Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 115 of 305 (364698)
11-19-2006 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
11-18-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Pulling in comments from other threads ... part 1
_________________________________________________________________________
RAZD writes:
I think this idea is important, for very little of what we individually "know" comes from personal experience knowledge: we rely a great deal on imparted knowledge. The imparted knowledge can be tested, but rarely does an individual take this effort, instead relying on sources that are trusted to present reality as they experienced it.
Whilst I’m not entirely sure I agree wholly with the term ”very little’, I broadly agree with this sentiment, and it’s certainly the case that in this age of information technology, a much higher percentage of what we “know” comes from imparted knowledge than would have been the case for our cave-dwelling ancestors, for instance.
But to some extent what we “know” through imparted knowledge can be expanded to say, “what we choose to know through imparted knowledge”. That is to say, we choose which sources we feel we can trust from the many that exist, in some cases each presenting very different slants on the nature of events or reality they are reporting on or observing. Further, when we do receive imparted knowledge, I believe we have the tendency to “pre-process” it before filing it away in order that it best fits the model of reality stored within each of our heads. Indeed I believe we do the very same thing with all knowledge, whether it is primary, secondary or “alternate”.
Which brings us to the problem with the potential discrepancies between what might be described as objective, definitive reality and the subjective model of such we each of us walk around with in our head. How can we really know how closely these models approximate definitive reality, either collectively or as individuals?
Which kind of leads us to:
RAZD writes:
This gives us primary knowledge, secondary knowledge and alternate knowledge. The problem is to judge the validity of this "alternate knowledge" when there is no experience that it can be compared with.
We need to rely then on secondary knowledge based on the evidence of those who experience this "alternate knowledge" - but this is not really any different from having to rely on secondary knowledge for any experience outside of our personal experience. The more removed the experience is from any in our personal experience the harder it is to accept. We are certainly all entitled to employ just a smidgeon of scepticism when faced with something foreign to our experience.
I don’t think the problems alluded to here, those associated with evaluating claims for knowledge attributed to faith-based ”insight’, are solely the preserve of sceptical third parties. I mean, how are the first hand recipients of such knowledge to evaluate it?
Yesterday afternoon, after posting my last contribution, I came across this fascinating little exchange between members crashfrog and, coincidentally, iano, taken from the topic ”Would you want to know?’ in ”Faith and Belief’:
crashfrog writes:
That's one way to put it. Like you are now, I was absolutely, without a doubt convinced that I was having authentic fellowship with God through Jesus Christ.
Later I realized I had been mistaken, and that God did not exist.
iano writes:
Being convinced you are is not the same as actually having. Patently you were not having that relationshiop (you now think). If you were not then you were not. You were only convinced you were.
I think this ably demonstrates the problems in trying to evaluate faith-based knowledge.
Going back to my toe, if when I stub it I experience a sharp burst of pain, I can attribute that pain to the stubbing with a very high degree of certainty. But as far as I can understand it, faith-based knowledge of the type alluded to by iano emanates from within the individual and, as such, is so much more difficult to pinpoint in terms of origin or cause.
As can be seen by the fact that a believer in such phenomena is readily prepared to accept the principle of false positives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2006 4:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2006 8:06 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 117 of 305 (365396)
11-22-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by RAZD
11-19-2006 8:06 PM


Re: continuing Primary, Secondary and Alternate knowldege.
Cheers RAZD.
Having seen the BBC Horizon programme featuring Michael Persinger, I’ve been scouring the web to little avail in an attempt to find some details of these experiments and research, so was delighted to find the links you set up on message #70.
I’m gradually working my way through this thread, but am a very slow reader with limited amounts of available time. I’ve just passed halfway and finding very little to take issue with what is being posted . which is great for consensus, but not for lively debate.
But I would like to add a couple of thoughts of my own to your views on validation by ”commonality’. I think there’s a very fine line between validation and reinforcement. By this I mean that to me validation implies a sense of being prepared to accept that lack of support may indicate a weakness in the case for something, whilst reinforcement only counts positive evidence, ignoring or discounting the negative.
Leading on from this is the notion of denial, or at least the notion of denying contrary evidence or experiences for no better reason than they are contrary and should therefore not be considered. In addition to what might be called active denial, the previously mentioned discounting, I believe there’s a much more subtle denial, which might be described as passive denial. This entails the avoidance of anything that might lead an individual to come into contact with views or ideas that might contradict, and therefore threaten, their sense of reality.
Mmm. I’ve just given the above a quick read through before pressing ”Submit’, and it has become apparent how insipid a contribution it is. There must be something more interesting to say.
So I guess I want to go back to ”commonality’. What should we make of the ”commonality’ of experience in an area where the interpretation of those experiences is as contentious as the experiences themselves? Which pretty much brings us back to Persinger and his research.
One of the more interesting aspects of this was the participation of Richard Dawkins in one of the experiments, and the conclusion that, “Although Dawkins reported some strange experiences and tinglings during the experiment, no visions were forthcoming. It seems that Dawkins was not a likely subject for this experiment. He had previously scored low on a psychological test which measures proneness to temporal lobe sensitivity.”
I’m not entirely sure what is meant by, “He had previously scored low on a psychological test which measures proneness to temporal lobe sensitivity.” Is the psychological test measuring the neurological structure of his brain, or a predisposition away from the sensitivity mentioned, based on his belief structure, or a combination of both?
So the next question becomes, to what extent can a predisposition ”condition’ or ”train’ the neurological structure of our brains to heighten or dampen our sensitivity towards certain experiences? Which brings things back to where I started on the original ”Faith and Belief’ thread, with this thought from iano:
iano writes:
Nobody is reasoned into Christianity. It can only make sense from the perspective of having insights currently closed to you. The catch-22 of faith. “Faith is the evidence of things not seen” - but you don’t get that faith (evidence) until you have faith (belief)
If faith brings about predisposition, does it also lead to ”conditioning’ or ”training’ of the brain’s neurological structure to heighten sensitivity to certain types of neural activity? Finally, does faith predispose those who experience ”alternate’ knowledge to interpret it as coming from an external spiritual or supernatural source?
In conclusion, is faith a self-fulfilling prophecy? Does taking that initial ”leap of faith’ lead to a ”conditioning’ of neural sensitivity, which leads in turn to a conclusion that subsequent experiences must emanate from the source in which the faith has been placed, given what may appear to be a ”cause and effect’ correlation?
Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2006 8:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2006 7:48 AM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 119 of 305 (365612)
11-23-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
11-23-2006 7:48 AM


Re: continuing Primary, Secondary and Alternate knowldege.
I trust you had a good Thanksgiving. We have nothing comparable in Scotland - but we do get to see all three NFL games live on TV!
But the above is probably a bit OT. So let’s try and get things back on track.
I think I previously described myself as a sceptic . a sceptic who believes in probabilities rather than certainties. To this sceptic, the probability that man created his god(s) seems a lot more likely than that the god(s) created mankind (or anything else). However, being an evolutionist, more or less, I could not discount the probability that something approximating a god may evolve sometime in the future, or may even be doing so in some far-flung corner of the universe at this very moment.
Neither can I discount the possibility that I have figured the odds incorrectly and am just plain wrong. But if a supernatural being were to exist, I just don’t buy the idea that it would be undetectable to science forever. If those who believe they ”know’ their god are experiencing something ”real’ as opposed to imaginary, that experience must be measurable. Put crudely, if the individual is a receiving device, then what they are receiving must be some kind of signal, albeit of a type we are currently unable to understand (or measure). And if the signal can be detected, it opens up the possibility of being able in turn to detect the source of that signal.
I appreciate that the above will be anathema to many, but it does suggest a tantalising paradox. How would those who believe their god tells them he is ”unknowable’ react if science were ever to detect him? Would they reject the evidence because they believed he had told them about the impossibility of this eventuality, and for their faith to be meaningful, knowledge of him had necessarily to be a matter of faith rather than observation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2006 7:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 9:37 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 121 of 305 (365928)
11-25-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by RAZD
11-24-2006 9:37 PM


Re: continuing Primary, Secondary and Alternate knowldege.
RAZD writes:
ps - why "dogrelata" with an icon of "Bagheera"?
I’ve been using the chatname “dogrelata” for some years on another forum. I did have to think awhile before using it on here because of the dog/god connotations, but in the end I kind of liked the ambiguity. So when I couldn’t find a suitable dog icon, I thought it might be an idea to create the dog/cat ambiguity. Had I not found a suitable cat, I’d probably have sought out something like and eagle owl. At this point I wanted to post the picture of an eagle owl, but haven't been able to figure out how to it
On a forum like this, where ambiguities and uncertainties abound, I think it’s good to keep reminding ourselves of such.
RAZD writes:
It could be that the end of the universe then has your evolved "approximating a god" - a conservation of energy that balances entropy with "spirit essence"? - that knows the end is near and what will\can come? Would not this also apply to a previous universe?
Hypothetically, it seems a reasonable extension, although what the specific processes might be would be anyone’s guess. If the suggestion is that such a being or beings already exists as a result of evolution, either in this universe or some other (past or present), as someone who accepts most of the evolutionary hypothesis, it would be illogical for me to deny the possibility.
However, should such an entity exist, and science were ever to observe it, would it be capable of inspiring the type of reverence and awe enjoyed by humanity’s current ”prime suspect’? If such an entity were to be discovered, and evidence amassed that showed it to be the phenomenon responsible for the ”god experience’, would it be a problem for faith-based believers if it turned out to be a whole lot different than had been expected, especially if the differences were unfavourable?
But I guess I’m starting to wander OT again. It’s just that there’s already been speculation on this thread as to how closely our perception of the reality we can touch, feel, see etc, matches the real thing (whatever that might be). Given the added problems with trying to deal with ”alternate’ knowledge, it just seems that if those with faith were to be right, the chances of them being ”very’ right don’t seem so good. I’ve just got this hunch that if science ever does the unthinkable, there might be a lot of very disappointed and disillusioned believers.
But what do I know?
RAZD writes:
Logically I can only deduct agnosticism. Personally I believe in a Deist creation, where {?}'s departing words were "surprise me" ...
Do you think your {?} would be pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised by the way its universe has evolved so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 9:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2006 11:13 AM dogrelata has not replied
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 7:37 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 126 of 305 (366254)
11-27-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
11-26-2006 7:37 PM


Re: limits of science?
RAZD writes:
My personal belief is that science is incapable of determining that a supernatural entity exists, it will either be because the consistent application of supernatural forces will be interpreted as natural with natural theories to explain how it operates - take gravity as a possibility: why is there gravity (not how)? and why "dark" stuffs?
I guess it’s not enough for us to speculate about what we know and don’t know at the moment, we need also to speculate about what we will know and won’t know in the future, and what conclusions we are able to draw from that If I may, I should like to add to your, ”we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand’, the following:
we are limited in our ability to understand by our need to understand it now
I think the lingering doubt remains that wherever our ”knowledge and understanding’ leads us; it will never be enough for some of us - be we believers or non-believers.
Which I hope is still on topic. If not, I’d like to add one further thought which should have no problem meeting the required criteria.
We’ve already touched on the work of Michael Persinger and I also find it fascinating, offering as it does some intriguing possibilities into what might be described as the ”god experience’. But regardless of the validity of the work, it can hardly be considered comprehensive in terms of the range of experiences reported. A common theme, both on these forums and with people I know, is the small, inner voice phenomenon, which offers advice and guidance.
So at this point I’d like to bring the ”free will, free won’t’ debate to the table, but without entering the emotive realms of whether we do or do not possess free will. To this layman at least, there are some interesting undertones in the work of the likes of Libet and Lau that tends to get overlooked, at least amongst the populist reporting of science. Hardly surprising really, given the philosophical and religious controversy caused by any suggestion that we may not in fact possess free will.
As someone who’s only exposure to science is the aforementioned populist route, I can hardly pretend to have any special insight, so have satisfied myself with offering the very first link I could find that refers to the subject: http://dericbownds.net/...ree-will-free-wont-or-neither.html
Unless I have wholly misunderstood what is happening, the research suggests that the idea of our conscious mind being in control of our actions may be mistaken. Instead the suggestion is that the mechanical mind is responsible for the decision making process, with the conscious mind following up with a ”rational’ explanation for any decisions made. Libet is further suggesting that the conscious mind has the power of veto, although it appears that Lau is now questioning this.
I have also seen other research regarding experiments carried out with individuals who have had the link between the two halves of their brain severed. These involve subjects being shown groups of objects or photographs and being asked to select the odd one out. They are then asked to explain their selections. The really interesting bit is that whilst they are able to correctly select the odd one out, they tend to have a problem explaining why. This suggests that the decision making process is being carried out by the mechanical part of the brain on a sub-conscious level and that the conscious mind struggles to rationalise the decision because it fails to receive any feedback as a result of the severance.
So what’s my point? Well it seems that if what we ”know’ is learned by and stored in the sub-conscious part of our mind, might this not be where the ”knowledge’ imparted by the small, inner voice originates? After all, isn’t it also part of the commonality of this type of experience that the imparter of this ”knowledge’ appears to intimately understand the situation and frequently seems able to offer ”tailored’ advice and guidance? None of which would be in the least bit surprising if individuals were simply tapping into their own knowledge, a knowledge they did not know they possessed, brought about by the accumulation of their own experiences.
Might these individuals not in fact be their own gods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2006 11:47 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 130 of 305 (366531)
11-28-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
11-27-2006 11:47 PM


Re: limits of science?
RAZD writes:
I have some problems with these conclusions. I also have some trouble with the methodology to record when stuff starts to happen -- people documenting when something starts is going to inevitably lag behind the actual start because the process of sensing the start and then verbalizing it need to occur as well as the {whatever} that started.
When do we know that the processing of the sensation that a decision to act is needed has been completed and that it is not part of the actual decision of what action to take?
What is really being measured eh?
For sure, there are a whole range of issues regarding this research. Even if the science stands up, it may be tough for the conclusions ever to gain widespread acceptance. After all, the phenomenon was first spotted in the late fifties by a neuron-surgeon who immediately rejected what he had observed as it was so clearly ”nonsensical’.
But it has certainly captured my imagination, even if my knowledge and understanding of the issues involved is at best sparse.
Here’s the thing. I’m prepared to accept the theory of evolution - that modern man with his modern brain is part of an evolutionary path that leads back to single-celled organisms. At this point I’m seriously hamstrung by the aforementioned lack of knowledge and understanding, but there are still some observations I’d like to offer and am more than happy to have any misconceptions corrected.
My basic understanding is that the human brain is considered unique. That it is thought to have abilities that are beyond even our closest relatives. That it has the capacity for language and abstract thought etc, which sets humans aside from other life forms. Admittedly these notions are starting to come under pressure as long-held differences are starting to become blurred, as research into animal behaviour gathers pace.
So if evolution is on the right track, we have probably evolved from single-celled organisms. These would clearly have had no brain. Along the way, therefore, as life has grown more complex, the brain has come into existence and evolved into the modern human brain. I don’t honestly know how much is known about this evolution, but I think it is possible to say with a high degree of certainty that at some point the brain resembled something approximating an automatic control centre - perhaps similar to the artificial neural networks we see today. There is no reason to believe this brain possessed any ”higher’ consciousness, as is claimed for homo sapien.
If this was the case, do we have any evidence as to how much of the control, which previously (most likely) resided wholly with the automatic, sub-conscious part of the brain, has migrated to the ”higher’ consciousness? I really have no idea, but a couple of issues arise.
The first is the extent to which our own self-image may influence the idea that we must be more than simply biological machines - “I am conscious of my consciousness, therefore blah, blah, blah . ”
The second is the point you raised earlier. How can we be certain of what we are in fact measuring? I guess this is a double-edged sword, which would also lead us to question research supporting the ”higher’ consciousness hypothesis.
RAZD writes:
It just may mean that the lost connection interfers with the verbalizing ability
Possibly, but I’m not sure how clear I made myself. One of the points made was that in many cases the answers were nonsensical. The correct choice was made but the reason offered made no rational sense whatsoever.
I freely admit to playing a bit of devil’s advocate here (not to mention playing fast and loose with scientific knowledge), but I’m a great believer in getting my ideas out there for others to shoot down. It’s a great way to see things I could never think of and adjust my understanding accordingly.
Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.
Edited by dogrelata, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2006 11:47 PM RAZD has not replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 131 of 305 (366836)
11-29-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
11-27-2006 11:47 PM


Re: limits of science?
About 20 mins after submitting my last post I realised I’d allowed myself to get sidetracked and lost focus as regards my original suggestion, which is that in terms of ”knowledge’, our sub-conscious mind may ”know’ a whole lot more than our conscious mind is aware of.
I want to revisit this idea with the help of an analogy. I’m not sure how well it works, but it may act as a starting point for further exploration.
Think of a major corporation employing many thousands of people. Is this a reasonable analogy for the human brain? If it is, we might think of the head of the corporation as representing the ”higher’ consciousness we believe exists within our own brains. Does the head of this corporation know a great deal about the corporation he runs? You bet he does. Does he know everything that is known by each and every employee regarding the very many aspects of the business? Of course not, but in theory ought to be able to summon up that knowledge should he ever need it.
But enough of the analogies, let’s take a look at bird’s brains. I don’t know if you have the saying ”bird brain’ in the States. It is used in the UK occasionally as a derogatory term to suggest that somebody is none too bright, has the brain the size of a bird’s.
But is this being fair to the brainpower of birds? At least one piece of research I’m aware of suggests not. It concerns a pigeon and some works of art (by Matisse if my memory serves me well). The pigeon was placed in a cage with a screen, which randomly displayed works of art, and a food dispenser. If the bird pecked at the dispenser when the image was displaying a Matisse it was rewarded with food, if the image was not a Matisse it got nothing. Eventually the bird learned only to seek food when the image was that of a Matisse.
Which raised the question of whether the bird had simply learned by rote which images led to a food reward and which did not. So it was decided to run the experiment again with a fresh set of images. However it was decided not to use images by Matisse, but those by a minor artist whose work is frequently confused with his. How would the bird fare? Without any further training it was able to ”successfully’ identify the Matisse-style images. Or should that be ”unsuccessfully’, given that it had effectively been duped?
What conclusions should be drawn?
I don’t know. For instance it’s not clear how much differentiation there was between the Matisse/Matisse-style images and the ones they were being compared to. If the choice was between Matisses and stick drawings, it would be less surprising that the bird should be able to later differentiate between Matisse-style images and another batch of stick drawings. However that was not what was implied in the report of the experiment. The thrust of the research suggested that this humble pigeon was able to display behaviour consistent with abstract thought, i.e. it seemed not to be learning solely by rote, as it appeared to apply the principles it had previously learned when presented with a fresh set of images.
I’d like to draw on a personal experience also, as it made a great impression on me.
Earlier this year, whilst out for a walk, I noticed some seagulls becoming a bit agitated. As I moved closer I could see one seagull standing on a small concrete platform raised a couple of inches off the ground. On this platform were pieces of bread. The seagull was standing with its back to a further six gulls, with its body between them and the bread. In addition to the gulls was a single crow. As I approached the crow walked up behind the gull on the platform and, with its beak, reached out and pulled at the gull’s tail feathers. At this, the gull turned round to see what was occurring and chose to get down from the platform to investigate. At which point the crow hopped up and started to secure as much of the bread for itself as it was able.
Again, what conclusions should be drawn? Perhaps influenced by my knowledge of the pigeon experiment, it was impossible not to consider the possibility of both foresight and imagination on behalf of the crow. Not exactly very scientific, but interesting nevertheless.
Before closing I’d like to make one last observation. It concerns memory, or should that be recall? I guess we’re all familiar with feats of memory that have impressed us, e.g. somebody remembering the exact order in which all 52 cards are dealt from a deck. The key, we are told, is to develop techniques that help us recall. In other words, the suggestion is that we all ”know’ what the order is; the trick is in being able to recall that knowledge into our conscious mind.
I guess that’s the recurring theme, how much of what we know are we actually consciously aware of? The good news is that we might not need to wait forever to find out, as there are those within the field of neuroscience who believe they will have solved the mysteries of the human brain within the next twenty years. We shall see .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2006 11:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2006 10:16 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 135 of 305 (367542)
12-03-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by RAZD
12-01-2006 10:16 PM


Re: Monkeys, Dolphins and African Grey Parrots?
Cheers RAZD. There are some really interesting links here.
Tell me something. Do you think I’m being simplistic or nave in trying to suggest the small, inner voice referred to by many as an integral part of the ”god experience’ may be no more than an ability to tap into knowledge stored in the sub-conscious mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2006 10:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2006 7:37 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 139 of 305 (368480)
12-08-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by RAZD
12-04-2006 7:37 PM


Re: Monkeys, Dolphins and African Grey Parrots?
RAZD writes:
Several people talk about precognition experiences (warner for example on this thread), for example, and it is hard for that to come from {old} information eh? Or is there some universal subconscious that can be tapped by anyone?
Yeah, the precognition thing is interesting. I’m vaguely aware of an experiment where somebody sits in front of a computer and initiates an image appearing on the screen. They are wired up to record their emotional responses to each image, which are either disturbing or reassuring. The interesting point, as I’m sure you’re aware, is that the appropriate emotional response appears to precede the image appearing on the screen.
Having said that, I guess this experiment suffers from the same potential pitfalls you highlighted regarding the work of Libet and Lau etc. I’m not aware of any other research that has managed to produce positive results, but it is clearly an area of interest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2006 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2007 4:35 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 153 of 305 (373611)
01-02-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
01-01-2007 4:35 PM


Re: precognition or radio towers in the forest
I was actually reading Message 150 a couple of days ago, and was fascinated by what I read. If we ever manage to start communicating effectively with other species, it’s anyone’s guess what we may come to learn about the nature of reality...and that’s before we even consider what’s happening at the quantum level.
I’m currently trying to get my head around the concept of negative probabilities, but am finding the mathematics pretty heavy going - A=33%, B=33%, C=-66%! So I guess the search for a site that makes some sense of this goes on .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2007 4:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 7:05 AM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5302 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 155 of 305 (373662)
01-02-2007 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by RAZD
01-02-2007 7:05 AM


Re: precognition or radio towers in the forest
RAZD writes:
Particularly when we start comparing perceptions of reality eh?
Yip, that may be a bit of an eye-opener for us. But it’s like much else on here, the more we learn, the more there is to learn! I don’t know where some of you guys find the time. It’s back to work for me tomorrow, so EvC has to take a backseat again I’m afraid.
RAZD writes:
Is this from discussion with Son Goku or Cavediver?
Yes. SG has said he’s going to bet back to it when he get’s a chance, so that’s something I’m looking forward to.
RAZD writes:
Yeah, quantum mechanics is ... weird stuff. Yet it appears to be fundamental to everything we see hear feel smell and taste eh?
And these are only the things we observe in our own tiny corner of the universe. It makes you wonder what sort of things might be happening elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2007 7:05 AM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024