Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The God Hypothesis
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 16 of 150 (689718)
02-03-2013 7:13 PM


Awareness
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 02-04-2013 12:23 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2013 2:22 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 150 (689719)
02-03-2013 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Dualism
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 3:42 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 7:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(6)
Message 18 of 150 (689720)
02-03-2013 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 4:17 PM


Re: Dualism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 4:17 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 19 of 150 (689742)
02-04-2013 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-02-2013 8:41 PM


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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-02-2013 8:41 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 6:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 150 (689755)
02-04-2013 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 7:13 PM


Re: Awareness
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
Because according to Libet my body behaves without me.
Your body is you. There is no "without" you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 7:13 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 12:47 PM ringo has replied
 Message 23 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 5:21 PM ringo has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 150 (689761)
02-04-2013 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
02-04-2013 12:23 PM


Re: Awareness
Spiritual Anarchist writes:
Because according to Libet my body behaves without me.
Your body is you. There is no "without" you.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 02-04-2013 12:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 02-04-2013 6:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 02-06-2013 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 22 of 150 (689776)
02-04-2013 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 7:13 PM


Dr A's Invisible Man Hypothesis
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:
Got something that you can't explain? Then hypothesize the existence of an invisible man having the property of explaining it.
Can't explain the lightning? We've got you covered. There's an invisible man having the property of explaining the lightning. Hoorah!
Why are species well-adapted to their environment? There's an invisible man having the property of adapting them to their environment. So we're done here.
(You will note that this has never been right so far.)
And so we come on to consciousness. Can't solve the Hard Problem Of Consciousness? Well, in that case I myself am an invisible man having the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness.
Now this is even worse than the usual application of the Invisible Man Hypothesis. Because I am, verifiably, a visible man. And the Invisible Man shares nearly every property with the visible man (i.e. my brain). It would be silly, for example, to suppose that this Invisible Man is left-handed when my brain is right-handed, or that it's a Republican while my brain is a Democrat. The Invisible Man shares every property with the visible man except two: first, it is invisible, intangible, and unevidenced, and second, it has the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness.
How does it do that? Well, it just has that property. 'Cos we defined it that way. And of course the hypothesis fits the facts perfectly, because, hypothetically, an Invisible Man having the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness would, if he existed, solve the Hard Problem Of Consciousness. Who can deny that?
Well I'm glad we sorted that out.
Message 52
As Dr A notes - The invisible man hypothesis has never yet fared very well....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 7:13 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 5:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 23 of 150 (689792)
02-04-2013 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
02-04-2013 12:23 PM


Re: Awareness
Have you even read about Libets experiment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 02-04-2013 12:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 02-06-2013 11:27 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 24 of 150 (689793)
02-04-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-03-2013 6:42 PM


Re: Dualism
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-03-2013 6:42 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 6:22 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 25 of 150 (689794)
02-04-2013 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Straggler
02-04-2013 2:22 PM


Re: Dr A's Invisible Man Hypothesis
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2013 2:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 8:14 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 26 of 150 (689801)
02-04-2013 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2013 10:52 AM


God?
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, : Clarity

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2013 10:29 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 27 of 150 (689803)
02-04-2013 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2013 12:47 PM


Re: Awareness
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2013 10:50 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 28 of 150 (689804)
02-04-2013 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by cavediver
02-04-2013 5:29 PM


Re: Dualism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 02-04-2013 5:29 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 29 of 150 (689806)
02-04-2013 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
02-03-2013 7:24 PM


Re: Dualism
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, : Clarity

My Karma Ran Over My Dogma

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2013 7:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 8:12 AM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Spiritual Anarchist
Member (Idle past 3548 days)
Posts: 70
From: Raleigh NC
Joined: 01-27-2013


Message 30 of 150 (689808)
02-04-2013 7:13 PM


The Hard Problem of Consciousness
"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

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 02-04-2013 10:32 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 02-04-2013 11:06 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024