Nephilim (prev. Over and Out)- that's an interesting article, thanks. Some great potted descriptions of approaches to consciousness studies, I particularly like;
11. What might be called the quantum consciousness approaches view consciousness as being intrinsically capable of interacting with, and altering, the physical world, generally through quantum interactions, both in the human body at the intracellular level (e.g. microtubules), and in the material world at large (psi). This approach also includes the many and various attempts to plug consciousness into the physical world according to various avant-garde physical theories (bootstrapping, hyperspace, strings).
Lurid- If we are sharing common experiences, you could equally well argue that our experiences are "objective".
...So there is an "objective" element to experience? I think we are agreeing so far. I just don't like your headers.
I think we're largely agreeing in principle except that I'm saying 'consensual' where you say 'objective'. Because experience is by nature first-person, thus subjective. I hold there are no objective truths, and even if there were we could never know anything about them.
a hard nosed rational materialist like me would accept that in principle
Then my work here is done! Seriously, I'm not looking to convince someone, just check the argument is meaningful and valid. The convincing comes later...
(quantum debate) Yeah, but my understanding of that debate would probably be very different from yours.
How so? I was using it as an example of apparent incommensurability, e.g. de Broglie got a Nobel prize for showing electrons were waves after someone else got one for showing they were particles, and they were both right.
This is pretty controversial, no? You are saying that physical laws are supported by unconscious belief.
Controversial, yes, but I'm saying those physical laws don't have an objective existence, they're categories we apply to experiences.
You really cannot research these matters online, (sdv)
Yes, you can.
The assumption that magic can break the 2nd law of thermodynamics is interesting - what evidence can you produce for that ?
"Magic or sorcery are terms referring to the influence of events and physical phenomenon through supernatural, mystical, or paranormal means." In what way is supernatural power subject to the laws of thermodynamics? If you mean 'Magic is subject to entropy' that's a slightly different claim, but I'm still not grokking you as they say.
I just think you've bitten off a hell of a lot more than you can chew boboss
It's perhaps not as ambitious as you think, I just want to show it's a coherent position, not convince everyone to become magicians.
My post is already too long, but I'll come back to it. Note to self- don't forget Daniel Dennett! |
