Why Physicalism is Wrong

[Atla]

... Western philosophy is basically dualistic so all Western QM interpretations so far have been more or less wrong. ...

You've obviously not read much Western Philosophy if you hold this opinion.

By an' large Kant still has the field here and he says you are doing metaphysics about the noumenon and as such you are just making it up as much as the religious do as we can't know the thing in-itself.

It's a baseless, unnecessary, and additional assumption to posit a noumenon-phenomenon duality, especially in the light of modern neuroscience and QM. Actually there isn't a single scientific evidence from any field, that would demonstrate such a duality. People like Kant were basically refuted, but philosophers still need a job.

[Atla]

You must modify it a lot then, as I pointed out earlier. There is no QM observer in MWI.

No collapse, Heisenberg cuts, immaterial causes, hidden variables, etc. All needless complications when the Schrodinger's equation is enough.

Yes I need to modify it a lot. Why stick to the standard MWI, when it doesn't actually solve the measurement problem? But I think the MWI provides a good framework.

My view is quite similar to MWI except in ontology. Sure, there are other viewpoints (worlds say), but we don't exist to each other. Actually we do, but undetectably so. Superposition is never fully eradicated, and one can always interfere with another close world, but after a point the terms can safely be evaluated separately.

The MWI posits the objective reality of the universal wavefunction. Most interpret this literally as multiple worlds, some like me don't. I don't think that the exist/doesn't exist idea explains anything.

I see nonlocality as inherent to QM though; how could it not be? I mean it's experimentally verified.

No it isn't

Are you saying that the Bell experiments haven't confirmed nonlocal correlations?

MWI is a local interpretation

The MWI is considered local by most and non-local by some. If you split the universal wavefunction into branches/worlds/whatever, and consider those branches/worlds/whatever to be local, then you must probably add that they are connected in a non-local way.

[Dalek Prime]

If you dismiss something out of hand, you might just have to pick it back up later.

[d63]

“Actually, I wish to revise that comment: I define consciousness as simply the entity which feels, which exists on the other side of an interface with the world.

Feeling is, to me, the most important part of consciousness. It's not enough for me to say that conscious beings can have observations. The difference between consciousness and unconsciousness is the difference between being able to experience feelings during a reaction to an observation and not being able to. At least, in my book .”

I agree with you here, Alex, to an extent: you are right in pointing out the internal aspect of consciousness: that which I think of as the perceiving thing (in my model that is), that fine point between existence and non-existence and what I believe can be attributed to some of the simplest life forms –perhaps even plants since they, as well, take in sensory input and respond to it. However, I would argue that the feelings you bring into it are more the result of the symbolic filters (as described by Douglass Hofstadter in I am a Strange Loop) that the perceiving thing projects through to be in the world. At the same time, in defense of your model, there are many thinkers (Perhaps Dennett as I understand him (who seem to think that all that is entangled together. So I’m in no position to claim ultimate authority on the issue.

That said, I would also point out that the main point of my letter was not so much a full description of the nature of consciousness as a possible explanation of why it is we experience mind and consciousness as we do rather as the pings, grunts, and silences we know to be in the meat of the brain. As I said:

“Secondly, I would address this in evolutionary terms and the non-linear feedback loop between the body, the brain, and the environment they are always working to negotiate. (And I say ‘non-linear’ because the environment is always changing for the body and brain.) There has, for some time now, been the question of how the language of the brain (the pings, grunts, and silences in the meat of it) translate into the experience we have of consciousness or ‘mind’. I would humbly submit that the reason we don’t experience our environment as pings, grunts, and silences is that consciousness (or mind) is a kind of ethereal interface that emerges between the environment and the brain that is always looking out for the body.”

This is my explanation for why we experience consciousness in all its fullness as compared to the binary on/off language of the brain. My argument is that, in a sense, it’s like the brain is basically mimicking the reality it is attempting to negotiate.

[lazyfordumbpeople444]

people who advocate a grand illusion don't control the illusion (or even understand the illusion) so what's the point?

Asking what’s the point is a pointless question since there is only what’s appearing to be happening, including opinions, there is no one in control of what’s happening, and nothing to understand about what one has no control over.

.

That's not a pointless question, but your answer is pointless.
I will DEBUNK you right now and all your previous spamming repetitive beliefs in this forum and in other forums, which you own sockpuppet accounts , loving Hitler and hating on people, and promoting your agenda.
First, I can debunk all your statements, by simply disarm your obvious tactics.
It's the old saying-. "If all was consciousness then nothing would be consciousness". ""If all was empty, then nothing would be empty." If all was substance then nothing would be substance" "If all was an illusion, then nothing would be an illusion"
This is the most truest quote EVER. Any wise and smart person would get that all your answers are based on this false premise, and is easily debunked, by simply logic. And you don't need a scientific or logic person to do that, any kid can do that.

First. you misuse the quote "appear to be happening"< you have to actually witness something that is appearing to be happening and not really happening to know what "appear to be happening" means. Therefore, you misuse it, if wasn't for what was appearing to be happening in opposite of what was really happening, you wouldn't know about it, wouldn't know how to distinct, and you wouldn't repeat it, as you do all the time.
Example: Someone appears to shoot someone. This really happened, the police are there, it's an objective fact.
Someone appears to shoot a person, this did not happen, the weapon was toy and they were acting.
See the difference? you wouldn't know the latter if wasn't for the opposite, which is actually what happened in oppposite of what appeared to be happening but wasn't really. You can use this example for opinions, etc..

Now, your misuse about the word 'no-one' is exactly like this example. You for sure learned it in books or likes to be brainwashed by simpletons such as Lisa Cairns and some others promoting the cult of neo-advaita.

See,... "I am not in control of this car, because this car is not mine... if the car was mine and I had the key to control the car, I would be in control...."
see? you only know about no-control , because of the opposite, which is you in control of the car.. otherwise you wouldn't use it, because you wouldn't know about it. Absolutely wouldn't.

no-one is actually 'no-one' , it's the opposite of someone, which is why you know about no-one....do I need to go further? Can it be more obvious that you were using arguments that were totally flawed this whole time? If someone is in the forum now to answer you, that's why you're here, go to a empty forum, when no one is there, then you now know what 'no-one' means. which is the opposite of this forum, which there are others to answer you.

This simply debunks and refutes your entire argument, which was never an argument, but simply repetitive jargons of other parrots that will be fully debunked too, soon.

[lazyfordumbpeople444]

Is illusion another word for perception or have you redefined perception to mean illusion.

No I haven't.

There is here only perception. That which is reading these words right now on this computer screen is only possible because there is a perceiver ...but the words read are the perception appearing in the perceiver, the words ARE NOT the perceiver.

The perceived is only possible in the sense there is first and foremost a perceiver present, this means that the perceiver cannot be what is perceived... ''things'' are the perceived, and that which is perceived cannot perceive.


The illusion is the ''word'' itself... words have no direct reality. Language divides what cannot be divided. Knowledge informs what is essentially formless...all an illusion appearing real. A real illusion.

.

This is all babble.
But can you answer something to me and to the people here?
In other post you said the observer wasn't only us, but the photons?
Then tell me, when the lights are off, and we are blocking the passage of the distant light coming from the moon, no photons are present in the room, all windows closed, totally dark, and you still there, observing, you are inert, unmoving, can sit, feel your body, ,and rest in your mind......according with you this could never happen, because according to you, not only you was the person who was the observer, but the photons... but how can this happen??? if no photons were present you would have to die, according to you, you can only exist if photons hit your retina and suddenly you observe and is conscious of your existnec.e.. total bullshit, again........... isnt it debunking the fact that it's you who is the observer, and you don't need any photons? Yes................. lucy you got some splainin to do...............

[lazyfordumbpeople444]

Reality is that which objectively exists while our own existence is merely a very infinitesimal part within said reality
When we die we will still be within it but will no longer be aware of the fact because we will have no consciousness

Who told you that when you die you will still be within it? No, you won't. Actually you never died to know. But it's kinda obvious, that when you die, you lose consciousness and you're gone, you're not "within" anything, if you were , you would appear to others that are in the world, aka, you would still be real, but you wouldnt, so no, you would. you die , you're gone.

[lazyfordumbpeople444]

But upon closer inspection you'll see there is no dividing line between here and there except the word, the dual nature of language... but reality is silence. …

The reality is sight, taste, hearing, touch(feeling), smell.

Reality is blind, tasteless, silent, intangible, odorless, thoughtless...arising as sight, taste, hearing, touch, and odor, and thought.

Reality is nondual. No one, aka individual person or thing sees, tastes, hears, feels, smells, or thinks.

There is only seeing, tasting, hearing, feeling, smelling, thinking...Reality is nondual.

No word can describe real reality, and yet every word is it. And yet the word is not what it points to, just as the signpost can only point to a specific location but is not the actual location, it can point everywhere except to itself.

Words are crap, but heck, divine crap.



I'm not answering the rest of your comments, it's dragging one back into mental whirlpools, it's not an activity that I am partial to. All your comments have been answered over and over again repeatedly - that's all I've ever done here in the entire duration I've been at this forum.

My assignment in life is to introduce nondual thinking ...and not to engage in the usual run of the mill circles of the mind, or to be a parrot.

Take it or leave it.



.

well, the autistic behavior of the narcissist person called Dontaskme, aka, a woman from a cult of other confused shills, spamming her messages everywhere on the internet, has been debunked in another topic. So whatever, in favor of his agenda, she MISUSES these words "no one" aka "x" and "y", only to discredit people and others, you can use this argument against her: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=24236&hilit=dontaskme&start=180
, which actually and absolutely debunks her, without any counter argument.
Just search for my post.
More debunk of this fraud/shill/HitlerLover will come. Including all her posts demolished, one by one.

[lazyfordumbpeople444]

Reality is blind, tasteless, silent, intangible, odorless, thoughtless...

And yet you think it conscious?

arising as sight, taste, hearing, touch, and odor, and thought. …

Thought is not different from these.

How is thought no different from these? LOL. This is totally bullsiht. I agree that none of this is "arising". But if you can't differ senses from mental phenomena such as unconscious thoughts, subconscious and etc.. then you're clueless as this troll called dontaskme.
I agree that no odor can arise if you don't smell something such as a flower, but what this has to do with your thought? NOTHING, NADA. One is in your mind, the other is outside, and which you can sense and smell with your nose.

[Noax]

Why stick to the standard MWI, when it doesn't actually solve the measurement problem?

Sure it does. All the interpretations do, but they do it differently. The reason it is a problem is there is no empirical differences (falsification tests) between them. That's why they are interpretations, not theories.

The MWI posits the objective reality of the universal wavefunction. Most interpret this literally as multiple worlds, some like me don't. I don't think that the exist/doesn't exist idea explains anything.

Multiple worlds has been around a long time. Cat is both dead and alive. Photon takes both paths. That's multiple worlds long before MWI interpretation was proposed.

I see nonlocality as inherent to QM though; how could it not be? I mean it's experimentally verified.

No it isn't

Are you saying that the Bell experiments haven't confirmed nonlocal correlations?

Locality is about lack of non-local effects, not lack of non-local correlations. Two entangled particles might have correlated properties, but only because they were entangled locally and then moved apart at no more than light speed, resulting in them being still correlated but no longer local to each other. This does not violate the principle of locality. Some interpretations (yours being one of them apparently, but not MWI) posit non-local effects where a local measurement causes a real change to some non-local event outside the light cone of the measurement.

MWI is a local interpretation

The MWI is considered local by most and non-local by some. If you split the universal wavefunction into branches/worlds/whatever, and consider those branches/worlds/whatever to be local, then you must probably add that they are connected in a non-local way.

Other worlds are not 'somewhere else'. They have the same location, and a measurement entangles only the local measurer with the thing locally measured (an effect to the measurer if anything, not to the measured). The wave functions of anything not there is unaffected by this. No world split occurs at a distance, and in fact no change to the wave function of the thing measured. So from an objective viewpoint, there are no multiple worlds, only superposition of state. From a specific observer viewpoint, there is only an altered wavefunction, not multiple worlds. So I find the popular name of the interpretation to be a misleading choice. The name was more correctly published as "relative state interpretation" by Hugh Everett, but the interpretation has become to be known as MWI by the public.

[Atla]

Sure it does. All the interpretations do, but they do it differently. The reason it is a problem is there is no empirical differences (falsification tests) between them. That's why they are interpretations, not theories.

If you think the standard MWI fully explains it then I'm afraid you didn't quite grasp the measurement problem yet, which is getting obvious from your comments. Nor does MWI+decoherence explain it. It's not so damn simple.

Locality is about lack of non-local effects, not lack of non-local correlations. Two entangled particles might have correlated properties, but only because they were entangled locally and then moved apart at no more than light speed, resulting in them being still correlated but no longer local to each other. This does not violate the principle of locality. Some interpretations (yours being one of them apparently, but not MWI) posit non-local effects where a local measurement causes a real change to some non-local event outside the light cone of the measurement.

I'm talking about non-local correlations, not non-local effects, as we already discussed once.

[Noax]

If you think the standard MWI fully explains it then I'm afraid you didn't quite grasp the measurement problem yet, which is getting obvious from your comments.

Maybe you could explain your notion of the measurement problem to my feeble mind. I can look it up. Wiki says "the problem of how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs". It follows from the MWI thesis that it doesn't, which neatly makes it a local interpretation since it posits no real wavefunction change on measurement.

I'm talking about non-local correlations, not non-local effects, as we already discussed once.

OK, non-local correlations are empirical fact. All the interpretations need to support that, else they'd not be valid. MWI is no exception. The principle of locality doesn't forbid correlation at a distance. It isn't spooky.

[RCSaunders]

1) All reality is matter

All that you can perceive, is physical.

It is true that all you can perceive is physical.

If you admit you can perceive matter, you must admit you can perceive. What you cannot perceive is your perceiving.

Seeing is perceiving. All that we can see is physical, but we cannot "see" our seeing. We know we see, not by perceiving it, but because we see. If seeing were physical (material) we would be able to perceive it. Since we cannot perceive our seeing (or any other form of perception) perception itself cannot be physical.

The physical world is all that we can be directly conscious of. Consciousness and what we are conscious of cannot be the same thing.

[Arising_uk]

How is thought no different from these? LOL. This is totally bullsiht. I agree that none of this is "arising". But if you can't differ senses from mental phenomena such as unconscious thoughts, subconscious and etc.. then you're clueless as this troll called dontaskme.
I agree that no odor can arise if you don't smell something such as a flower, but what this has to do with your thought? NOTHING, NADA. One is in your mind, the other is outside, and which you can sense and smell with your nose.

Describe one of your thoughts for me?

[Arising_uk]

It's a baseless, unnecessary, and additional assumption to posit a noumenon-phenomenon duality, especially in the light of modern neuroscience and QM. Actually there isn't a single scientific evidence from any field, that would demonstrate such a duality. People like Kant were basically refuted, but philosophers still need a job.

Like I say, people who haven't bothered to read Philosophy. Monism works with Kant's critique if you like, as he wasn't positing a duality but just a critique of what Reason can say about phenomena and the metaphysical assumption of a substrate he called the Noumena or 'thing-in-itself'. Of course you could just say its all and only phenomena(my personal choice as one of the things I know without doubt) but you'd have to say what you think Neuroscience and Quantum Mechanics has said with respect to these issues before I could change my mind that, so far, no-one has come up with a credible critique of Kant's critique, jobs or not.