Fwd: SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 3:49 am
Subject: Fwd: SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)...

 

(Reading the other installments in the "Plato Man in the Cave" series is

 recommended but not required. Take note of "Plato's Cave to Plato'

Heaven," "Plato's Heaven" and "Return to Plato's Cave" which are highly

 critical of physicist like Michio Kaku whom seem to treat mathematical

 speculation as fact and largely bypassing observational and experimental

evidence. "Outside of Plato's Cave" is appropriate to the season).

(This constitutes a Supplement (isn't it unusual for a  supplement to enjoy

its own name) to Plato's Man in the Cave series/Urania Moons You/God:

A Personal Journey {an article with three names} A supplement comes

after the article proper; if you don't know that you aren't equipped to be

reading material of this nature).

                                 SOUL MAN (Expanded Version)

                   PLATO'S MAN in the CAVE Series: The FINALE'

              A CRITIQUE of the DIRECTION SCIENCE is TAKING

                      by Richard DePersio with Citizen Journalist

         (Special thanks to Urania {for the use of the hall} and Plato)

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers might be described

 as nearly being idealists/immaterialists (although, these

 philosophical terms weren't employed at the time; ethical values and

math properties exist independent of our knowing or experiencing them).

They felt that one can only understand nature by thinking about it and 

through the use of mathematics, especially, geometry.

        For most of the ancients frowned upon observing or experiencing

 or experimenting, especially, the latter for the use of hands in work

was for slaves. Soldiers' use of hands were an exception. A few would

 engage only when they thought absolutely necessary and felt

self-degradation. Plato subscribed to this view. (Ionians being the

 exception. They found value in both). On the other hand, Plato was a

dualist in that he thought in terms of soul-body being of a different nature.

        Descartes, in the 17th Century, that mind was a mental 

substance whose essential nature was thinking and feeling. Everything

else is matter or material substance with physical characteristics like

 size and shape. This is known as dualism. He was a rationalist:

Knowledge acquisition wasn't limited to the senses and one might be

 better off not attempting knowledge acquisition by this fashion. 

(Empiricists think that it is virtually all about senses: observing;

experiencing; experimenting).

       Those in opposition hold that since Descartes made mental

and physical different substances that they can't possibly react to each

 other: a physical effect requires a physical cause.

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

      Matter and the Space-Time Foam (Einstein's gravity: the curvature

of space) interact with each other and STF isn't even a substance!

      Spinoza tried to rectify {CJ: "That which we don't perceive as

a problem."} by suggesting that it is properties not substances.

You're describing different aspects of the same entity: two sides of the

 same coin. He attempts to explain how mind-body (or brain)

interaction can occur. {CJ: "This works for us as well."}

     Those in opposition hold that he has shifted the problem of dualism

 not solved it.

     Empiricists posit that virtually all knowledge is derived from the

senses through observation, experience and experimentation and are,

 by and large, materialists (universe is all matter).

It should be noted that 90% of scientists and philosophers are

 materialists or physicalists.

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

     Why isn't dualism in physics acceptable? A massless particle

light sometimes behaves like a particle and sometimes behaves

like a wave; particles with mass like protons sometimes behave

as particles and sometimes waves. Even opposites exist in

nature: positive and negative charges; matter and antimatter.

 Mind containing info on thoughts, feelings and memories

corresponding to data contained in neurons of the brain.

Info existing at two different locations; mind and brain of two

different substances or two different aspects. Mind or

consciousness, perhaps, existing in the microtubules of

neurons.

       Albert taught us that matter was a concentrated form of

 energy and that matter and energy are two different forms of

 the same thing. And, certainly matter and energy interact with

each other and have no problem doing so. Mind and/or

consciousness and/or spirit and or soul. Why does Albert

have a problem with soul? Please continue reading.

       Speaking of soul: CJ is pretty fly for a white guy!

      Descartes like Plato contended that we were born with

 certain innate ideas: the true meaning of liberty (abstract ideas);

geometry. Descartes felt that the mind was a little god made in

God's image and to think of the mind as a machine was

undignified. Plato felt that innate ideas are in the soul. Could Mind

and soul might be the same thing!). For Plato the soul was

imprisoned in the corrupt body making it difficult to apprehend

innate ideas while for Descartes the world of the senses could

impede one's attempt to connect with innate ideas. Knowledge from

 senses is inferior.

      Empiricists claim that most knowledge should come from

observation, experience and experimentation. Most wouldn't

object to Descartes claiming math and abstract ideas are innate

but Descartes went further by contending that knowledge of

the physical world should be ascertained through pure thought.

      Both sides resurrected the little known ancient Greek idea of the

 atom as the smallest indivisible part of a substance. Most ancient

 thought that everything was made of earth, wind, fire and water.

Atoms had no substance - only shape, spin, motion. Descartes went

 further: color, taste, sound were innate. When we looked at grass,

our mind tells us to see it as green. This too was a road too far for

the empiricists.

      We maintain that knowledge must be secured via thought/

math and observation/experience/experimentation. As physicist

Roger Penrose suggests there might be three realms: math; mental

or mind; physical or material. Just to complicate things further!

WHY DOES EVERYONE ELSE SEE A PROBLEM --- WE DON'T!!!

      We can't be certain that mind and consciousness can exist

separate from but related to brain. We cannot be certain that mind

can be soul/spirit. Although, it might be proven one day.Does this

constitute wild unscientific thinking? One might say that of quantum

physics. It seems to us that most physicists today are thinking in a

fashion like Descartes: minimizing value of observation and

experimentation. Accepting math speculation as fact with little or no

observational/experimental data to support it. Descartes once again

you are front and center.

       Why is it difficult for most scientists to accept mind as separate

 from brain. They except electron being in more than one place at a

time. They accept Higgs-Bosons: ghost-like particles which give

substance to matter. They accept ten spatial dimensions instead of the

 traditional three. It seems to us that mind fits right in there. Is it that

they are married to atheism.

       Disagreeing with Albert...Idealism/realism: minds and ideas is all

 that there is; ethical values and mathematical properties exist 'out

there' independent of our knowing them. there is no substance. On

the issue of math: A rationalist is  with an emphasis on getting knowledge

of abstract ideas, including, math. via thought. Empiricists argue that the

 abstract ideas of math are actually human constructs (tools) and math is

 a matter of convention - it helps create consensus not discover; adds

additional proof but not fact or truth. Descartes was a duelist who 

reasoned God's existence (one might say that he was a deist) while

Spinoza was a dualist and a pantheist. Which brings us to Albert. We are

 going to quote from "Parallel Worlds" by Michio Kaku, even though we

have been critical of Michio: "Einstein once wrote that he believed in

Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists

 {CJ: "We can see why the 'Uncertainty Principle' upset him."}, not in a

God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

The god of Spinoza and Einstein is the god of harmony, the god of

reason and logic. Einstein writes, "I cannot imagine a god who

rewards and punishes the objects of his creation...Neither can I believe

 that the individual survives the death of the body." {CJ: "We think that

deism is predicated on reason."} Einstein said,"I am convinced that we

can discover by means of purely mathematical construction the concepts

 and the laws...which furnish the key to the understanding of natural

phenomena....pure thought can grasp reality." We contend that since

quantum theory was created in the '20s and even more so since the '80s

 with String Theory, M Theory, Multi-verses that scientists have become

more idealists (or immaterialists). Machio in his own words: "My own

view is that verification of string theory might come entirely from

pure mathematics rather than from experiment." Is the real

universe just in way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE DISCOVERED A CONNECTION UNINTENTIONAL BUT
MEANINGFUL...

Einstein helped develop quantum physics but was most uncomfortable

with it, especially, the Uncertainty Principle: You can know a particles

location or it speed and direction but not both at the time time. Not

long before his death, he grudgingly accepted it but felt that like

Relativity didn't replace Newtonian Physics but made it a subset that

eventually Quantum would become part of something bigger.

       The Cat Paradox...Imagine a cat sealed in a box with a bottle of

poison gas connected to a hammer, which in turn is connected to a

Geiger counter placed near a piece of uranium. The radioactive decay

 of the uranium atom is a quantum event which can't be predicted ahead

 of time. Let's say the there is a 50% chance that the uranium atom will

 decay in the next second. If it does decay, it will set off the Geiger

Counter, which sets off the hammer which breaks the glass, killing the

cat (PETA, its not real but a thought experiment; don't protest at our

comsats). The physicists say that the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead

 until we open the box. Once you open the box the wave function

collapses and you and the cat have definite position and your

observation can be made.

      There are several ways of resolving the cat problem. According to

 Eugene Wigner consciousness determines existence. Wigner's friend:

 In order to determine my state, someone else has to observe me to

 collapse my wave function. It also means that someone has to observe

Wigner's friend, and Wigner's friend's friend, and so on. Is there a

cosmic consciousness that determines the entire sequence of friends by

 observing the whole universe?

      Scientists haven't created life out of non-living matter nor have they

 created consciousness out of life, let alone the higher consciousness of

humans.

      Each one observing the previous observer with the ultimate observer

 in the cat paradox being God.Can there be a universe without observers?

 John Wheeler proposes that the entire universe is dominated by

consciousness and information (mind and math) Consciousness

determines the nature of the universe. "50 Philosophy Ideas You Really

 Need to Know" by Ben Dupre' (Quercus, 2007): "...in Descartes the mind

 is effectively a stage on which ideas are viewed by an inner observer -

 the immaterial soul. the fact that this inner observer, or 'homunculus',

 itself appears to require an observer of its own (and so on to infinity).

We need both approaches to understanding the universe: thought and

observation. The pure forms of ethics and math reside in Plato's Heaven.

They are innate in our mind or soul and can be discovered by rationalism

and empiricism. Sadly, science is over-emphasizing the latter. We are not

a blank slate at birth but this does not mean that we are born with strong

or weak homo or criminal or nasty genes. Quantum may be true but so

is purpose to universe true.