|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The God Hypothesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual Anarchist Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
I notice that nobody has addressed my original OP about awareness. There has been no discussion about the hard problem of consciousness. Let alone how the measurement problem in QM can be accounted for by the boundary issues I brought up in my hypothesis. These boundary issues are also apparent in the experiments by Benjamin Libet in relation to the delay in consciousness. If you assume that the "observer" is "in" the brain or worse that the brain is the observer then you are left with Libet's experiments unresolved. If consciousness does not even make our decisions in real time then consciousness itself must be taken out of the equation. This certainly doesn't leave room for behaviorism. Because according to Libet my body behaves without me. It seems as if we are reaching the point where we can conclude that Materialism is dead.Maybe I am more than my consciousness. Maybe my awareness is independent of thought patterns in my brain? Is there a soul after all? Maybe so maybe not but we are still left with the hard problem of consciousness. Which has yet to be a addressed in this so called debate.
My Karma Ran Over My Dogma
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are you insisting that consciousness, awareness etc. are inherently unable to be investigated and explained scientifically - Or not?
If so - Why?
SA writes: I have established the fact of if I am my brain then I can not be my body. I think it is pretty much accepted, whatever one's views on freewill or dualism, that when we talk about the body we are including the physical brain. So most of what you wrote in your answer to the mind body problem doesn't make any sense at all because you are treating the physical brain and the body as separate entities in a way that makes no sense whatever one's philosophical disposition might be. I'll ask the question again - How do you respond to the idea that some ethereal (i.e. inherently immune to scientific investigation) notion of mind can cause the body (including the physical brain) to act?
SA writes: Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe. Really? As far as I have seen this is only true to the extent that Nostradamus's predictions were true. I.e. If you already have the scientifically verifiable facts you can fit the interpretation of some rather vague proclamations to be consistent with those facts and then claim that those facts were known all along. It's no different in vaguety, interpretation and technique to horoscopes as published in newspapers. This is the same sort of "prediction" that creationists here have previously claimed. Can you quote where Buddhism actually pre-empts quantum theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
SA writes: Do people posting to this thread think I am attempting to "Prove" God exist? I think you are throwing the word "quantum" around in a way which you think sounds mystical and impressive, I think you are invoking gaps in present knowledge as needing to be filled by something you refer to as "god", I think you are dividing the world into that which can be empirically investigated and that which cannot whilst contradicting yourself by insisting that your position isn't substance dualist in nature, I think you are essentially applying the very human trait of incredulity to things like consciousness and awareness because you subjectively feel that these things are so wondrous that they must be mystical rather than mechanistic despite all the evidence to the contrary. In short I think you are doing to consciousness what our distant ancestors did to things like thunder and lightning. Namely seeing a physical phenomenon which requires explanation and leaping to the teleological conclusion because anything worthy of 'awe and wonder' must be the result of some sort of conscious intent. Humans have evolved to understand the world in terms of conscious intent because we are social creatures and a large part of our environment is made up of the conscious intent of others. As a result we are prone (desperate even) to see agency when there is in fact none. The villager whose entire village has been swept away by a volcano asks - Why? Telling him it is mindless natural processes, pressure, heat, thermodynamics and geology in action provides no satisfaction. Tell him that the god Vulcan was angry and that he needs to be appeased however...... You are invoking teleology with regard to the origins/nature of consciousness on essentially the same basis. But that's OK. It's what humans do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
If God is the Universe as a whole, then it seems to me that Quantum Mechanics is on the exact opposite side of the continuum of things we should be looking into.
Its like trying to appreciate the Mona Lisa by investigating how the molecules in the pigments are interacting. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Also, why even call it "God"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
Your body is you. There is no "without" you.
Because according to Libet my body behaves without me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
Your body is you. There is no "without" you. Because according to Libet my body behaves without me. Most of the time my body does what I will it to do, but occasionally it reacts on its own without any willingness on my mind's part. It makes it feel like there's a seperation between the me that is in my head and the body that its attached to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
SA writes: There has been no discussion about the hard problem of consciousness. Unsurprisingly this topic has been raised before. I'd like to alert you to Dr A's invisible man hypothesis:
quote: Message 52 As Dr A notes - The invisible man hypothesis has never yet fared very well....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual Anarchist Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
Have you even read about Libets experiment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Really ? On what basis ? "On what basis"???? When you make a ludicrous and insane claim that Buddhists had any clue whatsoever as to quantum theory before physicists, it is strangely enough down to you to provide evidence for this claim.
What is pop science? Just about all the science presented outside academia; watered down, and often distorted to the point of meaninglessness depending on the presenter; then swallowed by laymen who walk away thinking that they now understand the subject.
Obviously you know the real scientific view of Quantum Physics. Of course. I studied it for long enough, and then taught it for a good while longer. That said, I'm hardly an expert, as it isn't my core discipline.
So please enlighten me. Go take a physics degree. Then take some postgrad courses. Then preferably take a PhD in an area related to quantum physics. By then you may have started to get a clue.
Also I would love to know how you think real science contradicts any Metaphysical implications of QM that may be interpreted to have spiritual implications... Very simply... metaphysical implications of QM are typically based on bullshit, and the spiritual implications are all bullshit.
It is funny how when I use words with more than one syllable you call it "jargon" I think you are confusing me with someone else.
While you are at please tell me your solution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness. I don't share my solution with just anyone. I'm rather proud of it, and have an inkling that it may even be partly correct.
Instead of debating me maybe you should be applying for the Noble Prize. I'm not debating you. I'm instructing you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual Anarchist Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
Not sure what you mean about an invisible man here? Are you talking about a white man with a beard sitting in the sky throwing lightning? In otherwords an "personal" God ? Not sure why people can not get it through their thick skulls that I am not a Christian or Jew for that matter. I am not a Monotheist in any sense of the word.
And I do not invoke God to explain the hard problem of consciousness. If this is what you think I am saying then we are not really having a discussion about my hypothesis. Perhaps it is my fault because I failed to point out that I have a "Soul Hypothesis" for the hard problem of consciousness? This is the problem inherent in Pantheism. The whole discussion of the nature of the soul and dualism is completely separate from my God Hypothesis. That is my arguments for the Soul have nothing to do with Pantheism. I would still think the Soul existed even if there is no God. The only reason I use the term "God" is to differentiate my soul Incarnated in my body from my soul discarnated after I die. In one case I am separate from other souls because I am caught up in the illusion of mind located in a body. Once the body dies so does the illusion. Though I do not need life after death to be a soul I find that paradigm more consistent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual Anarchist Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
Yeah I guess as an atheist most of my life I always wondered why anyone would call the Universe God. Esp when the Pantheist I met usually didn't believe in religion or a personal God. Not sure what other term to use. Usually I just say "The Source" but then I feel like I am watering down the experience to make it palatable.
But if beneath the subatomic level of the Universe there is pure energy, and if this energy interacts on the quantum level to create our Universe ...and maybe other Universes and this is a creative act of awareness .. ...then the Universe is a being. Of course I mean by being what the existentialist mean by being not what a theologian means by being. To me theology is incompatible with existentialism. Once you begin to talk about Phenomenology and Being in Itself you can not go back to the Mythological Constructs of a personal God. Again as a Pantheist I am getting wore out defending the idea of a soul while at the same time trying to put forth a God Hypothesis and I am beginning to regret using the term hypothesis because usually this is applied to something that can be scientifically proven. And it was never my intention to offer proof of God or the Soul. Even the atheist admits that if there was a God you could not prove it was true. But since my God is not one that can "Show himself" because the God of Pantheism is not a "person" it is all moot anyway. I guess I should just call it The Awareness Hypothesis" . I think it is self evident that there are sentient beings in the Universe and I think it can be found to be true using observation that the Universe itself is sentient. That sentience is the nature of anything living and the universe is a living thing. Quantum Physics to me is the Biology of the Universe . We are biological and reproduce using materialism in nature. The Multiverse is biological in a different way and reproduces Universes using the energy of the Quantum. We know that atoms are not at the bottom of our reality and therefore the ultimate nature of reality is not materialism. Materialism is just a surface effect of actual reality. If awareness were not involved there would be no need for The God Hypothesis. If consciousness was simply electrochemical baths in the brain creating predictable behavior patterns in animals that were in no way self aware ...except in relation to survival ...then the hard problem of consciousness would not exist. And Bohr and Einstein would never had any debates about what the role of consciousness plays in QM . If we were not sentient beings there would be no such thing as language and we would not even be capable of having this discussion. Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : No reason given. Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : ClarityMy Karma Ran Over My Dogma
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
It makes it feel like there's a seperation between the me that is in my head and the body that its attached to. Interesting. You are not talking about reflex reactions, I don't think. And I don't think you're talking about physics in action where you push the wrong way on the ice and no matter how hard you wish end up on your butt anyway. Care to share?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual Anarchist Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
Well it is ludicrous and insane to say you have a solution to the hard problem of consciousness that gets around awareness.
And hey I don't just share my insights into Buddhist Metaphysics that predate Quantum Theory with just anyone. All kidding aside Buddhist Metaphysics goes as deep as QM so I can not simply recite things off the top of my head. But it is no bluff and I am willing to delve back into it. But I wonder if I can in fact prove that that this knowledge is equal to QM would that even effect your opinion or viewpoint on consciousness? Or are you just throwing down the gauntlet to call my bluff? Buddhist definitely did not talk about Quarks or Quanta but there are direct correlations to QM in their Metaphysics that predate QM. I only ask how serious you are because I remember similar arguments with Christians where they said "show me" and I will listen. I said I could show them where the writers admitted that God created Evil itself and admitted that he actually was responsible for Evil in the world. They asked me to show them where in the Bible it said these things. When I did they made no attempt to listen to a word I said or even read the text I presented from their own book My Karma Ran Over My Dogma
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual Anarchist Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
I never used the word "prediction" or "prophecy" so to bring up Nostradamus or Biblical Prophecy is completely irrelevant as is Astrology.
Buddhist Metaphysics are no more about predictions or prophecy than any other form of Metaphysics. "Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:[3] What is there?What is it like?" Wikipedia Any form of Metaphysics including Buddhist Metaphysics is an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality and has nothing to do with Predictions or Prophecy. If Buddhism correctly predicted that a New Physics would enter into our world that accurately described what Quantum Physics is then this would be the beginning of Quantum Physics. That is it would not be a prediction of QM it would be QM. Obviously this is not what I am saying. Why would any branch of philosophy attempt to "predict" a new branch of science if in order to do so you would have to create that branch of science first? That is nonsensical in every sense of the word. Now if Buddhism predicted that a New Science would come into being that would more accurately describe our physical reality that wouldn't be much of a prediction and I wouldn't bother mentioning it. If they could only describe the aspects of this New Science vaguely I might be a little impressed that they described it at all... given what a break through Quantum Theory is. But if it were too vague how would I know it described QM at all? If it was very clearly describing QM then it would be QM . So my point is I never said Buddhism predicted QM in anyway and it is therefore a little insulting you should even suggest this. What I said was that Buddhist Metaphysics describe the underlying Quantum Nature of all matter. I can and will give this description to you even though I know it will be a lot of work for me... and in the end even if I convinced you I was right it wouldn't budge you one bit on my God Hypothesis or the Reality of the Soul. I still want to point out that no one here has explained to me why QM can not be relevant to discussion of Metaphysics or Pantheism in general or even the mind as a soul. Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : ClarityMy Karma Ran Over My Dogma
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spiritual Anarchist Member (Idle past 3577 days) Posts: 70 From: Raleigh NC Joined: |
"The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers.[4] Providing an answer to this question could lie in understanding the roles that physical processes play in creating consciousness and the extent to which these processes create our subjective qualities of experience.[5]
Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means. For philosophers who assert that consciousness is nonphysical in nature, there remains a question about what outside of physical theory is required to explain consciousness." I think the only part I disagree with is with the statement about the Nonphysical. Using a general definition of Physics ... I do not know of anything not covered by "Physical" The branch of science concerned with the study of properties and interactions of space, time, matter and energy. Newtonian physics was extended by Einstein to explain the effects of travelling near the speed of light; quantum physics extends it to account for the behaviour of atoms. Of or pertaining to the physical aspects of a phenomenon or a system, especially those studied in physics. So because I see QM is the direction to go in resolving the hard problem of consciousness I think using a term such as nonphysical is a cop out. IE Giving in to the problem before even attempting to solve it. My Karma Ran Over My Dogma
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024