as the material -- everything, in the end, is an experience. It is perhaps unknowable whether something is physical or non-physical, since to do so would require an objective view of the universe. If we cannot actually know the minds of others, we cannot know whether minds are separate from bodies or not.

I apologize if this is somewhat incoherent.

candorgen
October 27th, 2016, 01:50 PM
You're kind of getting my theory.

No in the sense that human laws are arbitrary at times and in retrospect their premise for existing can be flawed, their purpose superficial. So in that sense no, spiritual laws are not akin to political earthly ones.

So the usage of 'law' here is analogous to human law, but nothing to do with legality/justice, am I correct?

I would prefer using 'principle' or 'ordered form' instead of 'law' as contender alternatives, as I have a problem with analogies being misinterpreted as the actual thing, either consciously or subconsciously.


As I said before I believe the spiritual realm has a degree of hierarchy(aka: degrees of freedom), and part of the spiritual world is tied to the laws and time of space. As one goes "higher" for lack of a better word, you become further distant from the physical realm and lower levels of the spiritual one.

So the spiritual and physical realms are both subsets of the spacetime realm, and are you saying that greater ordered form / complexity is 'closer' to the spiritual realm than the physical?

Or rather there are not two realms but two 'ends' of a spectrum of sorts, where the physical is the more chaotic part and the spiritual is the more ordered part, with both 'mixing' into a fusion, but with both not just plainly immanent to the other (like how certain physical entities don't react to radio waves but do for UV).

If you are saying though that there is some sort of distance between the physical and spiritual, then I am seeing this through an extra dimension or dimensions, as both the physical and spiritual are subsets of spacetime but both realms don't collide with the other in a way that physical entities don't clip into each other.


What's confusing you is I keep drifting between explaining a macro and broad theory of the relationship between the physical world and spiritual one, but I have to flip and then explain a micro individual theory of experience.

It's confusing you.

We'll see now if what I said above shows me to not be as confused.



I would say that that properties exist which are non-physical. I am a non-reductionist in that I believe that consciousness is not reducible to matter and has properties of its own; however, I am not sure whether this simply means that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, which would simply entail physicalism, or if consciousness could exist independent of matter.

So you're either a property mind-body dualist or a 'direct' mind-body dualist.


I don't know. To know this I would need knowledge of every consciousness.

Alright.


It is hard to define what is physical -- it might seem that anything which can be verified to exist with certainty it physical. Something unknown might be seen as immaterial, but once it is understood, it is classified as physical. However, I would say that despite this there is a non-physical aspect of reality, in that the subjective experiences we have are "real" things. Each of us sees reality not as actual physical material, but as a series of "experiences"; for instance, when I have a thought, I experience it as a thought, not as the physical matter which might comprise it on a molecular level. Since our knowledge is fundamentally constrained by our subjectivity, the immaterial has the same place in our knowledge as the material -- everything, in the end, is an experience. It is perhaps unknowable whether something is physical or non-physical, since to do so would require an objective view of the universe. If we cannot actually know the minds of others, we cannot know whether minds are separate from bodies or not.

I apologize if this is somewhat incoherent.

It seems coherent enough, you're speculating rather than setting out a set view. If you mean that qualia are examples of non-physical entities and that physical entities can only effectively be such because of them being objectively observed with coherent experimentation and such, then I can see where you are coming from.