marked for later.
The Self Delusion
by John_Mann 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Twitch
Well, this should be interesting...
-
Jon Preston
Lol youre my boy, jgnat....or girl haha what a pimp comment
-
jgnat
Well, if you and I are using words for our own purposes, it's no use continuing. You won't understand.
-
Jon Preston
Ugh welp pimp comments are out! Lets move on
-
jgnat
*whelp?
-
frankiespeakin
Here is some new age woo woo for you you u-u.
-
Apognophos
Well, being a materialist, I don't believe there is any part of our "self" not found in the brain. The human brain is very good at thinking about its entire environment including itself. Other animals can only look outward, but we can look inward. I just see this as an adaptation to allow us to manipulate our environment better. It's just a tool in our mental toolkit, like reflection in programming. I'm not convinced though that aspects of our psyche like the id and superego are unique to humans, just that they're more evident in us, but that they have simple practical reasons for existing in all animals to some degree. So I guess my answer is "no", it's not a delusion. If we're under any delusions, I would list (1) our inability to see our own motives clearly, and (2) our inability to see life as easily through others' eyes as through our own (in the worst case, leading to solipsism).
-
frankiespeakin
Everything is Maya, or just brain stuff the brain uses illusions as tools to probe environment and recieves sensory imput colors, musical sound, mathematics all constructs of the human imagination to make sense out of the world for survival.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)
Maya or Māyā ( Sanskrit माया māyā a[›] ), a term found in Pali and Sanskrit literature, has multiple meanings and can be translated to mean something of an "illusion" (or more accurately a " delusion ")
-
frankiespeakin
You are just neurons fireing no neurons firing no you that simple. Colors, sounds, smells, feelings of pain and pleasure, vision, thoughts about being a you all simply neurons firing.
The "you" we think about when we think about the word "you" simply a tool/label the brain uses in its processing information that is helpful to keep the organism alive and functioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
Naïve and scientific realism [ edit ]
Naïve realism is distinct from scientific realism, which states that the universe contains just those properties that feature in ascientific description of it; not properties like colour per se but merely objects that reflect certain wavelengths owing to their microscopic surface texture. Naïve and direct realism propose no physical theory of experience and do not identify experience with the experience of quantum phenomena or the twin retinal images. This lack of supervenience of experience on the physical world means that naïve realism is not a physical theory. [6]
An example of a scientific realist is John Locke, who held the world only contains the primary qualities that feature in a corpuscularian scientific account of the world (see corpuscular theory), and that other properties were entirely subjective, depending for their existence upon some perceiver who can observe the objects." [1]
Realism and quantum physics [ edit ]
Main article: Principle of localityRealism in physics refers to the fact that any physical system must have definite properties whether measured/observed or not. Physics up to the 19th century was always implicitly and sometimes explicitly taken to be based on philosophical realism.
Scientific realism in classical physics has remained compatible with the naïve realism of everyday thinking on the whole but there is no known, consistent way to visualize the world underlying quantum theory in terms of ideas of the everyday world. "The general conclusion is that in quantum theory naïve realism, although necessary at the level of observations, fails at the microscopic level." [7] Experiments such as the Stern–Gerlach experiment and quantum phenomena such ascomplementarity lead quantum physicists to conclude that "[w]e have no satisfactory reason for ascribing objective existence to physical quantities as distinguished from the numbers obtained when we make the measurements which we correlate with them. There is no real reason for supposing that a particle has at every moment a definite, but unknown, position which may be revealed by a measurement of the right kind... On the contrary, we get into a maze of contradiction as soon as we inject into quantum mechanics such concepts as carried over from the language and philosophy of our ancestors... It would be more exact if we spoke of 'making measurements' of this, that, or the other type instead of saying that we measure this, that, or the other 'physical quantity'." [8] It is no longer possible to adhere to both the principle of locality (that distant objects cannot affect local objects), and counterfactual definiteness, a form of ontological realism implicit in classical physics. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics hold that a system lacks an actualized property until it is measured, which implies that quantum systems exhibit a non-local behaviour. Bell's theorem proved that everyquantum theory must either violate local realism or counterfactual definiteness. This has given rise to a contentious debate of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Although locality and 'realism' in the sense of counterfactual definiteness, are jointly false, it is possible to retain one of them. The majority of working physicists discard counterfactual definiteness in favor of locality, since non-locality is held to be contrary to relativity. The implications of this stance are rarely discussed outside of the microscopic domain but the thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat illustrates the difficulties presented. As quantum mechanics is applied to larger and larger objects even a one-ton bar, proposed to detect gravity waves, must be analysed quantum mechanically, while in cosmology a wavefunction for the whole universe is written to study the Big Bang. It is difficult to accept the quantum world as somehow not physically real, so "Quantum mechanics forces us to abandon naïve realism", [9] though it can also be argued that the counterfactual definiteness 'realism' of physics is a much more specific notion than general philosophical realism. [10]