Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2017 11:26 PM
389 online now:
CRR, Dr Adequate, NoNukes (3 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,018 Year: 9,624/21,208 Month: 2,711/2,674 Week: 135/961 Day: 135/98 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 82 (699101)
05-14-2013 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
05-14-2013 12:29 PM


The Good Book..
I shall simply quote from the 'Good Book' as it shall hereafter be known...

quote:
“Let us remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism."

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


Amen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 47 of 82 (699109)
05-14-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-14-2013 12:05 PM


Re: Atheism of The Gaps?
I give you Noetic Science and The Center for Concsciousness and your response is that the research hasn't definitely settled the questtions relating to the hard problems of consciousness then that some how invalidates all their research? That's your argument?

No, no, no, SA. Forgodsake try to pay attention.

While both those organizations have deserved and received much less than a modicum of respect from the rest of the scientific world it is not their present state of research that is today's problem in this here thread!

The problem SA ...

Are you paying attention now? Got your ears on?

The problem SA is YOU. All throughout this thread you have insisted, nay, demanded, that the problem of consciousness is inextricably tied to QFT. YOU CANNOT SAY THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SHOW THIS. The research is still being done, SA. Your "conclusion" that there is a connection is way too god damn early.

Second, you go on about this self-aware universe, maybe energy is awareness itself, and

quote:
I do not need any of these to understand myself or the nature of reality but I use them all to make clear to my ego the underlying depth of the nature of reality and to achieve clarity for my mind. Philosophy to me is an attempt to erase ego boundaries so that my soul will become self evident to my mind and higher levels of enlightenment will be attainable.

The problem is not the QFT woo, the consciousness woo or the soul woo. These are just the symptoms. The problem SA is the YOU WOO!

You keep talking the QFT woo, the consciousness woo and the soul woo. These are in your thoughts, your beliefs. You believe them, unevidenced as they are, just as strongly as any theist believes in his woo. The thoughts, SA. The beliefs, SA. Unevidenced but insisted upon regardless.

If you insist on pitching woo, SA, then we will consider you a woo-pitcher and place you in the corner with all the other woo-pitchers.

Edited by AZPaul3, : changes, additions, deletions and like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-14-2013 12:05 PM Spiritual Anarchist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-14-2013 6:32 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 48 of 82 (699137)
05-14-2013 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AZPaul3
05-14-2013 1:28 PM


Re: Atheism of The Gaps?
Ok then you can not say that natural selection is the main process of Evolution because although there is research supporting natural selection it is too god damn early .

Woo is a nice word meaning nothing . I never said I had evidence the soul existed and this has nothing to do with my original post. And if it is too early in the research that does not prove this absurd notion of woo.

I was ahead of my time on Multiverse theory as well. I was told by skeptics that the Multiverse would never be accepted as a credible theory. And now it is . Of course it is too early too tell if this theory will take over the others but it is accepted as viable . Not woo or voodoo etc .

My original post was about whether Atheist and Theist are in general too close minded to alternate points of view. Do they have delusions of grandeur where they think that they have the only valid point of view.

I think I have my answer.

While both those organizations have deserved and received much less than a modicum of respect from the rest of the scientific world it is not their present state of research that is today's problem in this here thread!

Now you say they have a modicum of respect. Earlier there were post here saying that they do not represent real science.

Make up your mind

Are you paying attention now? Got your ears on?

I NEVER SAID THAT ME OR ANYONE HAD PROVEN PANTHEISM OR THE SOUL ! ARE You deaf or just stupid?

I NEVER SAID IT

READ ALL MY POST ON BOTH THREADS and clean out your ears

Again you are proving my point about my OP .

My original post was a question on why Atheist and Theist think that all the evidence is in. Both sides seem to think they have everything solved. Jeeez its like arguing with an Autistic on PCP!

Read my original post . I don't know if you are going to accept my apology at this point for calling you stupid. I usually do not stoop that low. But you have been bullying me claiming I am a fool or stupid myself by demanding I provide proof for woo. I never said I had proof and if the science is being done then it isn't woo . If it is too early to tell then that applies to you as well. But on and on you go about how I am trying to sell magic seeds or invisible men . It is both insulting and frustrating.

Not once have you addressed how neuroscience solves the hard problem of consciousness. Or explained how materialism is sufficient to explain both Cosmology and Consciousness. or even why you see QM as irrelevant.

You just go on and on insulting me and demanding proof. It is absurd and a waste of my time.

I do not think you know but maybe the general gist of the hard problem or the metaphysical implications of QM and you do not address either. I think woo is your middle name.
You think that you are your thoughts? Or maybe the language part of your brain is firing synapses in response to your reasoning brain and all this organic material is generating thoughts through neuro -chemicals to produce thoughts that belong to no one?

You don't exist according to materialism! Talk about woo. Science doesn't invalidate philosophy. The stupid Theist argue that science comes from Theology but they are liars . Science is built on Metaphysics.

Science that does not address Metaphysics is woo . Talking about processes and patterns without acknowledging anything is actually going on . Creating philosophical zombies . Living organisms called humans which are nothing but bags of flesh that think they are conscious.

A mechanical Universe designed by a blind watch maker which randomly generates organisms to evolve by natural selection which means that which survives ..survives. Where sex and killing and eating and simply staying alive to pursue pleasure and avoid pain with no more purpose then a coin landing on heads or tails.

Talk about Bullshit! I think materialistic atheism has religion beat or at least gives them a run for their money. This is why I think many theist and atheist have delusions of grandeur.

The theist argument that they think is the only argument isn't even worth stating but roughly goes since the above description fails to explain the richness of conscious experience we should accept an there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But science also gets billions of dollars in government grants and offers nothing better but determinism and behaviorism and simply manipulating peoples behavior.

It is called social engineering. And you are but a cog in the machine whether the watch maker is blind or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2013 1:28 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 12:18 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 49 of 82 (699140)
05-14-2013 7:07 PM


The Hard Problem
Ok although I seem antagonistic to theist I do not wish to send them to the back of the bus. The problem with theism is simply that it is based on religion . Also because Theism is based on religion they must necessarily be Monotheist and therefore defend a Personal God. That is if God is not a person like me and you then the Theist doesn't know where to begin.

So if theist are willing to come into this debate without assuming that God describes a person but are in fact open to other interpretations then I for one welcome them. At least I wouldn't be arguing for 3 days about woo.

I welcome any Atheist or Theist that accept philosophy as a valid way of pursuing truth along with science. Religious Theology and Science may not mix but Science and Philosophy must mix or what you describing is not reality but simply measurements and observations in order to make predictions.

Now on to the topic. Nothing to do with woo by the way. I will use a description of the hard problem from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy both to avoid confusing people with my own verbosity and to avoid relying too heavily on Wikipedia .

Now if I can get people on here to acknowledge that there IS a Hard Problem then I can go forward. If not I give up. If you do not acknowledge that you are an aware being that is self conscious in time, and this does not make you pause and wonder if you are more than a "process"... then this whole exercise is pointless. And I do not know who if anyone I am actually having a conversation with.

What was the process that began the Universe is a much more reasonable question then "Who" created the Universe.

But the question what are you can be just as reasonably asked as "who" are you? And this is almost at the crux of the problem .

The Hard Problem of Consciousness
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject. The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain. Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness: the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness. These features can be explained using the usual methods of science. But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present. This is the hard problem.

In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements. It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. There seems to be an unbridgeable explanatory gap between the physical world and consciousness. All these factors make the hard problem hard.

The hard problem was so-named by David Chalmers in 1995. The problem is a major focus of research in contemporary philosophy of mind, and there is a considerable body of empirical research in psychology, neuroscience, and even quantum physics. The problem touches on issues in ontology, on the nature and limits of scientific explanation, and on the accuracy and scope of introspection and first-person knowledge, to name but a few. Reactions to the hard problem range from an outright denial of the issue to naturalistic reduction to panpsychism (the claim that everything is conscious to some degree) to full-blown mind-body dualism.

Edited by Spiritual Anarchist, : Clarity


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2013 9:33 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(5)
Message 50 of 82 (699147)
05-15-2013 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-14-2013 6:32 PM


Re: Atheism of The Gaps?
Ok then you can not say that natural selection is the main process of Evolution because although there is research supporting natural selection it is too god damn early .

No. Natural selection is a fact and every scientist familiar with the subject knows it.

Try again.

Woo is a nice word meaning nothing . I never said I had evidence the soul existed and this has nothing to do with my original post. And if it is too early in the research that does not prove this absurd notion of woo.

Ah, yes. Your OP. Ignored it. Too much woo.

Where I came in was your message 17:

quote:
Dennet has his book Consciousness Explained and Dawkins has The God Delusion. So there is no further reason to look into the nature of reality or God or ask about a soul because Science and Atheism and Materialism covers anything and everything you could or would want to know. There are no questions left to ask except questions in details. That is the Delusion of Grandeur I am talking about.

I pointed out your failure to comprehend the major focus of these men's books.

Me:

What they did say is that if we want real solutions to our real problems then superstition, be it monotheist, polytheist or pantheist must go away. Reason by objective reality must rule. Anything else, as we have sadly experienced for the last 5,000 years, results in abject failure.

And we've been going round and round ever since.

The problem I have been addressing has nothing to do with QFT or consciousness or soul but your willingness, your blindness, to believe in unevidenced things like a universal consciousness and some transcendent soul.

I never said QFT was irrelevant or that the consciousness problem was irrelevant or that you need to prove the existence of anything. I never called you any names or cast any aspersions on your character or your intellect.

Let me repeat that:

quote:
I never said QFT was irrelevant or that the consciousness problem was irrelevant or that you need to prove the existence of anything. I never called you any names or cast any aspersions on your character or your intellect.

Excuse me, I did call you a woo-pitcher. But when the shoe fits …

From your own words (none that I manufactured for you or took out of context) you believe:

Because I do not see our Universe as Intelligently Designed but as a self aware work in progress attempting to grow spiritually by waking us up in the process of becoming aware through us and other sentient beings.

The only reason that my Pantheism has any inclination towards the Pantheism of Spinoza is because I believe that the soul has more validity then any God Concept.

I use Shamanism in my practice of understanding my soul and the energies of the Universe.

And this is fine. You are more than welcome to your beliefs.

My point:

You have no evidence of a Universe as a self aware work in progress attempting to grow spiritually by waking us up in the process of becoming aware through us and other sentient beings.

You have no evidence that the soul has more validity then … (I doesn't matter) and yet you practice Shamanism to understand this unevidenced thing you believe is your soul. You believe the soul has validity though presently there is no evidence that a soul of any description does or can exist. Again, this is fine. You are entitled.

You believe these things as a matter of philosophy. A philosophy that personally appeals to you. And there is nothing wrong with this.

If I could prove with all the necessary evidence that the soul in fact does exist I would win the Noble Prize.

Indeed you would and I would send you a heartfelt telegram of congratulations. But you haven't the evidence to show any level of efficacy let alone “proof.”

So what is the basis of this belief? It is philosophically comforting to you.

Dennett and Dawkins were saying that reason by objective reality must rule.

This means that belief in unevidenced things or processes can no longer be allowed to decide the fate of this species and this world.

Again, you are entitled to your beliefs, but honest reality requires the acknowledgment that your unevidenced beliefs are articles of faith stemming from your philosophy just as the theist's articles of faith stem from their religions.

Wishful thinking, not evidenced reality.

You exhibit the very problem in thinking that these men were pointing out.

This is the entirety of my participation in this thread.

Except maybe:

Me:

While both those organizations have deserved and received much less than a modicum of respect from the rest of the scientific world it is not their present state of research that is today's problem in this here thread!

You:

Now you say they have a modicum of respect. Earlier there were post here saying that they do not represent real science.

Make up your mind

First you turned “less than a modicum of respect” into “a modicum of respect.” Totally different from what I said. They are not viewed with a modicum of respect but something less. Reading comprehension problem? Bad form. Don't do that.

Second I never said your two favored organizations do not represent real science.
I certainly hinted at it, though. So let me say it officially.

Both of these organizations border on the edge of pseudoscience and do not represent the best of the discipline. Their science is questionable at best. Hameroff may have gone over the edge with some of his new articles. And Quackwatch notes Noetic on its “with considerable distrust” list. As I stated before - My opinion: both organizations are now in the hands of woo specialists and cranks.

Science and Philosophy must mix or what you describing is not reality but simply measurements and observations in order to make predictions.

Really. Look at your discipline. Get a hundred theists in a room and you have a hundred different competing conceptions about gods. Get a hundred philosophers in a room and you have a hundred different competing conceptions about everything!. You have as many sects and cults as any set of religions.

Each philosopher calls the others inaccurate, incomplete and wrong. No one agrees with anyone. Each has their own school and their own logic and their own truths and principles for knowing. Your discipline is a god-awful scattered mess. Just like religions.

Science is a rather contentious sport with calm intellectual consideration sandwiched between scratching, pissing and backstabbing that can go on for decades. But we do not have biologists telling astrophysicists they are inaccurate, incomplete and wrong about their work. We do not have chemists telling paleontologists they are inaccurate, incomplete and wrong about their work.

Hell we don't even have experimentalists telling theorists they are inaccurate, incomplete and wrong anymore the way we used to.

But when the evidence is finally in and the final analysis is complete every scientist worth his degree understands the reality revealed (subject to change).

Your thousands of philosophies cannot agree or determine “TruthTM” about anything. You are as worthless at reality, truth and "ways of knowing" as a skinhead at a Passover Seder.

Science and Philosophy must mix …

My ass!

Understand, in this thread I do not give a flying flip about the problem of consciousness or whether it can be related to QFT or not. I do not give a flying flip whether you or I or anyone else has or doesn't have a soul. I do not care if they exist or not.

You believe in unevidenced items as a matter of faith in your philosophy. This is superstition. This is woo. And it is this kind of shallow critical thinking that has caused too many problems in this world. It needs to be changed.

This is the only point I have been making in my entire list of messages on this thread. Do you now understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-14-2013 6:32 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-15-2013 8:21 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1701
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 51 of 82 (699159)
05-15-2013 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AZPaul3
05-15-2013 12:18 AM


Re: Atheism of The Gaps?
I agree with you that SA is failing to appreciate the fundamental difference between the way that skeptics and theists arrive at their conclusions. That verifiable theories are not the same as unverifiable theories and that one of these two groups is able to justify and support their position.

You have no evidence of a Universe as a self aware work in progress attempting to grow spiritually by waking us up in the process of becoming aware through us and other sentient beings.

It is a fact that consciousness is an emergent property in the universe. We are certainly not separate from the universe and are built of the same stuff. While I don't know what the 'growing spiritually' part means, I don't really see anything wrong with saying that the universe is conscious or sentient.

As we go about subdividing everything into discrete bits and making distinctions between things it easy to loose sight of the fact that everything is connected at a fundamental level. So you might say that the earth is not a sentient thing and yet sentience is an emergent property of the earth.

I am curious about how QM does impact consciousness. How does this backwards time travel brain maneuver work?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 12:18 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 1:28 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 82 (699161)
05-15-2013 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-14-2013 7:07 PM


Re: The Hard Problem
I think most here are familiar with the problem at hand.

The complaint being directed at you is that this "god" you speak of is essentially a god of the gaps argument laden with as much woo as any other such argument. We don't scientifically have an understanding of consciousness so you think you can just fill it with whatever unevidenced mumbo-jumbo floats your particular boat. No different in nature as an argument and no more legitimate than the god of the gaps arguments trotted out by conventional theists. Yes yes - I know you are going to tell me that yours is not a personal god and that yours is not a god borne of religion - Blah blah blah. We know. We get it.

But simply defining "god" as "Not what those theists believe" but instead some vague and ambiguous cosmic consciousness doesn't really make any difference in the assessment of your ideas as blatant woo.

SA writes:

Reactions to the hard problem range from an outright denial of the issue to naturalistic reduction to panpsychism (the claim that everything is conscious to some degree) to full-blown mind-body dualism.

So let's find out where you lie on this scale.

Do you think consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical brain?

If I were to repeatedly plunge a screwdriver into your brian until all brain activity were to cease what, if any, effect do you think this would have on your consciousness?

If you agree that it would have an effect - Why do you think it would have an effect? What is the relationship between physical brians and consciousness as far as you are concerned?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-14-2013 7:07 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 53 of 82 (699175)
05-15-2013 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ProtoTypical
05-15-2013 8:21 AM


Re: Atheism of The Gaps?
While I don't know what the 'growing spiritually' part means, I don't really see anything wrong with saying that the universe is conscious or sentient.

Actually a "we are all connected in all things" philosophy has a resonance even in me. I can agree that we are made of the same "stuff" as the rest of the universe and, thus, there is a connection. Consciousness as an emergent property of this universe cannot be denied because we are here, we are part of this universe and we are conscious. Life is an emergent property of the universe. It is a beautiful and comfortable feeling.

As far as emergent properties of the universe, so are stars, asteroids, stellar nucleogenesis, black holes, gravity, newspapers and everything else that exists. Where it falls off the rails is when we emotional humans think our consciousness (and thus us) are somehow special manifestations sought by the universe to achieve awareness. Our ethnocentrism has been a disease in our philosophies for millennia.

Other than to us and our philosophical musings there appears no reason for the property of consciousness to appear special in any way to the rest of the universe. And without some evidence that consciousness holds something special in the grand meaning of things there is no reason to broach the hypothesis in any manner whatsoever.

Might as well posit that newspapers are special manifestations sought by the universe so it can keep up with celebrity gossip and the daily horoscopes.

I am curious about how QM does impact consciousness. How does this backwards time travel brain maneuver work?

I think your best way to get an answer to this is to hear Hameroff himself describe it. I have dissed him in this thread, for good reason, but he does give a cogent, if unevidenced, explanation.

YouTube

Listen critically. He does get "over enthusiastic" in his thoughts at times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-15-2013 8:21 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 54 of 82 (699194)
05-15-2013 5:53 PM


Appearance and Reality
Ok before I begin to address the issues concerned I need to address the elephant in the room. That is the one issue we seem to be dancing around. That is I am treating this message board as normal Atheist message board.

The reality is this message board is about the relevancy or lack of considering Intelligent Design.

There are two problems right away.

1. I think the intelligent design debate is a red herring. There is nothing to debate because ID is not a science.
2.The reason for this is that ID debate is a socio-political issue not one of science or philosophy.

Hence when I sarcastically pointed out that Natural Selection was too God Damn early my sarcasm went over peoples heads. I know that Natural Selection is fact. My point was that there are gaps in Natural Selection Theory just as there are gaps in Cognitive QM theories. So if you can not argue that the gaps in Natural Selection lead one to deny it as a valid theory then you can not use gaps in the theory of Cognitive QM to deny that it has any validity.

Again I think I know why this is all ignored and misinterpreted.

This message board was created to the best of my knowledge to keep The Discovery Institute from pushing its Wedge Agenda.

Part of that agenda is to create doubt about Evolution and Natural Selection . If the Discovery Institute were to ever become successful Disguised Theology would be taught as a science and religious right agendas would be forwarded.

Yes I read The Wedge Document

So I know the whole story .

So either it is assumed that I am an ID supporter pushing for any God concept I can get through or that I am simply a fool clouding the issue.

So here is the deal .

If I only requested that my post be put here because under creation miscellany implied that I supported creationism . But my request has seemed to backfired because now I am seen as Trojan Horse for ID .

Here is the thing I have no agenda besides researching the sides of this debate. And my interest is not in promoting one side over the other.
Far from it. I feel the Atheist throw out the baby with the bath water and the Theist worship the baby as the son of God. I definitely do not support either view.

But if I had to choose sides in the ID debate I would choose the side of the Evolutionist. Because I do agree that is real science . And real science is what we should promote.

That being said the Center for Consciousness Studies and The Noetic Institute is in now way affiliated or supportive of the ID movement. And neither am I.

I do not come here to you as an ID sympathizer trying to convert you to their cause or even to ask you to open your mind to their view. That I have no interest in .

I think they are on to something about pure materialism as unsatisfying as an explanation. But to me materialism is unsatisfying as the ultimate nature of reality because atheist ignore Metaphysics not because Theological Comfort Food can fill in a few gaps with psuedo science.

By taking a stand with Science on evolution and natural selection I feel that I am not just closing the door to psuedo science of IDist but or real science being done by Noetic and Center for Conscious Study.

It may be true that there is no place in Science for ID or Theology but that doesn't conclusively prove Pure Materialism or Metaphysical Nihilism. Pure Atheism isn't simply that religion is wrong or that the supernatural is unnecessary and unreal. It takes it one step further and denies all levels of reality that are hard to explain or is inconvenient to materialism. This is why there is a movement in QM to hide it as a statistical science.

I do not have interested in experiencing or proving what Atheist call the supernatural or in promoting religious or magical thinking. But the Atheist talks about objective reality the way the theist talks about moral absolutes. I do not think an obsessive attachment to either furthers our pursuit in understanding reality .

The reason this all sounds like woo to you is because many of you can only see in one spectrum. Science is half the battle and certainly helps in establishing an objective reality. But there are other levels. If you are simply an organism seeking pleasure and avoiding pain and your consciousness is no different then any other organism then again we are machines with an illusion of intelligence. And if there is no actual consciousness then pursuing objective reality is simply another way of survival and has nothing to do with reality itself.

But this has already been undermined by our history. During the times of religious fervor in our history where the church ruled science was considered heretical. Those who thought there were any other views besides biblical would considered a danger to themselves or others. This is not the nature specific to Christianity or Monotheism but the nature of religion itself. And if Atheism continues to become a reactive movement and develops it's own dogma then Atheism risk becoming a religion itself . Religion is not about the supernatural but about dogmatism and power seeking.

So that is where I want to begin this discussion. Where is the natural inquiry? Where is the curiosity? Is it suppressed by fears and desires ?
The fear of having a soul and not know what a soul is or what purpose it serves if any? Or the desire to pursue all legal pleasures and illegal ones if you can get away with it? The need to get rid of conscience as long as know one is killed ? The desire to pursue as any other animal to dominate subjugate our inferiors?

In other words I have made it clear about my motives. What motivates the Atheist? To create a society of objective individuals? Many theist are objectivist and even materialist except on Sundays. For the most part regardless of belief most people accept that a rock is just a rock , there's no such things as ghost UFOs etc . But even though objective reality is all there is and lust is all that matters just pure desire and the hell with anyone besides those we can use God created the world in 7 days John 3:16 etc. Or for Atheist objective reality exist so there is nothing worth doing but creating better weapons bigger bombs and accumulating wealth. He who dies with the most toys wins.

I reject pure Atheist Materialism and Metaphysical Nihilism as well as Theological Magical Thinking as the only 2 options.

I am an Buddhist and a Philosopher. Science is but one tool in my studies on the nature of reality and my own being. I am a self aware being and that is not woo. Can my body be killed ? Of course. Am I my body? No. Do I like this existence body and all? Yes. Christians claim that Jesus came back from the dead and that makes him a God . But people come back from death in hospitals all the time. Does that make us Gods? In a way maybe it does. If someone is brain dead and then is somehow brought back to life in a hospital is it the same person? When you sleep and wake up without remembering dreaming where were you? The Atheist would claim that there is not a you that exist at all. So much for objective reality. You do not even have an objective existence let alone objective thinking. When your brain wakes up it accesses memories and processes sensory experience and creates an "I" that remembers being "you" . And if you die of brain death then you cease to exist.

So if your brain is brought back to life any person in that body claiming to be you is obviously a liar. Pure materialism fails on every level.QM shines a bright light on something provable and with evidence and fact supporting a reality that bears little resemblance to the atheist fantasy of a purely material objective reality with there no other levels where it all breaks down.

If you have no interest in Metaphysics then you have no real interest in understanding reality as it actually is.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2013 6:19 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2672
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 55 of 82 (699197)
05-15-2013 6:14 PM



"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 56 of 82 (699200)
05-15-2013 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-15-2013 5:53 PM


Brains
SA writes:

But people come back from death in hospitals all the time.

I am unaware of anyone ever having regained consciousness after their brain starts to decompose or is removed during autopsy. To the best of my knowledge the presence of a functioning brain is rather important component of conscious beings. Is this wrong?

Do you think consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical brain?

SA writes:

Am I my body? No.

If I were to repeatedly plunge a screwdriver into your brain until all brain activity were to cease and your physical brain was nothing more than a mushy puddle of goo what, if any, effect do you think this would have on your consciousness?

If you agree that it would have an effect - Why do you think it would have an effect? What is the relationship between physical brains and consciousness as far as you are concerned?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-15-2013 5:53 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 928 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 57 of 82 (699205)
05-15-2013 6:29 PM


Nothing Special
Actually a "we are all connected in all things" philosophy has a resonance even in me. I can agree that we are made of the same "stuff" as the rest of the universe and, thus, there is a connection. Consciousness as an emergent property of this universe cannot be denied because we are here, we are part of this universe and we are conscious. Life is an emergent property of the universe. It is a beautiful and comfortable feeling.

I think you are definitely getting very close to the truth here. I do not know about how comfortable it is but in a way it is beautiful as well as frightening. It is only boundaries and consensus that keeps your mind separate from mine. I do not find this comfortable which is why even when I am arguing with you I want so bad to just accept the brain / materialistic explanation. Now that's comfortable! I may have to die someday but at least I am only me and you are only you. I can pursue my desires and may succeed or may not but it will be fun trying. Simple and comfortable.

As far as emergent properties of the universe, so are stars, asteroids, stellar nucleogenesis, black holes, gravity, newspapers and everything else that exists. Where it falls off the rails is when we emotional humans think our consciousness (and thus us) are somehow special manifestations sought by the universe to achieve awareness. Our ethnocentrism has been a disease in our philosophies for millennia.

Hmm need to clarify things here. I do not think that the Universe needs us to achieve awareness. The Universe at least on the QM level (Or maybe deeper) is awareness. But awareness without anything to be aware of is deadly dull and pointless. I do not believe that humans are the only animals or living beings with awareness. The Universe Awareness permeates all life. But all life is struggle with very little satisfaction. So most animals simply do not have enough awareness in them for the Universe to manifest higher levels of reality. Whoops this is bordering woo isn't it ? So frustrating here. I know animals are aware and even plants have some level no matter how subtle. But much of the Universe is stars and dead matter.

All I can say is if the Universe has no purpose in waking up through us then there really is no acceptable explanation of why we are aware at all. Natural Selection does not need to evolve anything beyond apes to achieve the goals of survival and propagating species. If I were to visit Earth and see no more evolved life than apes I might conclude that everything science has to say about evolution and natural selection is enough to explain life the universe and everything. Of course if that were the case there wouldn't exist anything like science because there would be no humans to create the discipline of science. And of course if there were no life in the Universe evolved past apes then there would be no one to visit Earth or any other planet to make such observations.

Other than to us and our philosophical musings there appears no reason for the property of consciousness to appear special in any way to the rest of the universe. And without some evidence that consciousness holds something special in the grand meaning of things there is no reason to broach the hypothesis in any manner whatsoever.

But the question remains how do we have the capacity for philosophical musings in the first place? I think the evidence is consciousness itself. Without the need for meaning consciousness is superfluous. Consciousness on our level serves no evolutionary purpose unless you believe in spiritual evolution of the soul. Civilization and Technology is simply overkill. The need for art or philosophy or even advanced science beyond Newtons Basic Mechanics is way beyond what is necessary to be a superior animal on Earth. I am not Anthropocentric. I do not think humans are the best the Universe can do or that the Universe has a purpose and we are it.

But something is going on. And religion has no clue so it is up to science to merge with metaphysics one day and bring us closer to understanding what this all means. I think the perfect beginning point is Atheism and Skepticism. We must doubt everything that doesn't fit what we call objective reality and let science in its present form take us as far as it can take us and get rid of all woo. But at some point we must learn to go beyond even that.

And that is why Metaphysics is called META physics. It is not to offer an alternative explanation to reality that contradicts physics but to go beyond. To me that is what QM is for. Not a statistical rationalization of reality but a true pursuit into the beyond. So we will have to learn to use other forms of Observation them simply measurement. We will have to learn to use awareness itself.

And in order to do that we must learn to understand what awareness is.


My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 6:50 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2013 11:41 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 58 of 82 (699208)
05-15-2013 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-15-2013 6:29 PM


Re: Nothing Special
The Universe at least on the QM level (Or maybe deeper) is awareness. But awareness without anything to be aware of is deadly dull and pointless.

So I was right about the newspapers, celebrity gossip and the horoscopes. I wonder if it does the crossword?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-15-2013 6:29 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2013 10:14 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10192
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 59 of 82 (699242)
05-16-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
05-15-2013 6:50 PM


Re: Nothing Special
AZ writes:

I wonder if it does the crossword?

More likely Sodoku.

God after all is a mathematician...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 6:50 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2013 10:42 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 63 by Omnivorous, posted 05-16-2013 9:28 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 60 of 82 (699244)
05-16-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
05-16-2013 10:14 AM


Re: Nothing Special
God after all is a mathematician...

Oh. Here I thought he was one of them geek programmer types with a pocket protector full of pens and pencils. All that designing/programming stuff he does. Pop bottle bottom lenses. Cold HotPocket on a coding sheet on the corner of the desk. Misogynistic SOB because he can't get a girl because he doesn't bathe and stinks real bad.

Mathematicians are supposed to be enlightened and bathe regularly.

As I understand the stories the only nookie god ever got was when he raped that desert girl in the middle of the night.

You sure about this?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2013 10:14 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2013 11:23 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017