Originally posted by Halitose
[/b]It's quite simple then: is the reasoning of the mind self-induced or externally caused?

If you hold to the former, then I don't see how you could disagree with free will of the mind -- freedom of thought. Since the mind controls our actions, free will is not a long shot from there.

If however you hold to the latter, then no amount of complexi he word.

Isn't this bbarr's field of expertise? I'd love to have his thoughts on this.[/b]

It's quite simple then: is the reasoning of the mind self-induced or externally caused?
I dont see how the mind can be self- induced (chemical or not). I dont even really know what you mean by self-induced.

If you hold to the former, then I don't see how you could disagree with free will of the mind -- freedom of thought. Since the mind controls our actions, free will is not a long shot from there.

I should think that if your actions are determined there can be no free will.

If however you hold to the latter, then no amount of complexity (I think) would allow for a "mind" in any meaningful sense of the word.

This thoery is currently undergoing intense scrutiny in neurological research. At the moment there is no compelling reason to believe it. I also fail to understand how a non- externally caused mind would be meaningful. You seem to prevaricate on that one.

Isn't this bbarr's field of expertise? I'd love to have his thoughts on this.

Probably.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]It's quite simple then: is the reasoning of the mind self-induced or externally caused?
I dont see how the mind can be self- induced (chemical or not). I dont even really know what you mean by self-induced.

If you hold to the former, then I don't see how you could disagree with free will of the mind -- freedom of thought. Since the mind contr ...[text shortened]... this bbarr's field of expertise? I'd love to have his thoughts on this.

Probably.[/b]

I seriously rest my case. There is just no way I have the stamina to chase your mobile goal posts.

Originally posted by Halitose
I seriously rest my case. There is just no way I have the stamina to chase your mobile goal posts.

Hang on!
You still have to prove that free will entails "profound thought" and that chemicals or "non-intelligent" processes cannot produce intelligence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm going to stop you there. First you say, "I'm wrong" but then the evidence you cite really says "I might be wrong". I should also warn you that you are exploring a very obscure line of research- it is not mainstream.

If you check the calculation of Quantum Mechanics, things like the collapse of the wave function, the measurement problem, etc. You wil ...[text shortened]... rariness of Quantum mechanics. It is random and this has been confirmed millions of times.

Ok, well you adamantly believe it to be random, and this is where you are wrong... you are wrong in your adamant belief.

And, actually, the heisenberg uncertainty principal (the measurment problem) really points quantum physicists in the direction of planck-scale physics which basically revolves around the idea that space-time is grainy and not smooth... It is not a continuously smooth sheet, but rather an unfathomably deep ocean.

What does the fact that this is not mainstream have to do with anything? It is science, it follows the scientific method and therefore it IS mainstream. The only reason it appears not to be mainstream is because most scientists don't know how to handle the implications of it... It is basically equivilant to the first cosmological revolution where copernicus and gallileo proved that the earth revolved around the sun... that theory was never "mainstream" for hundreds of years... because of the institutions that were in place. Now, the institutions which are in place favor a mechanical paradigm and they rely on the idea that the universe is mechanical and that humans are just biological machines and nothing more.

Really, what I am talking about is the next cosmological revolution, where humanity will understand its place in the universe...

I really don't think it is random... but the particles are free to be random and that is why they appear to be random.

If you were to look at a person and nothing more, none of their surroundings, just that person floating in empty space... it would be very peculiar as to why that person did what they did...

When you look too closely at the forest you don't see the forest anymore, only trees.

Originally posted by ChessJester
Ok, well you adamantly believe it to be random, and this is where you are wrong... you are wrong in your adamant belief.

And, actually, the heisenberg uncertainty principal (the measurment problem) really points quantum physicists in the direction of planck-scale physics which basically revolves around the idea that space-time is grainy and not smooth ...[text shortened]... ..

When you look too closely at the forest you don't see the forest anymore, only trees.

And, actually, the heisenberg uncertainty principal (the measurment problem) really points quantum physicists in the direction of planck-scale physics which basically revolves around the idea that space-time is grainy and not smooth... It is not a continuously smooth sheet, but rather an unfathomably deep ocean.
Could you explain the randomness of the collapse of the wave function?

It is basically equivilant to the first cosmological revolution where copernicus and gallileo proved that the earth revolved around the sun... that theory was never "mainstream" for hundreds of years... because of the institutions that were in place.

Even Qunatum Mechanics wasn't mainstream in its infancy. But this experiment borders on parascience (investigating the paranormal). This is NOT science.

Now, the institutions which are in place favor a mechanical paradigm and they rely on the idea that the universe is mechanical and that humans are just biological machines and nothing more.

Yes, we call this institution science.

Really, what I am talking about is the next cosmological revolution, where humanity will understand its place in the universe...

I really don't think it is random... but the particles are free to be random and that is why they appear to be random.

What are substance are you inhaling?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]And, actually, the heisenberg uncertainty principal (the measurment problem) really points quantum physicists in the direction of planck-scale physics which basically revolves around the idea that space-time is grainy and not smooth... It is not a continuously smooth sheet, but rather an unfathomably deep ocean.
Could you explain the randomness of t random and that is why they appear to be random.[/b]

What are substance are you inhaling?[/b]

Could you explain the randomness of the collapse of the wave function?

- The wavefunction represents the probability amplitude for finding a particle at a given point in space at a given time.

The wavefucntion is a superpositioned state of all possibilities.

The wavefunction is said to collapse once we measure it (a measurment is an interaction with other particles).

The randomness is only aparant. Meaning that we have not been able to find a mechanism that determines a particles position or state once it collapses out of its wavefunction.

"Even Qunatum Mechanics wasn't mainstream in its infancy. But this experiment borders on parascience (investigating the paranormal). This is NOT science. "

- If you understood the scientific method, or if you have investigated the site you would know that it IS science.

EDIT: Actually they are investigating the random collapses of the wavefunctions. Thats paranormal now is it?

The experiment is being conducted by the university of princeton, it is groundbreaking, you are no more of a skeptic caught up in a soon to be outdated paradigm... the results speak for themselves and they are being replicated by other people all the time.
"In the original experimental design we asked the more limited question whether there is a detectable correlation of deviations from randomness with the occurrence of major events in the world." - And there was. That was 8 years ago.
"A major effort was made to identify the "formal" events that could be accepted according to rigorous criteria. This resulted in a set of 170 usable events over the first 6 years of the project. A total of 13 events that were originally in the formal series were excluded because they were partially redundant or overlapped others, or were not unambiguously defined in the original narrative hypotheses."
They actually kept this experiment secret for a long time because they thought that public knowledge of the experiment would alter their results.

"Yes, we call this institution science. "

Plurality seems to be lost on you... This "institution" is broad and infects society at many levels before the individual. I'm afraid the universe is alot more complex then we first ASSUMED!

Originally posted by ChessJester
Could you explain the randomness of the collapse of the wave function?

- The wavefunction represents the probability amplitude for finding a particle at a given point in space at a given time.

The wavefucntion is a superpositioned state of all possibilities.

The wavefunction is said to collapse once we measure it (a measurment is an interaction ...[text shortened]... e individual. I'm afraid the universe is alot more complex then we first ASSUMED!

The randomness is only aparant. Meaning that we have not been able to find a mechanism that determines a particles position or state once it collapses out of its wavefunction.

Apparent randomness is still randomness. The very heart of QM accepts its inherent randomness. Einstein tried to find some underlying determinism- he never succeeded.

If you understood the scientific method, or if you have investigated the site you would know that it IS science.

Perhaps you should read the site. "The scientific work is careful, but it is at the margins of our understanding. We believe our view may be enriched by a creative and poetic perspective."
Hardly scientific.

Actually they are investigating the random collapses of the wavefunctions. Thats paranormal now is it?
Lots of people have been investigating the randomness for at least 70 years. If they are now collecting statistical correlation with human consciousness then yes it is paranormal.

The experiment is being conducted by the university of princeton, it is groundbreaking, you are no more of a skeptic caught up in a soon to be outdated paradigm...

Ground breaking? Perhaps I must have missed in my science journals.

"In the original experimental design we asked the more limited question whether there is a detectable correlation of deviations from randomness with the occurrence of major events in the world."-And there was

You can manipulate the data however way you want.

Originally posted by Conrau K

You can manipulate the data however way you want.[/b]

Shouldn't you say interperet?

Obviously the quantum environment behaves completley different from the macro environment and this is really hinting at a different organization of energies... and since we cannot understand how those energies are organized on the quantum level would that not be a result of our understanding of the way these energies are organized in our everyday lives?