Author |
Topic: telekinesis (Read 10938 times) |
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender: 
Posts: 1825
|
 |
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #50 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 6:00am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 3:07am, ThudanBlunder wrote:| I think it is only fitting that we cannot work out everything with the (finite) mind, as it wouldn't be much of a Universe if we could. How can a part understand the Whole? |
|
I believe that this is key to appreciating the limit of our understanding. Assuming that Schroedinger's cat possessed heightened consciousness and intelligence it would never be able to grasp the full measure of its reality from inside its "box". It might be able to classify the chemical in the vial as hydrocyanic acid. It might be able to determine the effects of the acid on a cat's physiology. It might be able to establish that the release of the compound is triggered by a device capable of detecting radioactive decay of a particular substance. But it would never be able to see the bigger picture, never mind the "truth" that it doesn't actually exist and is only part of a thought experiment. That is, "The cat would be left better informed but none the wiser."
|
|
 IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #51 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 8:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 3:07am, ThudanBlunder wrote:But it is the very nature of things that we cannot see quarks, for example.
So I don't see the point in asking, "What if nature were not like that?" |
|
We might see consequences of the difference.
The only time there isn't a point, if you replace it with a theory that behaves identical in every observable way. (If you have many such theories, just pick a simplest one, says Occam)
Quarks lead to observable predictions, replacing them with, say, yoghurts (*dutch language related pun pun), you'd probably get other results.
Quote:| If the truth cannot be precisely defined then we cannot pursue it. We can only appear to. |
|
I suppose that's a variation in the meaning of "pursue". But truth is very precisely defined as that which is. That, however, doesn't help us in the slightest to find it.
We can only find what our observable universe behaves like most. But it could always be embedded in something that is fundamentally different.
Anyway, something I would have posted earlier, but cut from my post. Truth is not the measure of success of science. How true a theory is is of little importance; in fact some philosophers of science would turn it around, the success of science is a measure of truth (and with that depart from the ideal of objective truth).
How successful science is depends on what we as society do with it, how it helps us come to terms with our 'kosmos' (our 'orderly arrangement' [of the universe], ordered by us, for us; in good aneristic tradition).
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #52 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 8:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 4:51am, TenaliRaman wrote:The point of debate then would be, is mind really a part of the universe.  |
|
If it weren't then the universe wouldn't be the universe.
One might propose there is a physical and non-physical side to the universe; but that has major problems. Not least of which is that if the non-physical can interact with the physical (e.g. you mind can cause things to happen, and your senses can influence your mind), then it becomes physical. It is something you can probe and test with physical means, i.e. an entity in the physical universe.
Hmmm, ok, seems Grimbal already said that as well
on Sep 17th, 2007, 5:34am, Grimbal wrote:| Did you ever utter the words "I am conscious"? To do that your mind must have a way to affect the physical world. And if it affects the physical world, it is physical. |
|
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2007, 8:56am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #53 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 9:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 5:34am, Grimbal wrote:| Did you ever utter the words "I am conscious"? To do that your mind must have a way to affect the physical world. |
|
Sorry, I don't follow that.
on Sep 17th, 2007, 8:48am, towr wrote:| But truth is very precisely defined as that which is. |
|
That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. - William Jefferson Clinton 
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2007, 7:10pm by ThudnBlunder » |
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #54 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 7:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 1:33am, ThudanBlunder wrote:Any thoughts on the physics bit?
in my opinion the search for the chimerical Theory of Everything is thus doomed to failure.
|
|
Why so? Can you please elaborate?
|
|
IP Logged |
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
--Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself.
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #55 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 7:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 7:31pm, Sameer wrote:
Why so? Can you please elaborate? |
|
Because the aforementioned Scientific Method is incremental.
|
|
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
TenaliRaman
Uberpuzzler
I am no special. I am only passionately curious.
Gender:
Posts: 1001
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #56 on: Sep 17th, 2007, 11:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 8:53am, towr wrote:Not least of which is that if the non-physical can interact with the physical (e.g. you mind can cause things to happen, and your senses can influence your mind), then it becomes physical. It is something you can probe and test with physical means, i.e. an entity in the physical universe.
Hmmm, ok, seems Grimbal already said that as well
|
|
I still dont see a problem in treating them differently. Arent thoughts the cause of all actions which we call voluntary? If i say that brain is an interface between mind and body, wouldnt that be an acceptable idea?? And dont we already probe into how our mind works and we already see the influence of actions on our mind.
Moreover, what i dont understand in the above argument is why an interface between a physical and a non-physical need not exist?? You sure do realise that my mind doesnt affect what you do in your day-today life (not atleast directly), and vice versa. My mind is a sole controller of my body and my actions. Given this restriction, how come the argument that anything that influences a physical entity has to be physical hold?
-- AI
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2007, 11:56pm by TenaliRaman » |
IP Logged |
Self discovery comes when a man measures himself against an obstacle - Antoine de Saint Exupery
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #57 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 1:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 17th, 2007, 11:50pm, TenaliRaman wrote:| I still dont see a problem in treating them differently. |
|
There isn't a problem in the sense there isn't a problem treating doors and chairs different. But in a fundamental sense they are the same, they are physical; of physical substance.
Quote:| Aren't thoughts the cause of all actions which we call voluntary? |
|
I don't know.
It might all be an illusion. I feel that in dualism it has to be, because for the mental not to be physical there cannot be interaction. Which isn't to say the physical cannot be more complicated (less law-like) than we think.
Quote:| If i say that brain is an interface between mind and body, wouldnt that be an acceptable idea?? |
|
Sure; just as you could say the computer is an interface between me and the software that runs on it (alluding to the functionalist approach, which says the mind is to the brain what software is to a computer).
Quote:| And dont we already probe into how our mind works and we already see the influence of actions on our mind. |
|
Yes, we can scientifically examine the mind; it is in that sense no different from other phenomena. It's easier to get to than exotic particles.
Quote:| Moreover, what i dont understand in the above argument is why an interface between a physical and a non-physical need not exist?? |
|
The coherence between the physical and non-physical might simply be an illusion. (Of course strictly speaking the non-physical couldn't even observe the physical, so it wouldn't notice the coherence). But when there is interaction, I don't see how they can be separate substances (in the dualist sense).
Quote:| You sure do realise that my mind doesnt affect what you do in your day-today life (not atleast directly), and vice versa. My mind is a sole controller of my body and my actions. Given this restriction, how come the argument that anything that influences a physical entity has to be physical hold? |
|
Does the steering wheel in a car control other cars? It is a physical object that's only directly affecting one physical object.
I can affect your mind by affecting you. I don't see how it's fundamentally different from scientist using tools to affect things they couldn't otherwise affect (like rearrange single atoms).
At the very least the mind has physical properties by virtue of interacting with the the rest of the universe. And it can't have distinguishable properties that don't affect the universe, because if they were distinguishable they could affect the world (e.g. we might talk about them, or act differently because of them).
Perhaps a bit late, but note that the biggest difference between our standpoints might simply be what we consider "physical" to mean. If you consider the physical world to be causally closed (like me); then it must consist of everything that causally affects it or is causally affected by it. You could split that whole in two, or three, or more; and call one of those smaller parts 'the physical', but obviously we then mean different things by the same name (which is often a problem in philosophical discussions; which is why one ought to clear up concepts at the start, rather than near the end say "hmm, maybe we aren't talking about the same thing when we say ...", as I'm doing now).
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 18th, 2007, 1:06am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
TenaliRaman
Uberpuzzler
I am no special. I am only passionately curious.
Gender:
Posts: 1001
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #58 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 3:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 18th, 2007, 1:03am, towr wrote:| Perhaps a bit late, but note that the biggest difference between our standpoints might simply be what we consider "physical" to mean. |
|
Right.
Quote:| If you consider the physical world to be causally closed (like me); then it must consist of everything that causally affects it or is causally affected by it. You could split that whole in two, or three, or more; and call one of those smaller parts 'the physical', but obviously we then mean different things by the same name (which is often a problem in philosophical discussions; which is why one ought to clear up concepts at the start, rather than near the end say "hmm, maybe we aren't talking about the same thing when we say ...", as I'm doing now). |
|
The problem here is, if i assume the world to be causally closed, then mind would become very much a part of this universe and thereby might raise arguments like the one T&B made ("how can a part understand the whole?" which i believe was rhetoric).
I do believe, mind is infinite, which implies that i have to go with the opposite side. Though, "have" is a strong word to use, given that i have hardly analysed the capacity of a mind in a causally closed world (wherein there might be a possibility for a part to understand the whole, analogous to a bijection from an infinite set to one of its subset).
-- AI
|
|
IP Logged |
Self discovery comes when a man measures himself against an obstacle - Antoine de Saint Exupery
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #59 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 6:57am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 18th, 2007, 3:13am, TenaliRaman wrote:| The problem here is, if i assume the world to be causally closed, then mind would become very much a part of this universe and thereby might raise arguments like the one T&B made ("how can a part understand the whole?" which i believe was rhetoric). |
|
If you take the whole of everything that is causally connected, you have the same problem; it doesn't matter how you call it. Dividing it in mental and physical doesn't solve the problem.
And I don't see how the mind could understand even itself, let alone everything else as well. Partial understanding, however, is certainly possible, and worthwhile.
Complete understanding is problematic if only because of godels incompleteness theorem. You can build a train track such that you won't know beforehand whether a train running on it (provided sufficient fuel) will reach an end or not. The only way to find out is run it, or simulate it (whcih for a traintrack will be faster). These sorts of things make it inherently difficult to have a complete understanding of things (You don't understand the track unless you at least know where the train ends up.)
On the other hand, you can understand it in a local sense, how every part behaves in itself and in interaction. (The laws of the universe may well be finite; so that gives an important local understanding.)
Quote:| I do believe, mind is infinite, which implies that i have to go with the opposite side. Though, "have" is a strong word to use, given that i have hardly analysed the capacity of a mind in a causally closed world (wherein there might be a possibility for a part to understand the whole, analogous to a bijection from an infinite set to one of its subset). |
|
If the mind were infinite, I would hope I could remember more. It feels finite in many ways.
<out of time>
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 18th, 2007, 9:37am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #60 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 7:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 18th, 2007, 3:13am, TenaliRaman wrote:
I do believe, mind is infinite...
|
|
How can an infinite mind spring from a finite number of brain cells with a finite number of interconnections? Even quantum computation is finite.
|
|
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #61 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 9:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 18th, 2007, 7:17am, ThudanBlunder wrote:| How can an infinite mind spring from a finite number of brain cells with a finite number of interconnections? Even quantum computation is finite. |
|
In substance dualism, the mind doesn't (necessarily) spring from the brain (or remain limited by it).
You could think of the brain as merely an interface to a mind outside the (normal) physical reality. What forces the mind can employ to have any effects is a mystery then, though. Because physics as we know it doesn't allow for it.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender:
Posts: 4489
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #62 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 10:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 18th, 2007, 9:37am, towr wrote:
In substance dualism, the mind doesn't (necessarily) spring from the brain... |
|
The effects of brain damage suggest that this theory is a triumph of form over substance.
|
|
IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #63 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 10:23am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 18th, 2007, 10:09am, ThudanBlunder wrote:| The effects of brain damage suggest that this theory is a triumph of form over substance. |
|
Yup, I'd agree.
Behaviorally, it certainly appears that the mind is changed when the brain is changed (either by damage, but also drugs).
I suppose one might try to blame it on a damaged 'interface'. But I'm not sure how well that would pan out.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
TenaliRaman
Uberpuzzler
I am no special. I am only passionately curious.
Gender:
Posts: 1001
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #64 on: Sep 18th, 2007, 9:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 18th, 2007, 10:23am, towr wrote:| I suppose one might try to blame it on a damaged 'interface'. But I'm not sure how well that would pan out. |
|
I am not an expert on this subject, but yes that definitely would be my argument (however with a weak basis or probably even no basis at all).
I wont deny that the premises of my arguments have no strong pillars, nor the fact that my knowledge in this regard is as primitive as protozoa (little and un-updated). However, alternative reality is pretty much my interest subject, that may be the reason why i find dualism more exciting.
-- AI
|
|
IP Logged |
Self discovery comes when a man measures himself against an obstacle - Antoine de Saint Exupery
|
|
|
wade32
Newbie
If you spit in the wind, you'll get wet!
Gender:
Posts: 44
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #65 on: Apr 6th, 2012, 7:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Can this really happen?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
alien2
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 6989
|
|
Re: telekinesis
« Reply #66 on: Apr 14th, 2012, 5:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 11th, 2007, 8:17pm, srn347 wrote:| Some people believe it, some don't. There are also different beliefs about what abilities it includes. Let the debate begin with the next post. |
|
I don't know if some people have telekinetic abilities, but I like The Lawnmower Man, Scanners, Dark City and Prince of Darkness.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print