Philosophy Now Forum

consciousness is the hard question.but is the easy solution to consciousness the nonlocality between entangled molicules.so all consciousness is the exact same no matter where it exists in any local event passed present or future.its always the exact same and is nonmoving as regards any frame of reference.so it consciousness is the relativity between objects no matter how distant across time.

Jackles are you ever going to post something that isn't about non locality, and in doing so break free of this obsession? Probably not.

But I would suggest you understand non locality before you proceed to post threads about it, as for now you don't really get what it means so it kinda becomes nonsense...

Non locality is not going to explain consciousness any more than it explains physics, it is a rather interesting player in the game but it is not the game.

well i must disagree with you here blags.and we pompey boys av got to stick to gever.

jackles wrote:well i must disagree with you here blags.and we pompey boys av got to stick to gever.

Fark orf ya cant, we don't ave to do nutin. if you aint making sense, geez, you aint Pompey thru and thru.

Transaltion in non coloquial English: Get away with you man, we don't have to do anything. If you are not making sense you aren't Pompey.

ha ha.

blags there isnt much point in talkin other stuff.cos that other stuff is going to be local stuff going on at infanitem about local stuff.without addressing the problem.if you find an area thats got gold in it you dont leave it to look for gold else were..and it aint fools gold.befor you get that one in.

jackles wrote:blags there isnt much point in talkin other stuff.cos that other stuff is going to be local stuff going on at infanitem about local stuff.without addressing the problem.if you find an area thats got gold in it you dont leave it to look for gold else were..and it aint fools gold.befor you get that one in.

Well the way you define it is just wrong so there's little point in talking about non locality as you seem to see it either.

blags when you next pass a church with a steeple on it take a look up where the point of the steeple meets the sky.that represents the point where your sizeless consciousness meets and contains the local event.i drew insperation for this thinking from the clock in a pyramid which is sited as you get of the gosport ferry.ha

jackles wrote:blags when you next pass a church with a steeple on it take a look up where the point of the steeple meets the sky.that represents the point where your sizeless consciousness meets and contains the local event.

That doesn't help jackles, and I am sure in all good faith you are trying to help me understand your non local beliefs, but it seems to me they are yours alone. Good luck with that...

jackles wrote:consciousness is the hard question.but is the easy solution to consciousness the nonlocality between entangled molicules.so all consciousness is the exact same no matter where it exists in any local event passed present or future.its always the exact same and is nonmoving as regards any frame of reference.so it consciousness is the relativity between objects no matter how distant across time.

Chalmers doesn't speculate anything more in relation to the hard problem other than saying he supports a type of property dualism. If your statement said that Chalmers' property dualism has implications for panpsychism then you would be correct.

Blaggard wrote:

jackles wrote:blags when you next pass a church with a steeple on it take a look up where the point of the steeple meets the sky.that represents the point where your sizeless consciousness meets and contains the local event.

That doesn't help jackles, and I am sure in all good faith you are trying to help me understand your non local beliefs, but it seems to me they are yours alone. Good luck with that...

Jackles, I think people are asking you to provided a structured argument for you statements. Statements by themselves (while interesting) don't provided evidence.

hi there ginkgo .i think we went through what entangment means with the analergy of the discs one on the moon one on earth .and we agreed that if one was rotated the other would replicate the action instantainiously no matter what distance in locality they where apart.this is spooky action and has been proven by experiment.molicules have been entangled.it means that nolocality is omni present to all events.because you could do an experiment any time any where in the universe and all ways get a nonlocal and there for spooky result and its always the exact same indistnguishable spooky action.how is it blags isnt following that.remebering what neils bhor said about some body understanding qm .

jackles wrote:... how is it blags isnt following that.remebering what neils bhor said about some body understanding qm .

As far as I understand it Blaggard is actually studying Physics so he has a fair chance of understanding what Bohr was on about. You on the other hand are just grabbing what you can with little understanding of the sources in order to support your Idealism.

jackles wrote:hi there ginkgo .i think we went through what entangment means with the analergy of the discs one on the moon one on earth .and we agreed that if one was rotated the other would replicate the action instantainiously no matter what distance in locality they where apart.this is spooky action and has been proven by experiment.molicules have been entangled.it means that nolocality is omni present to all events.because you could do an experiment any time any where in the universe and all ways get a nonlocal and there for spooky result and its always the exact same indistnguishable spooky action.how is it blags isnt following that.remebering what neils bhor said about some body understanding qm .

Hi Jackles,

Yes, I believed I said it was an analogy that suits a particular purpose. However, this is not an endorsement of some type of supernatural intelligence that governs the universe. No historical quantum physicists would ever make that claim. In scientific terms it is simply not sustainable.

Modern quantum physics has allowed metaphysics to find a new home. Yet again, I would say that I don't have a problem with this. My problem is conflating metaphysics and science.

jackles wrote:well if blagsy is studying in pompy(portsmouth) i think he might be doing media studies.

Open University actually and no I am studying physics although it's in my own time so it's taking rather longer than it would at say Southampton.