Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Does mind transcend matter? (spinoff)

Posted by on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM
  • 74 Replies

This is a spinoff based upon a reply: HERE

What is mind?

Does mind transcend matter?

Does quantum physics claim this?

And, if it did, would that disprove atheism?

by on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
survivorinohio
by René on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I was under the impression that quantum physics was proving at minimum another dimension may well exist.

I personally think there will always be more questions than answers.

momtoscott
by Platinum Member on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Clairwil, the link isn't working properly (I go to a page that says I don't have access to that page).  

My non-scientist answers to the questions: What is mind?  A phenomenon of the brain. 

Does mind transcend matter? No. 

Does quantum physics claim this?  I don't know.  

If it did, would that disprove atheism?  I don't see how one leaps from some property of mind that transcends matter to a god or creator, so not IMO.  

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:42 PM
Quoting momtoscott:

Clairwil, the link isn't working properly 

Someone in another thread wrote:

Hard science, quantum physics in particular, refutes materialism's foundation (what atheists fundamentally believe in). 

In physics, you never say "I've never seen that, therefore it does not exist". 

There is clearly something about the human mind that transcends matter and the laws of matter. Pick up some quantum physics material and you'll follow this, intelligently. Based on this evidence, it is speculated that human minds can transcend the physical universe. But materialism is the thought that everything is just matter in motion. Point being, materialism, what atheists follow, does not hold up to quantum mechanics. 

And the remnants of telomeres (not that this refutes intelligent design) showing a resemblance to other species, is not HARD PROOF. It simply leads to theory and speculation. We also share many similarities to archaea, more so than bacteria, so we SPECULATE we must share a common ancestor. 

Being atheist is just as ridiculous as being spiritual or believing in intelligent design/God. Only I find there's evidence backing God, versus backing the proof of this negative (which there is none).

The majority of physicists in history and now believe that God is highly possible. I bank my intelligent investments in physics and with Einstein & Newton, not these awful fringe trends of the disenchanted and wounded. 

So before you go saying that the religious refute science, think again.

SilverSterling
by MrsSilverusSnape on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I don't mind so it doesnt matter!!

snookyfritz
by Platinum Member on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM
1 mom liked this

Oh!  PHI111 loved it!

momtoscott
by Platinum Member on Oct. 23, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Thanks for providing the quote.  It's a big bunch of misconceptions and misrepresentations.  I don't agree with any of it.  


Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting momtoscott:

Clairwil, the link isn't working properly 

Someone in another thread wrote:

Hard science, quantum physics in particular, refutes materialism's foundation (what atheists fundamentally believe in). 

In physics, you never say "I've never seen that, therefore it does not exist". 

There is clearly something about the human mind that transcends matter and the laws of matter. Pick up some quantum physics material and you'll follow this, intelligently. Based on this evidence, it is speculated that human minds can transcend the physical universe. But materialism is the thought that everything is just matter in motion. Point being, materialism, what atheists follow, does not hold up to quantum mechanics. 

And the remnants of telomeres (not that this refutes intelligent design) showing a resemblance to other species, is not HARD PROOF. It simply leads to theory and speculation. We also share many similarities to archaea, more so than bacteria, so we SPECULATE we must share a common ancestor. 

Being atheist is just as ridiculous as being spiritual or believing in intelligent design/God. Only I find there's evidence backing God, versus backing the proof of this negative (which there is none).

The majority of physicists in history and now believe that God is highly possible. I bank my intelligent investments in physics and with Einstein & Newton, not these awful fringe trends of the disenchanted and wounded. 

So before you go saying that the religious refute science, think again.


JackandJayne
by on Oct. 23, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Lol this would be a very long winded thread!!!! I suppose I'll start will Schrodinger's Cat. As I said before, belief in a spiritual deity, God, intelligent design, are equally ridiculous. The answer is both yes and no in regards to perception according to Schrodinger. However, because we can not seem to measure the 'mind', and we have no accounts of doing so (like we've seen a dead cat and a living cat and we have quantitative variables to measure to prove these two) this leads to the idea that the mind transcends matter.

If I felt it was useful and the audience was right, I'd throw out the equation but then this would be a mathematical conversation, and we should really be getting paid then for this forum dipping into Many Worlds theory.

So the mind transcending matter, goes against the idea of materialism. Which is actually the principle behind atheism. Sadly so many atheists probably chose atheism as a negative reaction rather than a positive reaction ie being drawn to materialism because they follow the idea that everything is just matter in motion.

My point is not irrefutable proof of existence by any means, however, I wanted to bring to light that many educated science majors (particularly in the physical sciences) do use this as the foundation of plausible evidence that there is indeed a high possibility that something beyond matter exists.

If we're using our minds to measure, but we can't measure the mind, it leads ME to believe materialism is wrong. Which opens the door to two belief systems to me, belief in a deity or even deities, or at a minimum being agnostic. 

paganbaby
by Teflon Don on Oct. 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Ha!

Quoting SilverSterling:

I don't mind so it doesnt matter!!


Lilypie - Personal pictureLilypie Breastfeeding tickers

JackandJayne
by on Oct. 23, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Where are the misconceptions and misrepresentations? How can you not agree with any of it? Where is the contrary evidence, not to my opinions, but to the facts?

Quoting momtoscott:

Thanks for providing the quote.  It's a big bunch of misconceptions and misrepresentations.  I don't agree with any of it.  


Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting momtoscott:

Clairwil, the link isn't working properly 

Someone in another thread wrote:

Hard science, quantum physics in particular, refutes materialism's foundation (what atheists fundamentally believe in). 

In physics, you never say "I've never seen that, therefore it does not exist". 

There is clearly something about the human mind that transcends matter and the laws of matter. Pick up some quantum physics material and you'll follow this, intelligently. Based on this evidence, it is speculated that human minds can transcend the physical universe. But materialism is the thought that everything is just matter in motion. Point being, materialism, what atheists follow, does not hold up to quantum mechanics. 

And the remnants of telomeres (not that this refutes intelligent design) showing a resemblance to other species, is not HARD PROOF. It simply leads to theory and speculation. We also share many similarities to archaea, more so than bacteria, so we SPECULATE we must share a common ancestor. 

Being atheist is just as ridiculous as being spiritual or believing in intelligent design/God. Only I find there's evidence backing God, versus backing the proof of this negative (which there is none).

The majority of physicists in history and now believe that God is highly possible. I bank my intelligent investments in physics and with Einstein & Newton, not these awful fringe trends of the disenchanted and wounded. 

So before you go saying that the religious refute science, think again.



Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 23, 2013 at 4:34 PM
Quoting JackandJayne:

If I felt it was useful and the audience was right, I'd throw out the equation but then this would be a mathematical conversation, and we should really be getting paid then for this forum dipping into Many Worlds theory.

Is Scientific Materialism “Almost Certainly False”?

When it comes to science, ours is a paradoxical era. On the one hand, prominent physicists proclaim that they are solving the riddle of reality and hence finally displacing religious myths of creation. That is the chest-thumping message of books such as The Grand Design by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. A corollary of this triumphal view is that science will inevitably solve all other mysteries as well.

On the other hand, science’s limits have never been more glaringly apparent. In their desperation for a “theory of everything”—which unifies quantum mechanics and relativity and explains the origin and structure of our cosmos—physicists have embraced pseudo-scientific speculation such as multi-universe theories and the anthropic principle (which says that the universe must be as we observe it to be because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it). Fields such as neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics and complexity have fallen far short of their hype.

Some scholars, notably philosopher Thomas Nagel, are so unimpressed with science that they are challenging its fundamental assumptions. In his new book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, Nagel contends that current scientific theories and methods can’t account for the emergence of life in general and one bipedal, big-brained species in particular. To solve these problems, Nagel asserts, science needs “a major conceptual revolution,” as radical as those precipitated by heliocentrism, evolution and relativity.

Many pundits calling for such a revolution are peddling some sort of religious agenda, whether Christian or New Age. Nagel is an atheist, who cannot accept God as a final answer, and yet he echoes some theological critiques of science. “Physic-chemical reductionism,” he writes, cannot tell us how matter became animate on Earth more than three billion years ago; nor can it account for the emergence in our ancestors of consciousness, reason and morality.

Evolutionary psychologists invoke natural selection to explain humanity’s remarkable attributes, but only in a hand-wavy, retrospective fashion, according to Nagel. A genuine theory of everything, he suggests, should make sense of the extraordinary fact that the universe “is waking up and becoming aware of itself.” In other words, the theory should show that life, mind, morality and reason were not only possible but even inevitable, latent in the cosmos from its explosive inception. Nagel admits he has no idea what form such a theory would take; his goal is to point out how far current science is from achieving it.

I share Nagel’s view of science’s inadequacies. Moreover, I’m a fan of his work, especially his famous essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”, a quirky take on the mind-body problem (which inspired my column “What Is it Like to Be a Cat?“). So I was a bit disappointed by the dry, abstract style of Mind and Cosmos. The book seems aimed primarily at philosophers and scientists—that is, professionals—rather than lay readers.

Nagel acknowledges that his attempt to envision a more expansive scientific paradigm is “far too unimaginative.” He might have produced a more compelling work if he had ranged more widely in his survey of alternatives to materialist dogma. For example, complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman has postulated the existence of a new force that counteracts the universal drift toward disorder decreed by the second law of thermodynamics. Kauffman suspects that this anti-entropy force might account for the emergence and evolution of life. Nagel mentions Kauffman’s theory of “self-organization” in a footnote but doesn’t elaborate on it. (I critiqued the field of complexity research in a recent column.)

According to the physicist John Wheeler, quantum mechanics implies that our observations of reality influence its unfolding. We live in a “participatory universe,” Wheeler proposed, in which mind is as fundamental as matter. Philosopher David Chalmers, Nagel’s colleague at New York University, conjectures that “information,” which emerges from certain physical configurations and processes and entails consciousness, is a fundamental component of reality, as much so as time, space, matter and energy.

I never took Chalmer’s hypothesis seriously—in part because it implies that toaster ovens might be conscious—but I would have appreciated Nagel’s take on it. (For a critique of the ideas of Wheeler and Chalmers, see my column “Why information can’t be the basis of reality.”)

Nagel touches briefly on free will, when he suggests that our moral and aesthetic choices cannot be reduced to physical processes, but I expected a deeper treatment of the topic. Many leading scientists, from Francis Crick to Hawking, have argued that free will is an illusion, as much so as God and ghosts. This perspective, it seems to me, stems from a cramped, hyper-reductive view of causality, which I wish Nagel had opposed more vigorously.

These qualms asides, I recommend Nagel’s book, which serves as a much-needed counterweight to the smug, know-it-all stance of many modern scientists. Hawking and Krauss both claim that science has rendered philosophy obsolete. Actually, now more than ever we need philosophers, especially skeptics like Socrates, Descartes, Thomas Kuhn and Nagel, who seek to prevent us from becoming trapped in the cave of our beliefs.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)