Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 151 of 1324 (699315)
05-17-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by GDR
05-16-2013 3:01 PM


GDR writes:
I also agree that sometimes it might be difficult to distinguish one from another. The question is though, does natural law require an intelligent designer.
If the question is, "Does a car require a DVD player?" the default answer is, "No." You need a compelling reason to claim a requirement. You seem to be admitting that there is no compelling reason. Essentially, you're saying that your car "needs" a DVD player because you want one.
GDR writes:
Was that a suspension of natural law?
It's a psychological phenomenon, a pretty common one. When we need "more time" to find a solution to an emergency, our brains often go into a more efficient mode in which we seem to have more time to figure it out. It might be interesting to examine how that evolved as a survival mechanism.
Thinking of it as a suspension of natural law is, frankly, kinda bizarre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by GDR, posted 05-16-2013 3:01 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 2:55 PM ringo has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 152 of 1324 (699327)
05-17-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Straggler
05-17-2013 9:28 AM


Re: Chance Entities
Straggler writes:
So do you consider a human (i.e. the created) to be more complex than God (i.e. the creator)? Or not?
I have no idea how to answer that but that wasn't my point. My point was that I contend that our perceivable universe is part of a greater reality that our 5 senses don't perceive. I also contend that within that greater reality there exists a moral intelligence that is responsible for our existence.
I find that answer less complex that the idea that we have evolved as sentient beings with a sense of morality from mindless particles, even without dealing with the question of the origination of the particles in the first place.
Straggler writes:
Questions
Which, in your view, is more complex?
A) A universe containing interracting partciles
B) God
Sure the way you view it interacting particles are less complex than God. The question can be phrased another way. Are the interacting particles dependant on God to create them in the first place?
On the other hand I suggest that there is the possibility that the interacting particles are just a manifestation of something greater as I pointed out in my last paragraph.
Straggler writes:
Which, in your view, is more likely to be the 'something' that just exists rather than nothing?
A) A universe containing interracting particles
B) God
Pretty much the same answer as before but I'd add that either one is completely improbable from our perspective. For that matter we have no idea of how to even conceive the idea of "nothing" existing.
Straggler writes:
Again - My astonishment in and of itself is not so much an argument but more an expression of bafflement at the positions theistic beliefs require those that hold them to adopt. Positions regarding complexity and probability and the like.
I know that. It is just that I am so often accused of arguing from the point of "incredulity" that I can't pass up an opportunity to turn it around on you atheists.
Straggler writes:
Do you think God objectively exists?
Yes, but that is a subjective conclusion.
Straggler writes:
Unless you are able to discern the objective existence of something more concrete using this "knowing through our heart" method why would anyone think you could possibly discern the objective existence of something as ethereal as god using this same method?
Heart knowledge is one thing but I don't suggest that is the only reason. I gave a number of other reasons in the OP. Actually in the end we can't know anything objectively. It all boils down to a degree of subjectivity until at some point on that scale we wind up calling it objective. Some things we can be very sure of, some things pretty sure of and some things very unsure of.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2013 9:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2013 12:01 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 153 of 1324 (699328)
05-17-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by NoNukes
05-17-2013 11:50 AM


NoNukes writes:
Wouldn't you want to see how he did it before you jumped to that conclusion. If the scientist of the future manages to create a cell by simply mimicking natural, unintelligent, processes, then that would seem to show exactly the opposite of what you suggest.
There are obviously natural processes. What I don't think is so obvious is that there ere "unintelligent processes". In fact I'd suggest that the term "unintelligent processes" is an oxymoron.
For example we can have an assembly line that produces widgets where it is left to run while everyone goes home. It happens all on its own without any human input. However, it did take intelligence to bring it into existence.
If some future scientist mixes some chemicals in a petri dish and creates a cell it will only show that in that case it took sentience to put those chemicals together and also note that the chemicals had to exist in the first place.
NoNukes writes:
Even taking what you say at face value, what you describe would not require that some funky thing to happen to time. A change in the way humans perceive events would be sufficient, and might not require any suspension of natural law.
Actually I agree with that. I wasn't suggesting that God intervened to make it happen, I'm saying that our understanding of time has a long way to go, with the suggestion that the idea of experiencing time differently than we do is not that strange of an idea.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by NoNukes, posted 05-17-2013 11:50 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Phat, posted 05-18-2013 9:31 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 154 of 1324 (699330)
05-17-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
05-17-2013 12:09 PM


ringo writes:
If the question is, "Does a car require a DVD player?" the default answer is, "No." You need a compelling reason to claim a requirement. You seem to be admitting that there is no compelling reason. Essentially, you're saying that your car "needs" a DVD player because you want one.
From our perspective we can't know whether there is a compelling reason or not. We just know how things are and we come to our own subjective conclusions. Yes, I believe that our existence is dependant on an external intelligence, and I have given my reasons for coming to that conclusion but I acknowledge that there are those like yourself who have come to a different conclusion with your own reasons.
ringo writes:
It's a psychological phenomenon, a pretty common one. When we need "more time" to find a solution to an emergency, our brains often go into a more efficient mode in which we seem to have more time to figure it out. It might be interesting to examine how that evolved as a survival mechanism.
Thinking of it as a suspension of natural law is, frankly, kinda bizarre.
As I said to NoNukes I agree with that position, but as I said to him, (on the assumption it is a him), I think it is because when it comes to understanding time, (how we perceive change) we have a great deal to learn.
My only point was that either the natural law was suspended or we don't fully understand the natural law of time and I go with the latter. Certainly it has something to do with how the brain perceives change and I agree with Penrose and others, (not that I understand much of what Penrose has to say - what a brilliant mind eh?) that our experience time is a function of our consciousness.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 05-17-2013 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 5:09 PM GDR has replied
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 05-18-2013 11:58 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 155 of 1324 (699339)
05-17-2013 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by GDR
05-17-2013 2:55 PM


My only point was that either the natural law was suspended or we don't fully understand the natural law of time ...
There is the third option.
As Ringo was saying, when we are in danger the hypothalamus releases hormones, the adreanals release adrenaline, breathing increases, oxygen floods the blood and muscle tissue and the brain shifts into overdrive (sorta). This is the Fight-or-flight response. It is a well known phenomenon. The perception of time slowing is well documented and has nothing to do with any spooky quantum time anything. As a survival mechanism long ago, like millions of years, our brains adapted to a dangerous world by increasing, in times of perceived danger, our sensory reception (visual acuity, hearing, tactile) and increased the sampling rate at which we process these signals. There is no time shifting, not time distortion, no time dilation. Only perception of such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 2:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 5:19 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 156 of 1324 (699342)
05-17-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by AZPaul3
05-17-2013 5:09 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
As Ringo was saying, when we are in danger the hypothalamus releases hormones, the adreanals release adrenaline, breathing increases, oxygen floods the blood and muscle tissue and the brain shifts into overdrive (sorta). This is the Fight-or-flight response. It is a well known phenomenon. The perception of time slowing is well documented and has nothing to do with any spooky quantum time anything. As a survival mechanism long ago, like millions of years, our brains adapted to a dangerous world by increasing, in times of perceived danger, our sensory reception (visual acuity, hearing, tactile) and increased the sampling rate at which we process these signals. There is no time shifting, not time distortion, no time dilation. Only perception of such.
I frankly think that or something close to it is correct. The key though is in your last couple of sentences. Our perception changes. Time or change is viewed in the way that we perceive it. If our perception changes time changes. I have no doubt that I perceive time differently as I grow older. As I said, I think we have a great deal to learn about time. My perception of time definitely slowed down as it has for many others in similar circumstances. It seems fairly clear to me that time is a lot more abstract than how it appears to us.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 5:09 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 157 of 1324 (699380)
05-18-2013 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by GDR
05-17-2013 2:37 PM


Introspective Observations About Time
GDR writes:
I'm saying that our understanding of time has a long way to go, with the suggestion that the idea of experiencing time differently than we do is not that strange of an idea.
I have personally noticed several things about my perception of time.
1) The older you are, the faster it seems to go in some sense, and yet the slower it goes in other senses.
This is logical. For a five year old, summer seems to last a long time, as does winter. Reason? I fgure that 3 months is a bigger percentage of a five year olds lifetime than it is of a 60 year old.
So in that sense time speeds up as one gets older. Grandma sees the grandkids and exclaims how it was "only yesterday they were so small!"
The years go by as if in a blur. Time is measured not in days or months, but in events...like family vacations.
Yet in other ways, past events still seem as vivid in some minds as present events. It can be said that some folks "live" in the past. For them, time stopped at one point...perhaps years ago...and they see it as yesterday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 2:37 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 11:18 AM Phat has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 158 of 1324 (699386)
05-18-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Phat
05-18-2013 9:31 AM


Re: Introspective Observations About Time
Hi Phat
Here is a guy whose material I think you would enjoy reading or listening to. His name is John Lennox although not related to our discussion on time.
Phat writes:
This is logical. For a five year old, summer seems to last a long time, as does winter. Reason? I fgure that 3 months is a bigger percentage of a five year olds lifetime than it is of a 60 year old.
I've heard that suggestion before but I don't think that it is correct.
Here is a piece from this wiki article
quote:
Psychologists assert that time seems to go faster with age, but the literature on this age-related perception of time remains controversial. One day to an eleven-year-old would be approximately 1/4,000 of their life, while one day to a 55-year-old would be approximately 1/20,000 of their life. This is perhaps why a day would appear much longer to a young child than to an adult. In an experiment comparing a group of subjects aged between 19 and 24 and a group between 60 and 80 asked to estimate when they thought 3 minutes had passed, it was found that the younger group's estimate was on average 3 minutes and 3 seconds, while the older group averaged 3 minutes and 40 seconds, indicating a change in the perception of time with age. People tend to recall recent events as occurring further back in time (backward telescoping) and distant events occurring more recently (forward telescoping).
It has also been proposed that the subjective experience of time changes with age due to changes in the individual's biological makeup.
Here is another article on the subject.
Here is a piece from Julian Barbour's web site on his take on time.
quote:
Closely related to this work is my study of time. Mach remarked It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things. Thus, time as such does not exist but only change. Much of my research has been devoted to the implications of this insight. I have shown how, alongside the relativity of motion, the notion of time as change can be built into the foundations of dynamics. In fact, this idea is contained in a hidden form within general relativity. Its potential consequences for the yet to be found quantum mechanics of the universe are profound. The quantum universe is likely to be static. Motion and the apparent passage of time may be nothing but very well founded illusions. This is the thesis of The End of Time (books), which is aimed both at the general reader and physicists.
Time it turns out is definitely something of an enigma.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Phat, posted 05-18-2013 9:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 159 of 1324 (699388)
05-18-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by GDR
05-17-2013 2:55 PM


GDR writes:
From our perspective we can't know whether there is a compelling reason or not.
Sure we can. Note the word "compelling". If we don't know of a reason, it can't be compelling. If you don't know there's a good reason to eat a pile of leaves, you don't feel compelled to do so.
If there is no compelling reason to think intervention is required (for abiogenesis, evolution, etc.) then we are not compelled to think there is a requirement. Thinking rationally, we can not conclude that there is a requirement.
(Your beliefs would probably go unchallenged here if you didn't constantly try to link them with rational thinking. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 2:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 4:29 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 160 of 1324 (699389)
05-18-2013 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by GDR
05-17-2013 2:27 PM


Re: Chance Entities
Straggler writes:
So do you consider a human (i.e. the created) to be more complex than God (i.e. the creator)? Or not?
GDR writes:
I have no idea how to answer that...
But I thought your considered human intelligence and morality to be too complex and elaborate to have developed without external intelligent input. I thought this formed a large part of your argument. If this is the case you must have some view on how complex or elaborate both the created and the creator are relative to each other mustn't you?
GDR writes:
Sure the way you view it interacting particles are less complex than God.
Well either interacting particles are less complex than God or they are not. What do you think?
GDR writes:
Are the interacting particles dependant on God to create them in the first place?
Not if causality is an emergent property of our universe.
GDR writes:
For that matter we have no idea of how to even conceive the idea of "nothing" existing.
Yet you are quite comfortable basing your entire argument on the inconceivable concept of eternality........
Straggler writes:
Unless you are able to discern the objective existence of something more concrete using this "knowing through our heart" method why would anyone think you could possibly discern the objective existence of something as ethereal as god using this same method?
GDR writes:
Heart knowledge is one thing but I don't suggest that is the only reason.
You call it "knowledge". On what basis do you suggest it is "knowledge" rather than belief?
GDR writes:
Actually in the end we can't know anything objectively.
Then how do we differentiate between knowledge and belief?
GDR writes:
It all boils down to a degree of subjectivity until at some point on that scale we wind up calling it objective.
I think one of the failings of theists (even the more intelligent and reasonable ones such as yourself) is to conflate strongly held beliefs held by multiple people with objective knowledge.
Do you think there is a difference between strongly held beliefs shared by multiple people and objective knowledge? What do you think the difference is?
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 2:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 5:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 161 of 1324 (699399)
05-18-2013 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ringo
05-18-2013 11:58 AM


ringo writes:
If the question is, "Does a car require a DVD player?" the default answer is, "No." You need a compelling reason to claim a requirement. You seem to be admitting that there is no compelling reason. Essentially, you're saying that your car "needs" a DVD player because you want one.
GDR writes:
From our perspective we can't know whether there is a compelling reason or not. We just know how things are and we come to our own subjective conclusions. Yes, I believe that our existence is dependant on an external intelligence, and I have given my reasons for coming to that conclusion but I acknowledge that there are those like yourself who have come to a different conclusion with your own reasons.
ringo writes:
Sure we can. Note the word "compelling". If we don't know of a reason, it can't be compelling. If you don't know there's a good reason to eat a pile of leaves, you don't feel compelled to do so.
If there is no compelling reason to think intervention is required (for abiogenesis, evolution, etc.) then we are not compelled to think there is a requirement. Thinking rationally, we can not conclude that there is a requirement.
....but we don’t know if there is a requirement or not. Take evolution. We can observe the natural process of evolution in our world but we can’t know whether or not it required an intelligent designer. We aren’t compelled to seek an answer so from that point of view I agree. You used the word compelling so I went with it but it would be more accurate to ask if an external intelligence is necessary. Scientists can uncover all the natural process they like but it can’t be determined by the scientific method, even if we know how it was all done, whether or not the processes required an intelligent designer.
We have natural laws and in our experience laws require a law giver and so in that sense the atheistic position requires relief from natural law.
ringo writes:
(Your beliefs would probably go unchallenged here if you didn't constantly try to link them with rational thinking. )
Webster’s definition of rational:
quote:
a : having reason or understanding
b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
I have given such a reasonable account of my position that it is completely irrational that you don’t agree with it.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 05-18-2013 11:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 05-21-2013 12:08 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 162 of 1324 (699401)
05-18-2013 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Straggler
05-18-2013 12:01 PM


Re: Chance Entities
Straggler writes:
But I thought your considered human intelligence and morality to be too complex and elaborate to have developed without external intelligent input. I thought this formed a large part of your argument. If this is the case you must have some view on how complex or elaborate both the created and the creator are relative to each other mustn't you?
I get your point that if God is more complex than humans then the natural complex is simpler and Occam tells us we should go with simpler. I just don’t believe the question can be framed like that. No matter how much more complex God is than the natural processes it tells us nothing about whether or not God is necessary for the processes to exist in the first place.
Straggler writes:
Not if causality is an emergent property of our universe.
But I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that we are an emergent property of a greater reality and out of that comes our first cause.
GDR writes:
For that matter we have no idea of how to even conceive the idea of "nothing" existing.
Straggler writes:
Yet you are quite comfortable basing your entire argument on the inconceivable concept of eternality........
The best that we can do in conceiving of nothing is completely empty space which is still a dimensional concept. We do have a way of conceiving of eternity though. For example we have 3 spatial dimensions. As a result we can travel spatially around our universe eternally or infinitely. We can even travel infinitely around our globe. If we weren’t locked into experience time in just one direction then we can actually conceive of eternity.
Spatially I can travel from here to London and then back again as we have more than one spatial direction. If we had just two time dimensions I could continue on to tomorrow and then come back to today. If there were more than two I could travel to tomorrow take a side trip to last week and then return to today. We can conceive of eternity in a different way than trying to conceive nothing.
Straggler writes:
You call it "knowledge". On what basis do you suggest it is "knowledge" rather than belief?
Granted it’s a fine line, and maybe its too fine so I may have to give you this one. Heart knowledge= belief. The only difference I suppose is how we arrive at our beliefs.
GDR writes:
Actually in the end we can't know anything objectively.
Straggler writes:
Then how do we differentiate between knowledge and belief?
Knowledge is really just highly evidenced belief. I believe that the earth is going to continue to revolve and as a result I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. There is pretty strong evidence that I am right but I can’t know it with 100% certainty.
Straggler writes:
Do you think there is a difference between strongly held beliefs shared by multiple people and objective knowledge? What do you think the difference is?
Of course there is a difference. It is quite conceivable that all mankind could believe something and be wrong, particularly, particularly on things that aren’t directly perceivable or repeatable. If things are believed objectively then presumably it is a belief of something that is perceivable and most likely repeatable.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2013 12:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2013 12:58 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 163 of 1324 (699479)
05-20-2013 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
05-16-2013 9:56 AM


Re: Chance Entities
Hi Straggler
I have read previously about different theories around the relationship between the physical world that we observe with time and consciousness. Part of my thinking is that the world we perceive only exists the way it does because we perceive it that way. I think that QM tells us something like that.
I went poking around on the internet and came up with this paper where a philosopher looks at taking his philosophy and then working with what the physicists have to tell him. Here is a link to the paper and a couple of quotes from it.
Space, Time and Consciousness
quote:
Over the last century, however, a third theory has been developed. This suggests that a human being consists of a physical body made of ordinary matter
extended in physical space and, in addition, a consciousness module made of a
different kind of matter extended in a different space outside physical space. The
meaning of ‘outside’ here will be developed later. The two are connected by
Humean causal interactions.
The impetus to the new theory has come partly from philosophers such as C.D.
Broad and H.H. Price, partly from advances in introspective psychology, partly
from a developing understanding of certain findings in clinical neurology and
partly from recent developments in theoretical physics.
The theoretical physicist Andrei Linde (1990) has suggested that the world
consists of three different fundamental constituents space-time, matter and
consciousness, with their own degrees of freedom. My aim in this paper is to
explore this hypothesis further. My exposition will be presented in three
sections.
1. The role of the brain and consciousness in perception following the demonstration by recent experiments in neuroscience and psychophysics that we
do not perceive the world as it actually is but as the brain computes it most
probably to be, These findings refute the philosophical theory of perception
known as Direct Realism (Smythies, 1994b; Smythies and Ramachandran,
1998). This has important consequences for any theory of consciousness.
2. The need to delineate clearly between phenomenal space-time and physical
space-time. This will entail a consideration of recent theories in physics
(such as Kaluza-Klein, superstring and brane theories) that suggest that
space has more than three dimensions.
3. A consideration of the role allotted to consciousness in the block Universe of
Special Relativity.
quote:
In his recent book Stephen Hawking (2001) says: ‘It is a matter of common
experience that we live in a three-dimensional space. That is to say, we can represent the position of a point in space by three numbers, for example, latitude, longitude, and height above sea level.’ I would comment that this ‘matter of
common experience’ may be merely a visual illusion created by the virtual reality aspect of our mechanisms of perception. It is not at all ‘obvious’ that we live
in a three-dimensional space. It is certainly true that our physical bodies are
located in a three-dimensional (physical) space (or 4D space—time). It is also
clear than the phenomenal space of consciousness has three spatial dimensions.
One needs, for example, three numbers to locate a point in the body image or in a
dream. But it may well be that the co-ordinate systemsfor these two spaces are
different. That is what
quote:
It is therefore quite in keeping with these trends in physics to suggest that consciousness is located in its own brane further external to the dimensions of the
physical world. By that I mean that the new space postulated by this theory to
contain a consciousness is not merely a Kaluza-Klein or a superstring space; it is
a new space in addition to all currently postulated physical space—times. These
provide merely an analogy for a new space of consciousness. The human organism thus may extend beyond the physical body to include a consciousness module (composed of the various sensory and image fields plus perhaps a subjective
Self) located in a brane of its own. To coin a pun: ‘Consciousness may be in the
brane not in the brain.’
quote:
Contemporary ‘common sense’ thinks of the world as a collection of material
objects extended in three-dimensional space and enduring in a separate Newtonian time. Special Relativity unifies Newtonian space and time into space-time.
It does not recognize any special universal ‘now’ of time. Instead, it states that
objects consist, not of 3D entities enduring in time, but as 4D world lines existing and extended from the big bang to the big crunch. For example, the earth is not a
spheroid circling the sun, but a stationary hyperhelix wound around the world
lines of the sun. Thus the buildings of imperial Rome still stand it is just that
we cannot see them any more. The buildings of future cities already exist but
we cannot see them yet. It should be noted, however, that there is no more a distinguished present in Newtonian physics than there is in special relativity, so all
times must be treated symmetrically in regard to the distribution of matter. So, if
one wants to account for our psychological impression that there is a ‘now’ in
time and moreover that time in some way flows, we must look elsewhere than
contemporary physics, whether Newtonian or Relativity, to find it.
This paper is obviously being written without any thoughts God or first causes but it does in my view correspond to what i believe in terms of life outside of the universe as we perceive it. If our consciousness exists in another dimension then what I have suggested earlier doesn't sound nearly as far fetched.
Edited by GDR, : Poorly constructed sentence...

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2013 9:56 AM Straggler has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 164 of 1324 (699532)
05-21-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by GDR
05-18-2013 4:29 PM


GDR writes:
Scientists can uncover all the natural process they like but it can’t be determined by the scientific method, even if we know how it was all done, whether or not the processes required an intelligent designer.
Of course science doesn't claim to provide absolute answers and it certainly doesn't claim to prove negative propositions. Science produces the best answers available using human observations and human thought processes. The best answer we have is that stones roll downhill without an intelligent pusher and that molecules interact without an initelligent tinkerer.
GDR writes:
We have natural laws and in our experience laws require a law giver and so in that sense the atheistic position requires relief from natural law.
You're equivocating natural law with judicial law. They are not related.
GDR writes:
I have given such a reasonable account of my position that it is completely irrational that you don’t agree with it.
You have provided no reasons whatsoever for your beliefs. You always retreat to, "You can't absolutely prove that I'm wrong." That isn't rational thinking; it's wishful thinking.
You may as well be saying that rolling stones are pushed by invisible Bigfeet and science can't prove otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 4:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by GDR, posted 05-21-2013 2:22 PM ringo has replied

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


(1)
Message 165 of 1324 (699537)
05-21-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by GDR
05-18-2013 5:13 PM


Re: Chance Entities
Straggler writes:
Not if causality is an emergent property of our universe.
GDR writes:
But I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting that we are an emergent property of a greater reality and out of that comes our first cause.
I know it is not your intention to suggest that. But how can you talk about cause without relying on the notion of time? Causality is an internal property of our universe because time is an internal property of our universe. Furthermore given that you are basing your argument for eternity on time reversibility at the quantum level you really also need to consider what effect time reversibility has on causality with regard to this notion of "first cause" which you are so beguiled by. I can't put it better than cavediver has previously so I'll just quote him:
quote:
Cause and Effect is a concept born of our anthropocentric experience. We drop a cup, it falls to the floor and smahes into thousands of shards. It is easy to assign the dropping as cause and the smashing as effect; it is utterly counterintuitive to reverse those roles. And so we learn to assign causes and effects, and feel that behind those things we call effects should lie something to which we can assign the term cause.
But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the quantum level, everything is time reversible. What appears as cause can just as easily appear as effect. An electron and a positron annihilate to create two photons. Two photons pair-create an electron and positron out of the vacuum. The exact same process viewed in two opposite directions through time.
In fact, as we build up these interactions into something much more complex, we realise that there is no cause and effect as such, but simple consistency. One can say that the effect requires the cause, but there is just as much validity to say that the cause required the effect. Causality is simply a constraint on what parts of the interaction have to be consistent with what other parts.
Message 59
GDR writes:
I get your point that if God is more complex than humans then the natural complex is simpler and Occam tells us we should go with simpler. I just don’t believe the question can be framed like that. No matter how much more complex God is than the natural processes it tells us nothing about whether or not God is necessary for the processes to exist in the first place.
If time is reversible, causality is an internal property of our physical universe and notions of cause and effect are just the result of macroscopic anthopocentrci experience where does God fit in?
The question simply boils down to what it is that exists. And whilst we have some rather emphatic evidence that the universe does exist we have neither evidence nor reason to conclude that some hyper-complex-intelligence just happens to exist as well.
GDR writes:
Knowledge is really just highly evidenced belief.
Which is why we should be suspicious of those who claim to subjectively know what objectively exists. Those that make such claims are almost certainly conflating strength of belief with knowledge.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 5:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by GDR, posted 05-21-2013 3:29 PM Straggler 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