Explaining the sped of light

[migrant]

"The existence of anaesthesia demolishes your hypothesis completely. "
Thanks bilby, I agree that the body can exist for a while without the consciousness, though comatose. I phrased it badly.
And of course when we dream, our consciousness is elsewhere.
Not my hypothesis by the way, I'm not an original thinker - more like a jumble of shiny ideas.
Of course the actual point here, is that the consciousness can exist without the body, an understanding found in many cultures throughout history.

To say "matter is conscious" is also perhaps not the best way to put it.
I see matter as the creation, or expression of consciousness, and therefore sentient in a manner related and proportionate to its role.

 

[bilby]

"The existence of anaesthesia demolishes your hypothesis completely. "
Thanks bilby, I agree that the body can exist for a while without the consciousness, though comatose. I phrased it badly.
And of course when we dream, our consciousness is elsewhere.
Not my hypothesis by the way, I'm not an original thinker - more like a jumble of shiny ideas.
Of course the actual point here, is that the consciousness can exist without the body, an understanding found in many cultures throughout history.

To say "matter is conscious" is also perhaps not the best way to put it.
I see matter as the creation, or expression of consciousness, and therefore sentient in a manner related and proportionate to its role.

Then the actual point is bloody silly; and many cultures throughout human history have been mistaken.

Consciousness is strictly a property of brains. It cannot exist without them; poetic language abut the mind being elsewhere is just that - poetic language. It doesn't reflect reality.

Dualism is a refuted hypothesis. It's quite simply wrong. We know all of the ways it could possibly work; all of the possible particles or forces that would allow a separate consciousness to interact with our physical bodies and/or brains. And we know how to detect those particles and forces. And they are not there.

This is fairly recent physics. But it's as solid as any piece of knowledge in the history of humanity.

The physics of objects at human scales is complete. We are made ONLY of the particles and forces of the Standard Model. None of them allow for a separate consciousness that could interact with our physical bodies without either being easily detected, or killing us, or both. So consciousness can only be a property of the ordinary matter that is our brains.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/

 

[migrant]

Reductionism has never appealed bilby -- but thanks anyway.

 

[Juma]

Reductionism has never appealed bilby -- but thanks anyway.

What has "appeal" to do with it? Trump as president doesnt appeal me, yet it is true.

 

[migrant]

I've been heckled by geniuses Juma.
You're no problem.

 

[bilby]

Reductionism has never appealed bilby -- but thanks anyway.

That's OK - ignorance has never appealed to me. Each to his own, I guess.

 

[Elixir]

Reductionism has never appealed bilby -- but thanks anyway.

That's OK - ignorance has never appealed to me. Each to his own, I guess.

At great risk of being misunderstood, I'm going to jump in here for migrant.

We know all of the ways it could possibly work; all of the possible particles or forces that would allow a separate consciousness to interact with our physical bodies and/or brains.

I am automatically wary of any statement to the effect that we "know it all", and doubly so in the realm of physics. Mix in the non-existence of any rigorous definition of consciousness, and I think your statement exceeds what can accurately stated about our "Nollige". I tend to see consciousness as ubiquitous. Not self awareness, which seems to be another realm, but simply the ability to experience. At the extremes, an electron has the "consciousness" of an electron, a human has the "consciousness" of a human. Obviously an electron is not self aware in the sense that a human is, but who is to say that it doesn't experience what it is to be an electron?

I think there is an opening for these kinds of questions as long as quantum mechanics and general relativity have yet to be reconciled.
That said, I YUUUUGELY doubt that there is any experience of a human "self", absent a human body. But that doesn't exclude all possibility of experience, only that of a human experience sans human body.
It boils down to me saying that what you're saying is patently correct for all practical human purposes, but cannot be said to be a universal truth.
<$0.001>, inflation adjusted>

 

[bilby]

That's OK - ignorance has never appealed to me. Each to his own, I guess.

At great risk of being misunderstood, I'm going to jump in here for migrant.

We know all of the ways it could possibly work; all of the possible particles or forces that would allow a separate consciousness to interact with our physical bodies and/or brains.

I am automatically wary of any statement to the effect that we "know it all", and doubly so in the realm of physics. Mix in the non-existence of any rigorous definition of consciousness, and I think your statement exceeds what can accurately stated about our "Nollige". I tend to see consciousness as ubiquitous. Not self awareness, which seems to be another realm, but simply the ability to experience. At the extremes, an electron has the "consciousness" of an electron, a human has the "consciousness" of a human. Obviously an electron is not self aware in the sense that a human is, but who is to say that it doesn't experience what it is to be an electron?

I think there is an opening for these kinds of questions as long as quantum mechanics and general relativity have yet to be reconciled.
That said, I YUUUUGELY doubt that there is any experience of a human "self", absent a human body. But that doesn't exclude all possibility of experience, only that of a human experience sans human body.
It boils down to me saying that what you're saying is patently correct for all practical human purposes, but cannot be said to be a universal truth.
<$0.001>, inflation adjusted>

We really do know everything that there is to know at human scales.

The only forces that can possibly exist fall into three classes - known and well understood; unknown but only exist at energies that would vapourise a human; and unknown but only exist at scales relevant to objects the size of galaxies.

Read the link I posted earlier. The ONLY way for my claim to be false is for the best tested scientific theory of all time (Quantum Field Theory) to be very significantly wrong. And it's not. We tested it.

We know that it's absolutely correct at human scales. It's possibly wrong at galactic scales. But whatever adjustments are needed at such scales will not affect the human scale results. In the same way that Newtonian gravity is wrong, but nevertheless the results of assuming it to be right are correct at low speeds, and the errors are relevant only at significant fractions of light speed.

The 'god of the gaps' explanation for dualism is dead - physicists have closed the last of the gaps.

 

[migrant]

I too tend to back off in the face of such certainty Elixir.
There are interesting parallels between the religious and the scientific fundamentalists when seen from my point of view.
When we consider that science has had to invent Dark Matter to shore up the present model, and yet is unable to define, or even find any, then I'm afraid bilby's "We know all of the ways it could possibly work; all of the possible particles or forces ...." does not convince me.
Let's remember that science has never proved any of its theories ... or they wouldn't be theories.
Recognising that we don't know something is not ignorance - thinking you know the unknowable isn't exactly erudition though.

 

[bilby]

https://vimeo.com/127623762

 

[Juma]

I too tend to back off in the face of such certainty Elixir.
There are interesting parallels between the religious and the scientific fundamentalists when seen from my point of view.
When we consider that science has had to invent Dark Matter to shore up the present model, and yet is unable to define, or even find any, then I'm afraid bilby's "We know all of the ways it could possibly work; all of the possible particles or forces ...." does not convince me.
Let's remember that science has never proved any of its theories ... or they wouldn't be theories.
Recognising that we don't know something is not ignorance - thinking you know the unknowable isn't exactly erudition though.

so its time you recognize that you dont know anything about modern physics.
That you are ignorant of the basic principles of the matter you want to discuss.

That is indeed ignorance. And arrogance.

 

[Juma]

I've been heckled by geniuses Juma.
You're no problem.

So you are arrogant too?
You are avoiding my question. Is "appeal" really more important than ttruth?

 

[migrant]

Juma, you de-rail the thread with spurious and aggressive questions, you distort ideas in order to refute them, you try to 'win' points, and resort to insults when you fail.
You are therefore a Troll, and that is why I shall ignore you in future.

 

[fromderinside]

Oh cummon guys. All this heat over a few quarks and leptons. I just heard (Trumplike enough?) on NetFlix Cosmos episode eight that light might take millions of years to climb out of the sun's core before it's freed to travel with the neutrinos.

 

[migrant]

The photons go faster fromderinside - That's 'cos they're travelling light ....

 

[fromderinside]

ah ha, ah ha, ah ha. Yet photons need molecular transactions to pass through things with mass and charge whilst neutrinos don't react to charge and pass through things with mass and charge just as fast as when they encounter it.

 

[Juma]

Juma, you de-rail the thread with spurious and aggressive questions, you distort ideas in order to refute them, you try to 'win' points, and resort to insults when you fail.
You are therefore a Troll, and that is why I shall ignore you in future.

Hit a sore toe, eh? No. I'm definitely not a troll and all my questions are sincere and valid. It had been honest of you to acknowledge that you lack knowlege but you resort to attack my person. Not nice.

 

[Peez]

I too tend to back off in the face of such certainty Elixir.
There are interesting parallels between the religious and the scientific fundamentalists when seen from my point of view.
When we consider that science has had to invent Dark Matter to shore up the present model, and yet is unable to define, or even find any, then I'm afraid bilby's "We know all of the ways it could possibly work; all of the possible particles or forces ...." does not convince me.
Let's remember that science has never proved any of its theories ... or they wouldn't be theories.
Recognising that we don't know something is not ignorance - thinking you know the unknowable isn't exactly erudition though.

Oops.

Peez

 

[Elixir]

.
Let's remember that science has never proved any of its theories ... or they wouldn't be theories.

A theory is the highest form of certainty that exists in science, migrant. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I too tend to back off in the face of such certainty Elixir.
There are interesting parallels between the religious and the scientific fundamentalists when seen from my point of view.
When we consider that science has had to invent Dark Matter to shore up the present model, and yet is unable to define, or even find any, then I'm afraid bilby's "We know all of the ways it could possibly work; all of the possible particles or forces ...." does not convince me.
Let's remember that science has never proved any of its theories ... or they wouldn't be theories.
Recognising that we don't know something is not ignorance - thinking you know the unknowable isn't exactly erudition though.

Oops.

Peez

Clearly migrant is not understanding the way science works.

But I don't see his contribution as advancing pseudoscientific dualism as much as questioning complacency. Most of the universe is dark energy and we don't know what that is.

We use the word "space" and don't know what it is scientifically. It's like missing the ocean.