Philosophy Now Forum

I use a modified/extended MWI-like interpretation. I'm open minded but only the MWI-type makes some sense to me, it's the simplest one and what we get when we take the equations literally. I see the others as mostly just random stuff people have come up with. You must modify it a lot then, as I poi...

I think modern neuroscience has proven the identity of "mind" events and "physical" events beyond reasonable doubt. And no "special stuff" was found in the head. Those that differ would differ, citing mere correlation between what neuroscience detects and mind processe...

"Non-physical mind causes physical collapse" is quantum woo of course, and the article is nonsense. The Neumann-Wigner is really out of the question. The mind is made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe and has no "magical effect". Careful. That last statement i...

I should not have used it directly, but instead have pointed to the logical consequence of it. My bad. Not sure what you are talking about, but the logical consequences of any interpretation don't serve as proof of anything without proof of the interpretation. So Copenhagen makes no claim that any ...

Yes. New information can cause rational decision. But what happen for former chain of causality? Chains are usually an interconnecting network and they continue on. That's what happens to them. Let's say x and y are to pass and not to pass the street. X and Y are tendency to pass and not to pass th...

No new "groundbreaking knowledge" needed. It is well known that "observation" in the context of QM can be made by a device, with complete absence of human intervention. A device!? Think about it for fucks sake! Pull your head outta your physicalistic bottucks! Pieces of glass, p...

Well, I am saying that you cannot stop a chain of causality if you cannot break laws of nature. I think the conservation of information principle says something to that effect. So agree. I think we can agree on the fact that we can stop our thoughts whenever we want.[/quote]I can concede this, even...

I was wondering how long it would take the author to bring up the quantum woo card. Disappointingly, not much: 3 paragraphs. That's when he reaches the point where this common myth of observation-dependent reality is stated: Now we know, however, that some events at a subatomic level are affected b...

How such an interpretation of mind which controls and stops thoughts could exist in materialism when for that you need to break a laws of nature? It is hard to parse the sentence of yours here, but you seem to be talking about breaking of natural law and thoughts stopping and starting, none of whic...

When they make three-d movies, or pics, that's exactly the theory they employ. They have two cameras some distance from each other that film the action simultaneously; when it's projected, the left eye receives the image from the left camera, and the right eye, from the right camera. Result? Three-...

By stopping causal chain I mean that I stop thoughts. I can focus on options when I am about to decide one option. That is what conscious decision is all about. Otherwise we have accept that decision are made unconsciously. I disagree that thoughts can be stopped within a functioning brain, but if ...

There is no interpretation of mind in materialism which can explain control over thoughts and actions. Materialism IS an interpretation of mind, and it says that mind and everything else is material or a property/process of it. Materialism does not claim that one has no control over thoughts and ac...

You are aware of options. You just stop causal chains related to them and try to decide. I cannot be aware of options for which I have stopped causal chains. A chain that has stopped can affect nothing anymore, ever, including awareness. A chain that is a new chain cannot be a function of anything....

Yes, smaller brain can only do those limited functions. We human however speak, can have abstract thought, etc. and this require larger brain size. Why yes, that makes sense. If the material brain does those things, we need a big one. Sounds like what a materialist would say. So you are saying you ...

Well, yeah, that's another way to show that a camera is not capturing true depth, Neither regular camera nor the eye captures true depth. You perceive depth because of comparison of multiple images taken from different viewpoints, not from any information gathered from a single image. Cameras are n...