So, what changed the probability of say 10 percent before some event happened to the obvious probability recognized as 100 percent after the event? I suggest that probability is actually a measure of our capacity to comprehend the situation.
The circle is an imaginary construct. We may construct a line of a determined number of units of length but using that as a radius we cannot lay down objects or points separated one of those units of length in anything other than a polygon.
Absolutely. We just can’t know enough to determine what will and what won’t happen, so we assign a number to the fraction we think we do know and call it probability.
I accept that, without “outside” influence, the physical is determined. What makes it interesting is that life provides the disrupting influence. Free will trumps cause-and-effect.
So, you are saying life is outside of our physical universe.
Seriously?
As for the circle vs. pi, isn’t that simply a game of Zeno’s Paradox you’re playing.
Why would the fact that the number that represents π is irrational and can be subdivided billions of time - nullify the fact of a circle?
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:41, topic:7511”]
So, what changed the probability of say 10 percent before some event happened to the obvious probability recognized as 100 percent after the event? I suggest that probability is actually a measure of our capacity to comprehend the situation.
Probability
Probability is the branch of mathematics concerning numerical descriptions of how likely an event is to occur, or how likely it is that a proposition is true. The probability of an event is a number between 0 and 1, where, roughly speaking, 0 indicates impossibility of the event and 1 indicates certainty.[note 1][1][2]
1 = certainty that it is possible for an event to happen, but does not indicate when. That is addressed with percentage of probability. Thus the longer the time and greater the fertile space where there is a chance of something specific happening, the higher the probability that it will happen within that time. and space.
The higher the probability of an event, the more likely it is that the event will occur. A simple example is the tossing of a fair (unbiased) coin. Since the coin is fair, the two outcomes (“heads” and “tails”) are both equally probable; the probability of “heads” equals the probability of “tails”; and since no other outcomes are possible, the probability of either “heads” or “tails” is 1/2 (which could also be written as 0.5 or 50%).
These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory, which is used widely in areas of study such as statistics, mathematics, science, finance, gambling, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer science, game theory, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[3]
You need to listento this excellent lecture by Robert Hazen , where he explains the probability for abiogenesis in a given environment and over a long period of time.
start viewing @ 12:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction.
That’s kind of what I was saying. I think you have rephrased it in a way that shows we understand each other.
But not that. You just switched to a non-deterministic worldview. That contradicts some of the things you said earlier. Or, you meant something different before. You do this kind of thing often, so I don’t know if we’ll ever untwist this.
I can remember the very first time I was taught what a point was is in math class. It was clearly stated that it was a representation, the the chalk on the chalkboard was only a representation of something that didn’t have a size. That doesn’t change how math works or what Pi is. It’s like saying we don’t see the color of a thing, we only see the reflected color. “Color” still means the same thing.
Sort of. And yes, seriously. There is an old quote: flesh comes from flesh; life comes from life. It is said as a matter-of-fact sort of thing, just something that everyone knows. Flesh is understood to be the physical or material and life is taken to be the spirit.
I accept the physical part of our experience is not the same as the spirit part of our experience. The one most obvious difference is the spirit part is the one that says “I am”. It recognizes itself as an individual separate from other individuals. The material doesn’t and can’t do that because it isn’t separate. The material is the “star stuff” and whatever construction is currently manifested will ultimately return to that stuff. It’s the old “dust to dust” thing.
We don’t (normally) think of those who have died as the dust their body has become or is becoming. We recognize the existence of other individuals as their person-hood which is their spirit.
The premise of having to move half the distance to a goal before getting to it is flawed. There is no assurance that a point exactly half way between the start point and the goal even exists. The notion that distance can be divided without limit is true only in the imaginary world of mathematics.
I accept that in the physical universe there is a smallest unit of something that is or can be something and that it cannot be subdivided. The smallest thing becomes the smallest unit of measure possible.
A physical circle consists of a curved line of objects. The most precise circle would consist of a curved line of the smallest things set with no space between them. Every segment of the circumference of that circle could be measured. The distance between the smallest things would be a straight line we call a chord. There would be a determined finite number of smallest things comprising the radius. There would be a determined finite number of smallest things comprising that circle. It would be a polygon, not a true circle.
The ratio of the most precise circle’s circumference (actually the sum of all the straight line segments of the polygon) to its radius would be a determined real number, not Pi. Pi is imaginary, because a true circle is imaginary.
I accept that the physical and spirit parts of our existence must be combined to give us the capacity to experience our world. I suspect that most people who don’t want to accept that there are two parts to our existence don’t want to accept it because doing so would let the “religious nuts” get a foot inside the door of their mind.
I believe if one denies the spirit part of us, he denies life. I just do not accept that the physical body alone has the ability to recognize that it has any person-hood. I have much more peace accepting the binary nature of us even if I don’t understand the spirit side of it than I could have if I just denied that binary nature altogether. I have had too many experiences that tell me there is more than just the material.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:48, topic:7511”]
I believe if one denies the spirit part of us, he denies life. I just do not accept that the physical body alone has the ability to recognize that it has any person-hood. I have much more peace accepting the binary nature of us even if I don’t understand the spirit side of it than I could have if I just denied that binary nature altogether. I have had too many experiences that tell me there is more than just the material.
I kind of agree with that with a qualification to replace the term “spirit” with “mind”.
Whereas the brain is conected to the neural network, the mind is an independent non-physical excellence that emerges from complex neural patterns .
This exactly what Seth and Tegmark propose, each from a different scientific perspective.
Tegmark proposes that the mind is an emergent excellence of mathematically patterned neural networks.
Seth advances the idea that the mind is a result of a brain’s best guess of the data it receives as compared to stored experiential data in memory .
Hameroff and Penrose propose that the mind emerges at the quantum level in the neural microtubule network , where data is Orchestrated Objective Reduction into comprehensive abstract images.
I appreciate that you are making statements about your experience, and don’t seem to be forcing them on others
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:48, topic:7511”]
I have had too many experiences that tell me there is more than just the material.
Yes, but they are emergent excellences from complex patterns and have no existence without the material foundation.
It seems that all terms ending in “xxxxxxness” are abstractions that have no independent existence from another material foundation.
Liquid wetness is an emergent property of a large collection of dry H2O molecules organized in a specific pattern density which we call “water”.
Lower the temperature and that same collection of molecules experiences a rearrangement in pattern density and an emergent property of “solid dryness”, which we call “ice”
Raise the temperature and that same collection of molecules experiences a rearrangement of pattern density and an emergent property of “gaseous dryness”, which we call “vapor”.
Consider that when a person freezes to death, none of his dynamic constituent molecules disappear. They just become arranged in an unfortunate static pattern that is no longer alive. Some fish can survive periods of being frozen, and that has given rise to the concept of “cryonic suspension”.
Think about that . It is quite remarkable.
“… one of the oldest and most universal practices for the initiate to go through the experience of death before he can be spiritually reborn. Symbolically he must die to his past, and to his old ego, before he can take his place in the new spiritual life into which he has been initiated.”
That sounds a lot like something from the Bible doesn’t it? Well the surprise, for some. is its source: The Psychedelic Experience , published in 1964, is a guide for LSD trips, written by Timothy Leary, Ralph Metzner and Richard Alpert (later known as Ram Dass), loosely based on Evan-Wentz’s translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead . From Bardo Thodol - Wikipedia
My point is that after reading one of Joseph Campbell’s books a long time ago the thing that stood out most to me is that every myth/religion throughout history has included as an underlying principle the belief that we are more than just physical, that we are also spirit. I didn’t invent that wheel.
Nothing I have read/seen/heard since then has dissuaded me and I have had experiences which reinforced the belief. People have extrapolated from that one principle into all sorts of ideas. For me, whether one decides to accept the idea of spirit and anything further has to be up to the individual. Of course, as one who believes, I encourage anyone who does not accept the principle of spirit to question.
I would modify your statement to say “… have no material existence without …”.
I don’t accept that you have a demonstrable basis for determining the existence/non-existence of anything non-physical. I think at best all you can say with confidence is that you don’t recognize any physical manifestation you can associate with anything non-physical.
We don’t see with our ears. We don’t smell with our fingers. I see no reason we should expect to experience the non-physical with any physical sense. My basis for accepting the spirit part of living things is the life, and death, they exhibit and my own experiences. I will probably come around to your way of thinking if I see life created from non-life.
I started the “worldview humility” thread under this category a couple of days ago. It acknowledges that the scientific approach to knowledge is one way of viewing the world and it does not eliminate the feelings of “something beyond” or “something bigger than ourselves”. It does however reduce the probability of many things to extremely lower values. Things like gods, spirits, non-physical sources of consciousness, extra dimensions that are inaccessible to theoritical physics. As yet undiscovered dimensions are allowed in theories, but if you say there is something out there that we can’t ever understand or can’t ever come up with an experiment to possibly examine, then that’s equivalent to any imaginary anything. You’ve stepped out of logic and into pure speculation. Again, fine, just admit that’s what you’re doing.
The basic principle of science, as it has been practiced since the mid 1700’s or so, is that what science can call “truth” is limited to shared experiences. This means that only physical events which can be reproduced can be considered “scientific”. So, science says that if “there is something out there that we can’t ever understand [under principles of science] or can’t ever come up with an experiment [under principles of science] to possibly examine, then [it must be considered] equivalent to any imaginary anything.”
If the only evidence we will accept of non-physical events must come from physical experiments then it is most unlikely we will ever recognize non-physical events. If the physical man does experience non-physical events then there must be a connection between the physical and the non-physical. Because of my own experiences, I am much more willing to accept that there is some connection rather than just dismissing it because I don’t know what it could be or how it could work.
I will visit your worldview humility thread now.
Thanks for attempting to restate what I said. Here are a couple questions on what you’re trying to say:
The science approach to recognizing things has some standards, but you say, “unlikely we will ever recognize non-physical events”. How would we recognize them?
Or, similarly, what does it mean to ‘experience’ in “If the physical man does experience non-physical events”.
You’ve said you choose to accept, “rather than just dismissing”. I’ve stated more than once, in this thread and others that speculation, accepting there are things we don’t know, always searching for more knowledge, constant reassessment of current theories, probability of possibilities, are all part of science. Why do you label all of that “just dismissing”?
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:53, topic:7511”]
I would modify your statement to say “… have no material existence without …”
I’ll agree with that.
I don’t accept that you have a demonstrable basis for determining the existence/non-existence of anything non-physical. I think at best all you can say with confidence is that you don’t recognize any physical manifestation you can associate with anything non-physical.
Are “thoughts” material in and of themselves or are they emergent phenomena from data processing by the brain?
We don’t see with our ears. We don’t smell with our fingers. I see no reason we should expect to experience the non-physical with any physical sense. My basis for accepting the spirit part of living things is the life, and death, they exhibit and my own experiences.
We do see with our eyes. We do smell with our nose . We do hear with our ears. These are our sensory receptors.
We do not experience these physical phenomena until the data has been processed by the brain, which produce non-physical “hallucinations” wich in turn trigger physically chemical emotional experiences.
I will probably come around to your way of thinking if I see life created from non-life.
Oh, you need to listen to Robert Hazen on page 44.
Please, do yourself a favor and watch this really information but not boring presentation what current science knows about abiogenesis, and the probability of its occurrence given certain commonly occurring natural environments.
OK, so I watched the presentation up until the question period. The main thing I got from it is how many “experiments” he calculated were possible. I accept that we are getting to a point where we think we understand that chemical processes produced replicating molecules. I think we are not yet at the point of understanding that those molecules led to consciousness.
I accept that for the physical part of us to come into existence it had to be possible and that means that it had to be a physical process. I have stated before that to me every living thing seems to have some level of consciousness, some level of recognition of self as apart from everything else which is not self. I believe we see that in all living things right down to the simplest single-cell creatures.
It just doesn’t seem to me that we can ascribe consciousness to the functioning of a complex brain in creatures that do not appear to have a complex brain. I can accept that “higher” intelligence or consciousness requires a complex brain, or even that a complex brain produces a higher level of consciousness, but not that basic self-awareness, which to me is the best definition of life, is a product of physical structure.
Because I have seen almost no acceptance of “spiritual” experiences by anyone who would place himself in the science community. Surely we all recognize that there has arisen a divide between those on the science “side” and those thought of as the religious nuts.
What it means, in physical terms, to experience non-physical events would be the basis for establishing some sort of scientific standard for recognizing those events. I think the reason people, myself included, who have trouble describing the non-physical events they have experienced is that there are not direct physical analogs for the experience. We hear descriptions such as “it was like” this or “it seemed like” that. We seem to remember something so unusual that we are surprised, if not actually shocked, and may ask ourselves "what was that?’
I will say again that for us to experience non-physical events it must be possible and that means, to me, that there must be some connection. I think the scientific focus should be on what that connection is and how it works. I think it is very unlikely that we will discover it unless we look for it. I can’t tell anyone where to begin other than to acknowledge that there may be something there.
What I see you doing here is using evidence from non-scientists to comment on the community of science and the scientific method. Your facts are correct, people make fun of and/or say that personal experience is dumb or wrong or doesn’t mean anything. A scientific approach says that personal experience is a personal experience, it’s a data point.
What I don’t see you doing is discussing how those experiences could be studied. When I get into discussions with individuals who tell me they are receiving information from some higher power, I tell them that’s nice, but there’s no way for me to confirm their information, no reason for me to act on it. They usually then tell me to live my life a certain way or perform certain rituals or just “open” myself to receiving it.
None of those things have ever worked for me. Millions of others have tried them, and they haven’t worked. People kill others for not doing them correctly, they try forcing others to do them. They fail even worse. When believers complain about being picked on for believing, this long history of religious violence is left out. One of my ex-pastors literally cut the conversation off anytime I would bring it up. Funny thing is, complaining about being picked on is part of religion, it strengthens the resolve of the beliver.
Religious persecution exists, but it is almost always perpetrated by other religions. It is never a science based institution providing the reasons for oppressing belief. Some may claim they are basing their reasons on science, but they are using non-scientific reasoning.
There are a few people studying the science of religion. They are hard to find, I admit. But is that because no one ever wanted to study it, or is it because religion had control of education for so long and an educational institution getting funding to study to it would have risked getting funding for other parts of that institution?