[Graybeard]

Lloyd ..... your post makes sense.

ME: If our brain is merely hardware, and our senses, inputs, what then is the Cognitive agent that chooses our actions.

YOU: random quantum choice

Explain this answer further


greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Is our mind a simple material product ?

greg

Yes, as proven by the fact matter must first produce energy. Energy can not produce matter, we know it's a bi-product of matter in motion. We are quantum looking at quantum. How do you figure out trillions of wave interactions, interacting every second, in one spot___the self quantum? With the uncertainty principle, we can know they all form quantum packets, that make our minds, souls[base functions of emotions] and spirits[wholistic functions of mind], plus the entire physical world. That's about it, until we have better technologies to see quantum, but how can c see true c? I don't know as it ever will, but we do have the solid physical facts to work from___the real world. Self must wait for another day, other than the physical knowledge of its mechanical workings...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Graybeard]

I just read an excellent article on this. Once again in the Wiki ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room

I think this is what you are saying ??


greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Lloyd ..... your post makes sense.

ME: If our brain is merely hardware, and our senses, inputs, what then is the Cognitive agent that chooses our actions.

YOU: random quantum choice

Explain this answer further

greg

Greg, all we know of the physical matter motions is down to the quantum level, yet we as scientists know energy can not produce matter, and that means matter motions must produce all matter/energy, including humans, since they are matter in motion, also. These random quantum motions have been traced to the base functioning of the neural networks of the brain by many cognitive scientists working independently, in many nations. Discovery, tonight, just showed heart cells being reproduced through an inkjet printer modified to function, in a special patterning program print, to actually lay down cells that actually pumped, when the test was conducted. This took the bio-quantum level of cognitive sciences, in several fields, to do the research to arrive at such a level of sophistocated comprehension. If we have abilities of understanding, to this level of quantum structure reproduction, I'd say we've learned quite a bit about the quantum processes. There are cognitive studies and experiments in all areas of quantum level micro-biology and micro-chemistry, along with quantum level micro-neurology. The scientists are actually implanting quadraplegics with computer chips to operate computers and prosthetic limbs. The real scientific world is fast figuring out much of the human mind's functioning, at the quantum level.

Now, if our scientists know these facts of the quantum actions of states, doesn't it make quite a bit of sense, that the brain also self functions from the quantum level of random choices. Where else would free will come from, or be able to function? IMO, we are just a random choice functioning quantum computer, that also tricks itself into having feelings, when in fact, we are just a quantum logic machine, because it's all that's required to trick us into our humanness. How would you truly tell if you were human or a very complex quantum Turing machine? I don't think anyone could?

Regards,
Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

I just read an excellent article on this. Once again in the Wiki ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room

I think this is what you are saying ??

greg

Dennett is one of the better modern day philosophers, but I disagree with him about the quantum free will. The physicists and many other cognitive scientists are more right about the quantum actions of mind and free will. Overall, he's a fine philosopher, and I agree with much of his thinking...

regards,

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Greg, all we know of the physical matter motions is down to the quantum level, yet we as scientists know energy can not produce matter, and that means matter motions must produce all matter/energy, including humans, since they are matter in motion, also.

Lloyd ... What you said above caused me to scan through the WIKI trying to find where it is stated that Matter (chicken) came before Energy (egg). I read the Chicken-Egg into it where you state that energy cannot produce Matter. Why can't energy produce matter ??

Below is a quote, that seems to contradict your above statement. I am not trying to be picky, just puzzled !

.. Lloyd.....A Fundamental Substance... - 04-06-2006, 08:25 AM
Epistemologically, we can not know what or which is first and fundamental, matter or energy - OR? To me though, the only logic that makes sense is that the infinite energy singularity produced finite matter in the infinite space/void. This is simply my observation of the facts when I look up, and also of what I know of cosmology and physics histories, theories and maths. Can I prove any of it? No? Can anyone? I think not! Logical mathematical truth is the intuitive grand mystery - so far!

regards

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

No Greg, you are perfectly correct in pointing out this contradiction. That post was almost a year ago now, and that is the metaphysical point I thought, at that time. When Dave posted about, "Everything Is Matter In A Void", I took him to task, and self-proved myself wrong, instead of him. Dave aptly pointed out the fact, "Iff a fundamental substance existed, it is required to be matter, and must have motion to produce it's secondary element, energy/work." He was correct, and I was wrong. It's hard to see this most fundamental change of frame of mind it takes to realize this, but I assure you, I did it, and so did Dave. This is the most dynamic solution of universal mystery, I have ever realized. When I did realize the absolute requirement of matter over energy[matter over mind], it changed my entire philosophy of the universe, life and nature.

I really realized it myself, after reading Dave's post, by posting later to him, that at the speed of light, matter and energy are equivalent, so we both thought the same about matter and energy being the fundamental substance, but then my own direction of theorizing conflicted my own thinking, so I had to resolve the differences of which actually was the most fundamental substance, because my theories depended on low velocity, and only one was possible of being the most fundamental at low velocity/entropy, and that was thermo-hydro-dynamic matter/motion, to produce work/energy. It's not only true at all the relativistic and pre-ralativistic levels, it's true to classical physics and mechanics right here in my home, or yours. Thermal matter/motion absolutely must exist as the fundamental substance of the entire phase state changes of the universe...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Mr. Nobody]

I too keep wrestling with the concept of matter/ energy. Without diverging from the original thread too much, I wanted to mention that I used to ask similar questions.
However, if we coin the fundamental entity to be matter, we need to flush out false definitions. The term matter, still conjures up images of spinning nuggets of something solid, which has been proven as false. Still not being characterized as tangible (since even quantum mechanics shows particles to be nothing more than force relationships), matter is looking for a new description be coined in everyday language?
Matter is what?
As I traveled the boundaries of language I came full circle again. I realized the this obfuscated substance, that represents the starting point of all interactions and energy, a representation of a given potential are the same in the fundamental realm. Under the microscope or when supercooled, space and matter melt away to disappear into the background field of existence. This field undulates within time. Undulations are represented as quantas. Quantas are the smallest change perceptible.
Everything we see, feel and touch are representations of ripples within the fundamental cloth of reality. Life than becomes not an absolute principle but another form of transmitting information within this cloth. Evolution and Anthropy explains the rest

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

It's hard to see this most fundamental change of frame of mind it takes to realize this, but I assure you, I did it, and so did Dave.........
...................
I really realized it myself, after reading Dave's post, by posting later to him, that at the speed of light, matter and energy are equivalent, so we both thought the same about matter and energy being the fundamental substance, but then my own direction of theorizing conflicted my own thinking, so I had to resolve the differences of which actually was the most fundamental substance, because my theories depended on low velocity, and only one was possible of being the most fundamental at low velocity/entropy, and that was thermo-hydro-dynamic matter/motion, to produce work/energy.

Actually ... the way you put it makes it seem perfectly understandable. I myself have never really thought of matter as fundamental particles in the way that the English Language defines the word 'Particle'.

I apply a little test (may sound crazy .. but works for me)
If a particle has no substructure then :
Can it be Hard, Can it be Soft, Can it be Large, Can it be Small, Can it be 'felt' with any of our senses.... of course ... all my answers are NO. So a fundamental Particle, if you like, is something not really of our world. The semantics of our language can not seem to touch a fundamental particle.

Mr Nobody's explanation below, came as a godsend to me. My test, crude and simple, reflects what Mr Nobody is saying scientifically. (To me it does) makes me feel that I am not alone.

Elementary particle ..... From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle not known to have substructure; that is, it is not known to be made up of smaller particles. If an elementary particle truly has no substructure, then it is one of the basic particles of the universe from which all larger particles are made. In the modern theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons are elementary particles.

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

I too keep wrestling with the concept of matter/ energy. Without diverging from the original thread too much, I wanted to mention that I used to ask similar questions.
However, if we coin the fundamental entity to be matter, we need to flush out false definitions. The term matter, still conjures up images of spinning nuggets of something solid, which has been proven as false. Still not being characterized as tangible (since even quantum mechanics shows particles to be nothing more than force relationships), matter is looking for a new description be coined in everyday language?
Matter is what?
As I traveled the boundaries of language I came full circle again. I realized the this obfuscated substance, that represents the starting point of all interactions and energy, a representation of a given potential are the same in the fundamental realm. Under the microscope or when supercooled, space and matter melt away to disappear into the background field of existence. This field undulates within time. Undulations are represented as quantas. Quantas are the smallest change perceptible.
Everything we see, feel and touch are representations of ripples within the fundamental cloth of reality. Life than becomes not an absolute principle but another form of transmitting information within this cloth. Evolution and Anthropy explains the rest

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Mr. Nobody, as you state the problems of understanding boil down to interpretations. The largest problem I see in these interpretations is the fact that physics still has far too many metaphysical interpretations existing in its own use of words and principles. I could state it like this; The problem with metaphysics is too much metaphysics in physics, itself. Now, what do I mean? The two words matter and energy___what do they truly mean? Now David and I both agree matter can be defined as the absolute fundamental substance, because we require an initial substance, to have something instead of nothing. But, what of energy? This is one of the areas where I see the greatest mis-interpretations of both physics and metaphysics coming from. Take E=MC^2, and what does it actually mean and say? Let me try to re-interpret Einstein's relativity based theory into pure classical meaning. First is E, and second is M. C we know as classical meaning, yet E and M are of relative abstract metaphysical meaning, IMO. Let me first just write a straight classical formula for E=MC^2. The formula would be TTMM=SC^2. This formula has the same exact meaning as Einsteins more subjective abstract metaphysical formula, yet is a straight classical physical formula:

T=Total S=Substance
T=Thermal C=Light
M=Matter And of course we know what 2 is; squared
M=Motion

This classical formula reads; Total thermal matter motion equals substance times the speed of light squared. By this reinterpretation of Einstein's formula, I have removed the questionalble words, energy and mass, as they are just as abstract in meaning as is our definitions of time. By removing these abstract metaphysical definitions of our understanding, we can clearly see the real physical movements and momentums of real substance/matter. Science already accepts the total thermodynamic motions of a closed system is equivalent to its total kinetic energy___The equivalence principle of thermodynamic [heat/cold] motions and kinetic energy___the trouble is, here again we run into that troubling word, energy, which actually has to large an ontic meaning to be truly useful in defining the actual motions of all matter. It may work fine for motions after the big-bang, but it fails miserably when applied to any motions before the big-bang, and herein lies the problems of relative and quantum physics being relagated to such ridiculous theories starting at point, or zpe. Again we find that ontic word E[energy]. It must be removed from all of physics interpretations, and replaced with its real meaning counterpart___true thermal matter motions, iff physics and reality are to achieve an absolute scientific meaning. It must be further understood that the S in the formula stands for total substance motion[internal quantum as well as external classical], of the substance being applied to the formula.

If you recognize what I've done with this interpretation, is relagate energy, mass and time to the abstract scrapheap. True, we can still use these original formulas and words to work fine in all our gauge theories, as they work fine. It's just as words having meaning, they are too large to be truly meaningful. Just take this example; The h-bomb___explode it___what substance motions actually take place? The substance inside the bomb starts to extremely increase in motion, splitting and splitting, in the great known chain reaction, to the point of absolute entropy, when it finally breakes the case. Now, at this point, most simply consider the explosion energy[the word problem]. What substance motions actually take place in this great entropy radiation of substance motions? Since it's nearly impossible to follow them all, we long ago accepted that abstract word energy, to replace these very complex radiations of real thermal substance motions. But, the physicists at Los-Alamos actually calculated everyone of them before the bomb was ever exploded. They calculated in real thermal substance motions, as a group of physicists and mathematicians, and called their results energy, to simplify the real thermal mathematical substance motions' truth into abstract definition.

When we recognize all these abstractions of deffinitions in our interpretations, we may have a chance of seeing the true underlying physical realities of thermal substance motions. So, what it comes down to is energy, mass, and time are our personal abstractions of thinking about real thermal substance motions___the fundamental absolutes of our truest understandings, possible. This means, there is really no energy, mass or time, in the sense we all too often think of them as real. There's only their underlying fundamental thermal substance motions. Abstract mass is just thermal motions, at radiation entropy state changes, of phase spaces, and velocities of. Time is our abstract measurement abilities of substance in motion from point a to point b. The fundamental substance, S, is being shown in three independent experiments, low temperature physics, high temperature physics, and high magnetism physics, to be a non-viscous fluid, of extremely thin density. It may extend all the way down to 10^-69^3, as David has suggested___we still need more physical evidence, in these areas. Thousands of physicists, world wide, are already at work on the results, of these recent experimental tests, to find the truest interpretations, of the facts possible___time will tell...

If I haven't removed the metaphysical alligators of physical interpretations, well enough, let me know...

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

I too keep wrestling with the concept of matter/ energy. Without diverging from the original thread too much, I wanted to mention that I used to ask similar questions.
However, if we coin the fundamental entity to be matter, we need to flush out false definitions. The term matter, still conjures up images of spinning nuggets of something solid, which has been proven as false. Still not being characterized as tangible (since even quantum mechanics shows particles to be nothing more than force relationships), matter is looking for a new description be coined in everyday language?
Matter is what?
As I traveled the boundaries of language I came full circle again. I realized the this obfuscated substance, that represents the starting point of all interactions and energy, a representation of a given potential are the same in the fundamental realm. Under the microscope or when supercooled, space and matter melt away to disappear into the background field of existence. This field undulates within time. Undulations are represented as quantas. Quantas are the smallest change perceptible.
Everything we see, feel and touch are representations of ripples within the fundamental cloth of reality. Life than becomes not an absolute principle but another form of transmitting information within this cloth. Evolution and Anthropy explains the rest