| Author | Message | ||
     Simhadri Side Hero Username: Simhadri Post Number: 3083 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 74.176.13.173 Rating: |
FF annai bore kodatandi antunnavu ga..ee thraed saduvuko..  Ntr_Fan - pandu Simhadri - Laddu | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 159 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 123.237.221.43 Rating: N/A |
YES. the very nature of consciousness( or its manifestations like qulia) is irreducible. it is irreducible because it is experiential and cannot be communicated. but it's structure can be studiedif it is an emergent phenomenon ( which is likely ). Godel's incompleteness theorems sometimes look obvious to me because inductive nature of human mind. mathematics cannot represent reality completely. it is very abstract and the very abstractness is possible just because of the ability of human imagination. | ||
| Der_schuler Comedian Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 1302 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
The point is that there is an intrinsic irreducubility there!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that was all whole point...there is no way in this world that with the CURRENT set up of classical and Quantum science worth the last 400 years that one can escape..that problem.... that is exaclty why I said to LWA that science and metaphysics actually converge at those fringes coz ther it is pure speculation as opposed to a modular approach to relaity... Have u ever read the Godel's incompleteness theorem...what do u think are its consequences on mathematical formulations that support modern physics?????? If u haven't then our conversation ends here.....coz u and me can break our heads on it and make no progress | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 158 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 134.159.99.123 Rating: N/A |
how can the vedic philosophy explain the indeterminacy or QM's non-intuitive affects...may be with a single highest level abstraction, the consciousness. all that exists is consciousness and all the things are at it's whims. what good is it? is it an explanation at all? it is easier to babble with some intuitive,obvious, abstract ideas than giving things rigorous scientific treatment. | ||
| Der_schuler Comedian Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 1298 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 68.45.75.188 Rating: N/A |
good point. w.r.t to reproducibility, only classical dynamics enables you to reproducibility with in a probabilistic bound. QM clearly depicts how the very act of observation actually changes the wave density of space occupation of a fundamental particle. This has 2 intrepretations within the framework of QCD and QM in general, that there is no central way to disassocite the observer from the broader process of nature and delineate so called absolute truth....take the gedanken of Schrodinger's cat as an instance!!!! this latent indeterminacy was what made einstein so uncomfortable with QM and drove even the pioneers of QM to philosophy esp vedic philosophy....schrodinger is particular was completely bowled over by the whole concept of brahman and later einstein aqueisced that it is indeed the only CONSISTENT way of defining consciousness..... ur intrepretation that the observer and the observed are 2 different entities is flawed and was the central thesis western reductionism for long....it was wittengenstein that introduced the incompleteness paradox (or its equivalent) into philosophy and showed that western philosophy is indeed centrally flawed at the act of defining cosciousness...... with in the philosophoical realm, it is now a accepted fact that there are outstanding issues that can be delat more confidently with metaphysics than physics is intrinsically capable of!!!! | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 157 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 134.159.99.123 Rating: N/A |
dust,rocks,mountains,water,trees,planets,stars,organisms,uni verse,dynamics,physical laws. with respect to what? who does their presence matter to are expressed in/to? they are expressed in the mind of perceiver. I perceive, you perceive and others perceive.'you perceive' is a projection in fact  . All the perceptions are personal and there is no ways of communicating one's perception to others without objectifying the perception.there should be a common understanding,agreement between the parties invlolved for communication to be possible. the agreement must be formalized,consistent or at least the meta rules or meta meta rules should be consistent and agreed upon. without this agreement there is no way of claiming the truth. all the personal perceptions and the deductions from them are the truths personally. so if all the perceivers want to come up with an agreement to ascertain truth it should certainly look like science. should agree on the scientific methodology, objectification of things. | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 156 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 134.159.99.123 Rating: N/A |
the assumptions are the most plausible assumptions consistent with empirical and reproducible evidences. what do you mean by complete? there is no completion unless you are the observer and observed simultaneously. separation is the necessary condition of consciousness or self. | ||
| Der_schuler Comedian Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 1297 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 68.45.75.188 Rating: N/A |
I already appended the reference to Hamilton's original papers in this regards. The author's link was just a starter for you and actually has another version of the same paper published in a peer reviewed journal. "you have to recall here that Hamilton himsef was never able to prove it!! It still remains a "theoretical possibility"...nothing more." No. Hamilton's seminal and cornerstone work was indeed mathematical proof of altruism and statistical fit of related kin selection.... Thus far after decades of publication, no one ever published anything that explains more than what Hamilton's paper did, with an alternate theory, so to speak. Its funny how you now suddenly speak of theoretical possibility....discounting the fact that all the laws of physics that u have studied are just THEORETICAL MODELS WITH PRIOR SET OF ASSUMPTIONS RATHER THAN THE COMPLETE DEPICTION OF NATURE's UNDERPINNINGS!!!!!!! This includes QM and relativity by and large......so on what basis do you beleive that your so called scientific cognition is better than what meta physicists call their inductive scheme???????????// Which theoretical belief systems made you beleive in the blind belief that the world is a fair place and one has to strive to ensure equality..while blatantly transgressing that time and again in the course of our own life???????????? | ||
| Lionswalkalone Side Hero Username: Lionswalkalone Post Number: 2163 Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 75.211.67.177 Rating: N/A |
Der Kurrod.. Hope this doesn't offend you, for I have to tell you like it is.. I'm very disappointed with the PDF link / download that you have provided, for atleast a few reasons... The journal "Medical Hypotheses" is not even a peer reviewed journal... It's a Editor reviewed journal..You probably know how important peer review is, for any scientific publication... Also, the journal has an (Impact Factor) of 1.46!! I would probably stop short of saying that's a •••••• IF; but boy, it is very low. The journal is edited by Bruce Charlton MD, Reader in Evolutionary Psychiatry, Department of Psychology; University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK!! The author himself is some Lajos Rozsa, who belongs to a certain "Animal Ecology Research Group" in Hungary!! Who are these guys???? This publication is neither original research nor is it backed up by any evidence whatsoever...It is not even an expert critic or a review!! The author has just voiced his "opinions" here and then published it... If you are still with me, you probably have realised by now, that we're talking about a crappy publication in a mediocre journal; by all academic standards!!! Finally, regarding the "Hamiltonian Spite", you said no one was able to disprove it...but, you have to recall here that Hamilton himsef was never able to prove it!! It still remains a "theoretical possibility"...nothing more.. and when you say it is widely accepted, you again have to remember that it is accepted only as a "theory" and not as a "fact"... I am done with reading the article, and if you still want to discuss this one, let's do so.... | ||
| Mrhyderabad Side Hero Username: Mrhyderabad Post Number: 2412 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 167.230.38.118 Rating: N/A |
Social evolution gurinchi nenu meetho eppudu disco chesaa brother? or did i get it wrong? Perception is immune to Intellectual Correction ... | ||
| Lionswalkalone Side Hero Username: Lionswalkalone Post Number: 2140 Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 75.209.89.133 Rating: N/A |
Thanks....koncham busy...will look at it at the earliest poss | ||
| Der_schuler Comedian Username: Der_schuler Post Number: 1277 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 198.135.110.2 Rating: N/A |
monna disc lo edho link idham ani marchi poyanu....to counter all ur posts in One go.... http://www.zoologia.hu/list/motivation.pdf if you want to read a top level intro here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_spite This is the only theory of (AGAIN theory) societal evolution acceptable to the world at the moment and no one was able to disprove this...... "The salient features of the paper and the summary oka sari please post cheyyandi ikkada...then we will talk |
