Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Discussion of anything to do with the 'why' questions of life.

Moderator: William

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #1

Post by William »

[Rules Regarding Posting in this sub-forum]

David: There is always a degree of telepathy involved in Christianity and in other religions. And it is indeed their 'own conscience'. I know. I have talks with 'God' in my head all the time - but I know it's me.

William: I am interested in getting into a discussion [and potentially forming rapport with you] about your mention of the 'talks' you have with 'God' in your head all the time that you know is 'you' talking with yourself .

David: I see no point in discussing my discussions with myself because I effectively have me arguing with myself. It's how I can anticipate arguments before they happen. I don't think that is going to get you anywhere.

William: Well if you change your mind, you know where to find me.

Image

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 652 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #21

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:35 pm What have you done in the way of rigorous methods to attempt to falsify the Emergent Theory, if indeed that is the position you hold on these matters against the idea that we exist within a creation and that there is indeed a Mind Behind that Creation?[/color]
When the experts in the relevant scientific disciplines succeed in falsifying the Emergent Theory, I'll reject it. I'm not an expert in Emergent Theory and lack the resources to conduct my own experiments in that regard. So, I defer to the people who are the experts with the available resources.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #22

Post by William »

William: So we can agree in the interim, while these experts in the relevant scientific disciplines continue to find ways to succeed in falsifying the Emergent Theory, all explanations which can be tested [repeated scientifically] remain on the table.

[Are you able to give examples re the above?]

I will happily share the details of my examining ideomotor effect re communication device, if it is your intention to investigate said technique for yourself, repeating the methods I myself used, presuming that is the thing you want to investigate, of the things I so far have mentioned

Otherwise, I am just as happy to continue outlining the Cases I have, regarding how I mitigated confirmation bias re my atheistic position through falsifying the idea that the brain is responsibly for everything I experience and there is no MBC.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 652 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #23

Post by bluegreenearth »

You aren't mitigating for confirmation bias by experimenting with the MBC hypothesis. All that does is shift the focus of your confirmation bias towards the MBC hypothesis. Your previous lack of belief in a MBC was not something that needed to be mitigated for confirmation bias because it didn't claim there was no such thing as a MBC. Even if you had previously claimed that no MBC exists, then the outcome of your subsequent experiment did not conclusively falsify the "No MBC exists" hypothesis but demonstrated that the possibility of a MBC hasn't yet been ruled-out as explanation. In other words, all you've done is make a case for agnosticism.

As for examples of scientific experiments which fail to falsify the Emergent Theory, I didn't have any particular examples in mind at the time because the point was that the scientific community would have moved on to testing other falsifiable claims had they succeeded in falsifying the Emergent Theory. As you are probably aware, the scientific consensus has no problem abandoning an idea once it has been demonstrably falsified.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #24

Post by William »

William: The thing is, has the scientific community truly falsified the emergent theory? Or is it in the 'too hard" basket, and that is why they have moved on to other pursuits?

So getting back to how you falsified Emergent Theory - you believe that there is no MBC and everything is a product of natural coincidence?....are you able to share that information with me?

Or if you don't have a clear idea either way, and are simply an agnostic atheist [as I am simply an agnostic theist,] where to from here?

Can we go any further together?

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 652 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #25

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:31 pm William: The thing is, has the scientific community truly falsified the emergent theory? Or is it in the 'too hard" basket, and that is why they have moved on to other pursuits?

So getting back to how you falsified Emergent Theory - you believe that there is no MBC and everything is a product of natural coincidence?....are you able to share that information with me?

Or if you don't have a clear idea either way, and are simply an agnostic atheist [as I am simply an agnostic theist,] where to from here?

Can we go any further together?
Apparently, you misread my post, or I did a terrible job composing my thoughts. I never claimed the Emergent Theory had been falsified. I indicated that the scientific community would have moved on to testing other falsifiable hypotheses had the Emergent Theory been demonstrably falsified.

I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't "know" there is no MBC, and I don't "believe" a MBC exists because I lack sufficient evidence to justify that conclusion at this time. From here, we try to find out if you have a justification for believing the evidence you have is sufficient to justify the belief in a MBC.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #26

Post by William »

William: Okay - just so we are both on the same page with what falsifying is, according to this;

Search how to falsify a hypothesis

A hypothesis or model is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an experimental observation that disproves the idea in question. That is, one of the possible outcomes of the designed experiment must be an answer, that if obtained, would disprove the hypothesis.


If you agree with the above, I am left with the question regarding 'possible outcomes' and this appears to imply 'things that can be seen as objective reality' and if that is the case, 'mind' - being immaterial, is only 'seen' in relation to how that immaterial thing interacts with material things.

Therefore - with the hypothesis I am working with - possibility that;

We exist within a creation and that there is a MBC could be falsified?

Or is it not possibly to falsify?

As I have said, you can try to find out if I have a justification for believing the evidence I have is sufficient to justify belief in that we possibly exist within a creation and there is an MBC. That is what I am trying to giving to you, re the "Cases". Evidence which you can - at least potentially - use to perform your own experiments and see where those might lead you.

In that I am saying that the Cases I present to you, are repeatable.

Search: repeatable science definition
Repeatability: the basics
Repeatability is a measure of the likelihood that, having produced one result from an experiment, you can try the same experiment, with the same setup, and produce that exact same result.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 652 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #27

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:50 pm William: Okay - just so we are both on the same page with what falsifying is, according to this;

Search how to falsify a hypothesis

A hypothesis or model is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an experimental observation that disproves the idea in question. That is, one of the possible outcomes of the designed experiment must be an answer, that if obtained, would disprove the hypothesis.


If you agree with the above, I am left with the question regarding 'possible outcomes' and this appears to imply 'things that can be seen as objective reality' and if that is the case, 'mind' - being immaterial, is only 'seen' in relation to how that immaterial thing interacts with material things.


The portion of your comment that I've bolded above entails the assumption that the mind exists independently of a physical (i.e. material) brain. This has yet to be demonstrated. Therefore, I am only able to justifiably infer that the mind is the material brain until the "Mind=Brain" hypothesis is falsified.

William wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:50 pm Therefore - with the hypothesis I am working with - possibility that;

We exist within a creation and that there is a MBC could be falsified?

Or is it not possibly to falsify?


If it is falsifiable, I'm currently unable to identify the reasonably obtainable disconfirming evidence I'd expect to find if it is false. Therefore, it seems to be a faith-based claim for the time being.

William wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 6:50 pm As I have said, you can try to find out if I have a justification for believing the evidence I have is sufficient to justify belief in that we possibly exist within a creation and there is an MBC. That is what I am trying to giving to you, re the "Cases". Evidence which you can - at least potentially - use to perform your own experiments and see where those might lead you.

In that I am saying that the Cases I present to you, are repeatable.

Search: repeatable science definition
Repeatability: the basics
Repeatability is a measure of the likelihood that, having produced one result from an experiment, you can try the same experiment, with the same setup, and produce that exact same result.
Repeatability is not necessarily a justification to believe the claim is true. For instance, there are those images which compel our brains to perceive them as moving when there is no movement occurring at all. The repeatability of the perceived motion in those images would seem to confirm the belief that movement was occurring. However, this is a situation where the belief is a product of confirmation bias.
Image

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #28

Post by William »

William: Are you wanting to take this any further?
Should I proceed with the next Case? Or something else?

Re you brain comment, it isn't important as far as I can tell, that the immaterial mind might be emergent of the material brain. Even if it is the case, it is still clearly 'something' which is not 'physical' which the brain [unconsciously] created and also necessary to that process, the brain created [again - unconsciously], consciousness [yet another immaterial thing we know exists] in order that the mind could be used as it is, in relation to the physical universe the brain is within.

If we accept that emergent theory has that merit, [the immaterial is created through the material] it still can be established that this does not in itself falsify MBC theory.

And visa versa.

So we may be able to agree approach this, in that way.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 652 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #29

Post by bluegreenearth »

William wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:53 pm William: Are you wanting to take this any further?
Should I proceed with the next Case? Or something else?

Re you brain comment, it isn't important as far as I can tell, that the immaterial mind might be emergent of the material brain. Even if it is the case, it is still clearly 'something' which is not 'physical' which the brain [unconsciously] created and also necessary to that process, the brain created [again - unconsciously], consciousness [yet another immaterial thing we know exists] in order that the mind could be used as it is, in relation to the physical universe the brain is within.

If we accept that emergent theory has that merit, [the immaterial is created through the material] it still can be established that this does not in itself falsify MBC theory.

And visa versa.

So we may be able to agree approach this, in that way.
I think it is important for you to understand that designating the "mind" (i.e. consciousness) as an immaterial thing compared to the material brain may be a distinction without a difference. In other words, the concept of an "immaterial mind" is misleading because it is the concept itself that is immaterial and not the mind if the physical brain is the mind. So, to clarify, my interpretation of Emergent Theory is that the physical brain is a material mind from which the immaterial concept of itself (i.e. consciousness) emerges and is assigned the word "mind" as its label. Since both the material mind (i.e. the physical brain) and the immaterial mind (i.e. the physical brain's concept of itself) share the word "mind" as their label, it is relatively easy to become confused by the semantics.

For instance, you seem to be interpreting Emergent Theory as the immaterial mind emerging from the brain to perform actions the material brain could not accomplish on its own. However, the problem is that the material brain is accomplishing those actions on its own while simultaneously conceiving of itself accomplishing those actions. The outcome is that the material mind conflates its concept of itself (i.e. the immaterial mind) with its material self (i.e. the physical brain) and mistakenly attributes the source of those actions to the immaterial mind.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 9100
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 793 times
Contact:

Re: Musing on "A Mind Behind Creation"

Post #30

Post by William »

William: You may be correct about that, but the inference that in order to survive and prosper as the Human Animal [specie] this could not have been achieved without the invention of Mind as an immaterial illusion, also infers that nature itself made it that way, which infers that nature also has an immaterial illusion we call 'the mind'.

That is why I suggested we find some place of agreement re this, even if we also agree that it is a temporary fixture 'for the time being'.

The idea that the brain did all this unconsciously, only points to the bigger picture as to how brains evolved to the point where they could do this, and does not in itself answer if there is or isn't a mind behind creation. [MBC]

If we should then look for something in the universe itself which might act as a kind of brain in order for the illusion of self to become - something which had the potential to make something of itself in relation to the physical reality it would not even be experiencing if it did not first have that sense of self, then we find that what is referred to as an illusion is responsible for being the only way physical reality can be interacted with in any meaningful manner.

Therefore, it is evident that if an illusion [non-physical thing created by the physical thing] is the only way one can appreciate the existence of physical universe, it is best not to delegate the illusion as something which is not real because without it, what would be real?

Post Reply