RhetoricThug wrote:
Metaphorically (because I'm unable to scientifically demonstrate), the act of thinking operates as an interference pattern. When energy comes in, the mind is a slit for cognition, and the noosphere is a conglomerate of conscious superimposition (reality (if you like that word) follows). Consciousness cannot be a computation because a flame does not burn itself. Wave-particle duality (duality being a misnomer, as it is of better service as wave-particle unity (due to the relationship of comparisons and the contrast of meaning)) implies all objects behave unintuitively or paradoxically in a quantum field. Conscious observation redistributes energetic potential in a field of unfolding physical systems. We commandeer or pilot the wave when it collapses. Apprehension of expansion, if you will (I'm going out on a limb).
Okay -- in my intellectual travels I'm come across increasing empirical evidence for the mind-over-matter thesis, as shocking as it is, and as grudgingly as I'd like to acknowledge it.
Proof of Mind Over Matter - The Double Slit Experiment - Physics, Dr. Quantum
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1] is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain consciousness.
Assertions that consciousness is somehow quantum-mechanical can overlap with quantum mysticism, a pseudoscientific movement that assigns supernatural characteristics to various quantum phenomena such as nonlocality and the observer effect.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
There are indeed amazing feats of mind over matter like the Yogi in India who lives without food and water, the story of Coral Castle where one man cut and moved solid stones larger than those used in the pyramids, or the proven telekinetic powers of Nina Kulagina.
These cases, and others involving transcending the material world like cases of extrasensory perception (ESP), are typically viewed as paranormal events. However, these seemingly impossible phenomenon may become more widely accepted as we better understand the implications of quantum mechanics.
Quantum physics has proven that all matter at the subatomic level exists in wave form, and that matter only appears solid when we, as the observer, use our senses to decode and perceive the wave patterns in space and time. Significantly, thoughts, especially concentrated thoughts, also form measurable wave patterns. And thought waves have proven to affect observable matter in the physical world.
In his book called The Hidden Messages in Water, Masaru Emoto explains his experiments on water crystals which proved that droplets of water form different shapes when frozen with words associated to each sample. For example, the sample droplets would have phrases like I love you, thank you, or I hate you written next to them. The frozen droplets would form glorious snowflake-like crystals with the words love and thank you, but a nasty oil splotch-like design next to the word hate. As stated in the movie What the bleep do we know?, “If thoughts and words have that much power over water, imagine what they do to us,” as we are formed of between 60%-80% water, based on our age.
https://truth11.com/2011/04/28/quantum- ... er-matter/
---
RhetoricThug wrote:
Supplemental
ADiql3FG5is
I think this James Joyce quote sums things up nicely: In a simple sentence with very complex associations, Stephen considers fish feeding on the corpse of the drowned man: "God becomes man becomes fish becomes barnacle goose becomes featherbed mountain." The associative logic of the sentence is partly scientific, partly spiritualist, partly theological, partly legendary, partly erotic, partly mythographic—and fully poetic. Its emotional implications are largely positive.
Yeah, well, that's cute and everything, but it's obviously *blurring* all of those discrete stages of entity-existence together -- it's favoring the *continuous* at the expense of the *discrete*. (Also I'm not religious / 'spiritual'.)
RhetoricThug wrote:
I learned a long time ago, that a field of unfolding physical systems recycle all present energy perpetually, and in that assertion- living flora transmute dead dirt and minerals to feed living fauna. The dead sustains the living (metaphysically as well), and our myopic language seduces our mind into thinking that there's an internal-external dichotomy. Welcome to a nuanced way of living.
Again, for any given 'snapshot' in time, there *are* discrete and explicit living entities present, so this blurring-together of matter, atomistically, over time, just doesn't have much *explanatory* power. I'll grant that the focus on *life* / organisms helps to cut against the traditional / conventional Western scientific tendency of *reductionism* in approach -- often taken to the logical extension of positing an inevitable future 'universe death' through total entropy, ignoring the *constructive* / growth tendency of all life processes.
RhetoricThug wrote:
Chemistry is an oversimplification (reductionism) or deduction of moving parts in a living system. This will sound outlandish, but there isn't any non-living system, because a living observer must be present to define what's living and non-living.
No, not really, because even if all living and non-living matter went without being consciously observed, it would still *exist* as it does, and, again, the empirical distinction that can be made is that of *organic*, and *inorganic*, respectively.
RhetoricThug wrote:
Thus there is only a living system because all definitive boundaries (and resultant quandaries) are abstracted by living beings to explain Cogito, ergo sum
Well, maybe that's your problem -- philosophically you're a *dualist*, which *may* help with matters at the weird *quantum* scale, but for daily social life and living dualism is too *problematic* to be considered as valid. I'll counterpose a secular 'monism' here.
RhetoricThug wrote:
(honestly I'm bored of our conversation, and wish to telepathically lobotomize our guests. Sounds like fun... I'll discover a new gadget soon, I'm sure).
RhetoricThug wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by received wisdom; are you talking about my posts ( )? All of our thoughts form as a response to what appears before us, so it doesn't need externalization to undergo a transformation (cybernetic loop). Consciousness as a hard problem places new variables in the movement, expression, and translation of a physical system.
Yes, our thoughts may be *externally* prompted, or they may be purely *internal*.
Yup, consciousness *is* a toughie -- the 'quantum consciousness' hypothesis, above, suggests that maybe it's a byproduct of the *arrangement* of matter, and I've heard the theory / hypothesis that maybe *all matter* has varying degrees of consciousness, though organic life is decidedly at the top of all of that.
Also:
How Plants Secretly Talk to Each Other
https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-la ... of-plants/---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is far too atomistic a view, per Deepak Chopra. I prefer to use *complexity theory* (fractal geometry) to find complex boundaries between the internal and the external.
RhetoricThug wrote:
See (eye bias), you prefer to use, suggests a cognitive bias and tendency to view things as abstracted singletons. Please consider- complex systems have hidden variables that cannot be observed or are beyond human cognition. Funny, I'd think the uncertainty principle and further examination of non-linearity would make you a skeptic of political grievance and agenda. By the way, I appreciate Mandlebrot. Namaste spiral swirl. ∞
I don't know why you're suddenly being so *dismissive* of our major sense-input, vision, and of our use of cognition. A moment ago you were practically *praising* such abilities, and now you've swung 180-degrees around, to *disparage* such.
You're also denigrating *politics* altogether, out-of-the-blue, for whatever reason.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, please give me *one* example of mind-over-matter that I may be overlooking.
RhetoricThug wrote:
All interaction with physical systems.
No, I mean more like *thought*-over-matter, without the use of any physical contact.
---
RhetoricThug wrote:
If you wish... The internet is the technological externalization of the noosphere.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Can we compromise and just call it 'culture'? It's less mysterious and controversial that way.
RhetoricThug wrote:
No. But I do think this study is rather interesting: Empathic Neural Responses Predict Group Allegiance
Watching another person in pain activates brain areas involved in the sensation of our own pain. Importantly, this neural mirroring is not constant; rather, it is modulated by our beliefs about their intentions, circumstances, and group allegiances. We investigated if the neural empathic response is modulated by minimally-differentiating information (e.g., a simple text label indicating another's religious belief), and if neural activity changes predict ingroups and outgroups across independent paradigms. We found that the empathic response was larger when participants viewed a painful event occurring to a hand labeled with their own religion (ingroup) than to a hand labeled with a different religion (outgroup).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079240/
Culture, as an outgrowth of pattern recognition does influence how we interpret phenomena.
Yes, agreed, but then you still haven't defined or explained what the 'noosphere' is, exactly.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Language is a cultural *overlay*, because the external physical world would be organically unaffected (at least in the short term) by the *absence* of all animal biological communication, and especially human languages.
To re-address your statement, though, are you attempting to indicate a more-realtime process of phenotypical impact on DNA, as some recent research has suggested?
RhetoricThug wrote:
Yes, with an emphasis on observer participation and how technologies act as an outgrowth of biological cognition.
How does the latter part of your statement pertain to *DNA* alteration, though?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm talking about the physical *topologies* of communication networks, which is *significant*, and even *deterministic*, since many-to-many is more *democratic* than one-to-many.
RhetoricThug wrote:
More democratic? I'm attempting to detail the transformative power of technology, not social-political conventions. Conventions that serve a purpose, a purpose invented by self-serving, biologically dissociated thinking processes.
ckaihatsu wrote:
'Transformative' for *whom*? The response to that will *indicate* some socio-political 'conventions', as over the use of technology by society.
You're *stereotyping* technological usage as being specific to a 'biologically dissociated thinking process', which is just absurd, cynical, and biased.
RhetoricThug wrote:
Garry Kasparov stated fair points concerning technology and how it affects systems. Technological outgrowths exhibit superior performance in closed systems. Unfortunately, bureaucracy and other abstracted forms of governance- operate like chess, namely they're closed systems of organization (Due to the tasks they perform, or the business they conduct, they keep their data contained, sealed within systems of classification and intellectual property protection.). Therefore technology prevails over a majority of humans in a technological society because a technological society is by its nature a closed system.
I'm not quite sure what you mean with 'technology prevails over a majority of humans...' -- you seem to be bemoaning the *balkanization* of social organization, including the distribution of technology, but you may want to elaborate on this point. This point is congruent with a Marxist critique of the capitalist institution of *private property*, by the way.
RhetoricThug wrote:
Garry hints at the evolution of consciousness and how it expresses itself over time (explaining chess playing proficiency).
hbtuHtrViPo
Okay, I'll get to that when I can, and then I may follow-up and comment on it later.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's still apples-and-oranges, though, because, as things are now, *Wikipedia* (or a set of encyclopedia books) is 'smarter' than any of us, sheerly by dint of *content*, but even the best AI, GPT-3, can't do *reasoning*, as we do easily, as a matter of course.
RhetoricThug wrote:
AS stated earlier, thought is influenced by external reality, ergo our minds become subservient to technological systems.
You're being *fatalistic* here -- I, for one, treat technology as a *tool*, so it's always *subservient* to my will, and I don't see how technology could be otherwise, unless people *want* to pretend that the latest AI robot chatterbot is somehow also a social being of its own.
Saudi Arabia grants citizenship to robot Sophia
https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-gran ... a-41150856---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *oversimplifying* again, though, because technology isn't *biological*, mostly, and, more to the point, it's *engineered* and subject to socio-political dynamics that have a life of their own, like 'class'.
RhetoricThug wrote:
These terms don't impress me; and the hardening of classifications prove no worth in an era of uncertainty and rapid obsolescence. Human reasoning changes when there's new information to process.
You have some sort of intellectual problem with *classifications* -- ? Do you think that all meaning can only be expressed in *vague approximations*, like some kind of 'soup' of ever-morphing meanings?
Here's a framework of mine that equates *generalizations* with *categories*:
Generalizations-Characterizations
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle
RhetoricThug wrote:
Your image is frozen in time. History rhymes and consciousness evolves.
Right -- it's a *framework*, meaning that you have to *use* it by putting in concrete real-world *data*, for any / several / all of the categorical 'shelves' on the framework.
Conceivably one could use algorithms, and maybe AI, to automatically pluck detailed social info for the corresponding 'levels' of the framework, for any given historical, or current, period, so that the framework *wouldn't* be 'frozen' in time, but rather one would see historical *data*, on all levels, flowing through it as the timeframe went forward or backward.
RhetoricThug wrote:
Be Seeing you,
-RT