My Beliefs- GDR

Actually I don’t disagree with that. But on the other hand I have adjusted my model based on the little that I read about in books and magazines written for non-scientific types like myself.I also agree that my reasoning is circular because I start with my Christianity and adjust my thinking to make it fit as best I can with what I read knowing that it is my best guess, but at the same time it does give me a frame of reference to work from. No it is a way of learning like anything else. As science advances why shouldn’t theology? It may be satisfying to your ego to ridicule that beliefs of others but it isn’t actually helpful.

Theology hasn't had a single new idea for thousands of years. All it's done is to try to think its way out of its problems. That's useless because people are very inventive and they are perfectly capable of imagining all sorts of stuff. What religion has uniquely failed to do is provide a single shred of supporting evidence for its ideas whilst science has proved the ideas of believers to be wrong over and over again.Theology can't advance using science, all it can do is retreat further and further away from its original beliefs. That's ridiculous in itself - the emotion I feel over and over isn't satisfaction it's intense, repetitive frustration. Frustration that you can't think in a straight line and are constantly searching to rationalise your beliefs using barely understood science.If you just accepted that you believe because you believe I'd just shrug and shake my head but at least you're not insulting science with it.

That was hard to follow. Yes indeed. All I'm trying to say is that a plan as such is not a good thing. What we want is not a plan, but a plan that says we're immortal and will be happy forever. Which is not because we want a plan as such, but because we want to be immortal and happy. Yes, but that isn't an argument.Christian apologists put up arguments like this, and they seem to assume that it's been proved somewhere that there couldn't be an infinite regress, so that if they say "infinite regress" they've proved their point, that's something that can't happen so they can go on from there. But it hasn't been proved. They just take this as being "logical" and go on from there. But the logic doesn't exist.There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone thinking of "an infinite number of natural causes". Maybe there were. But I do not say that since there wasn't a naturalistic cause, therefore it must be supernatural, any more than I say "since there isn't a non-unicorn cause, it must have been caused by unicorns". Well, I've read Bishop George Berkeley's dialogues ... is that the kind of thing that you mean?

I just don’t see it that way. Again we objectively know that life exists. Scientifically we know that everything is caused. I realize that there are aspects of QM that appear to happen without a cause but I imagine that a scientist would say that we just don’t know what the cause is yet. There is no objective evidence for what it was the precipitated whatever the first process that resulted in life.Mankind throughout most of human history has held with the idea that there is an intelligence(s) (Tom) that is ultimately responsible for the existence of life. However humans have subjectively come to innumerable conclusions about the nature of Tom, the question of how much Tom is involved in the world now, what does it mean to me, how can I get Tom to do what I want him to, how do I please him etc.Many things were taken for granted by people such as a flat earth that was the centre of the universe. In some instances people had to adjust their views on Tom when it was proven by science that those views were wrong. As a believer in Tom I take the view that if I want to try and understand his existence and how he connects with us then likely science is the place to go. If I want to understand his nature then I look to philosophy and theology.I am not invoking Tom as a replacement for any scientific approach. We should continue to seek to learn all we can about our existence. Belief in Tom or disbelief in Tom should not have an impact on that quest for knowledge. I don’t pretend to know how the universe began. From what I have read it seems that it is quite possible that our universe has always existed as part of a greater reality. However we also know that in our little corner of this great reality we had a point where T=0, and somewhere after that a process began which resulted in life as we know it today and for that matter what it is going to become. There is some reason why the first seeds of life were planted. As it ultimately resulted in sentient creatures I think that it is more than reasonable to believe that there was a sentient answer to the question of why life exists that is able to perceive our existence in the manner that it does.Although it is quite possible that the root cause of why life exists is in some way linked to the beginning of time it doesn’t necessarily have to be. How our universe as we know came to be may be a completely unrelated to the fact that life arose on Earth or elsewhere for that matter. I have my own views but that isn’t the point. My own view is that consciousness and how our consciousness perceives time is fundamental. Certainly we should learn about it where and if we can in evolutionary terms and in studies of the brain etc. I think that in order to do that science is going to have to adapt to new ways of looking at things just as Einstein forced science to adapt their Newtonian thinking but I have no idea what that might look like. Not if Tom has always existed in a greater reality with more than one dimension of time. If you stop the turtles at the point that is objectively evidenced and say that there is no Tom then you are putting in Tom’s place something else which is not objectively evidenced, which is presumably another natural process which was caused by another natural process and it is still turtles as far as the eye can see. (Something of a mixed metaphor there I agree. ) We are both invoking something which is non-evidenced so we then go to what appears to us to be suggested by what we do know, whether it is wishful thinking or not.

The initial problem probably stems from the idea that all atheists think alike. It is hard for me to keep straight who said what in this discussion. Most of the ones on this site don’t accept the idea that even if evolution gives the appearance of design that it is evidence. My idea then was to say that if it isn’t evidence it is suggestive. You seem to be fine with calling it evidence even though the conclusion we reach is subjective. Actually I don’t agree that is the plan that people in general having been looking for. I think that if you consider our history that people have wanted a plan that had more to doing with them acquiring wealth and power in this life. I don’t think that happy is necessarily the best word either. I think even as a Christian the view is that the life on offer is one of justice and lack of suffering which doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. However, we agree that from a Tom POV a plan could be any plan including a plan to raise us up to be slaves for him in the next life. I agree that my understanding of the plan is from my Christianity but I also think that is consistent with basic human worldviews such as what we see in the Golden Rule. Essentially I don’t disagree with that. However, I think you make my point. An inifinite number of natural causes draws the same criticism that non-theists use against the idea of Tom by asking who created him and then who created him and so on. In either case it becomes turtles all the way down.Any conclusion then about the existence or non-existence of Tom has to be made without there being hard evidence. I believe as a theist that as life seems to have purpose, thatin the Golden Rule we appear to have a fundamental moral code, and as our natural processes seem to suggest a plan, the most reasonable conclusion is that life exists as a result of an intelligent planner. My understanding that in general atheists don’t believe in Tom as there is no hard evidence, and that so far all we have found are natural processes which put together suggests that Tom does not exist so why bother even considering it. If there isn’t a naturalistic cause what would then be the cause? I had never heard of him. Thanks for giving me his name. Yes, that is the general idea of how I see things. I do think that consciousness is fundamental to everything that we perceive. Actually my views on this don’t come from my Christianity or even my theism. It has come from reading books by scientists aimed at the lay man. I’ve read through such books as Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, Carl Sagan and several others. I have read on line some of the stuff by Julian Barbour , Penrose and Hameroff and many others.In all of that there a numerous different ideas but it does strike me that if everything that we perceive is made up of either dimensionless or uni-dimensional particles then it all sort of goes back to E=Mc2 and everything is energy or when think only in a material sense everything is nothing. Then it seems that particles only take on the form that we perceive when they are perceived. It sure seems to me that consciousness plays the fundamental role on the existence of the universes as we perceive it.I find it interesting that Berkeley came to his conclusion long before the world of QM had been discovered.

This is, as I understand it, a misinterpretation and/or simply wrong. I believe it comes from the use of the word "observation" and the misunderstanding that a conscious observer is needed for that. This is incorrect. If it was correct it wouldn't be so freakin' hard to maintain entanglement.

As I understand it it doesn't need a conscious observer but it does need to be measured in some way where presumably the device doing the measuring takes the place of the conscious observer.Does that sound right to you?This is from wiki under "observer effects".

quote:

---

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques. However in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed.

---

AbE -- here is another wiki piece on biocentric universeHere is a quote

quote:

---

Biocentric universe (from Greek: βίος, bios, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") also known as biocentrism is a concept proposed in 2007 by American doctor of medicine Robert Lanza, a scientist in the fields of regenerative medicine and biology,[1][2][3] which sees biology as the central driving science in the universe, and an understanding of the other sciences as reliant on a deeper understanding of biology. Biocentrism states that life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos life creates the universe rather than the other way around. It asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. While physics is considered fundamental to the study of the universe, and chemistry fundamental to the study of life, biocentrism claims that scientists will need to place biology before the other sciences to produce a theory of everything.[4]
Critics have questioned whether the theory is falsifiable. Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.

---

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

As I understand it, your first quote is, in a simplified way, correct. It might be that "interaction" is a better word to use than observation.The second quote appears to be wild speculation at best and meaningless words at the other end.

Thanks NosyHere is another quote that outlines Lanza's theories. I actually have his book and read it a couple of years ago. I really think he has a point but it might tend to rub physicists the wrong way.

quote:

---

Biocentrism was first proposed in a 2007 article by Robert Lanza that appeared in The American Scholar, where the goal was to show how biology could build upon quantum physics.[6] Two years later, Lanza published a book with astronomer and author Bob Berman entitled Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, which expanded upon the ideas that Lanza wrote about in his essay for the Scholar.[7]
Biocentrism argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson.[6] He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.[8] Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it.[9] According to Lanza, and Bob Berman, biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful unified field theories of eight decades ago.[10]
Seven principles form the core of biocentrism.[9] The first principle of biocentrism is based on the premise that what we observe is dependent on the observer, and says that what we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.[11] The second and third principles state that our external and internal perceptions are intertwined and that the behavior of particles is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer, respectively.[12] The fourth principle suggests that consciousness must exist and that without it matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability.[13] The fifth principle points to the structure of the universe itself, and that the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life.[14] Finally, the sixth and seventh principles state that space and time are not objects or things, but rather tools of our animal understanding.[15] Lanza says that we carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells.[16]
Lanza has said that he intends to publish aspects of biocentrism in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

---

But why does that cause have to be anything other than natural processes like chemistry and biology? Seems to work just fine for traits like sonar in dolphins and flight in birds. Why does consciousness seem like it requires the power of a god?- Oni

Well of course sonar and flight are part of life and dolphins and birds do have consciousness.The difference between a rock and life of any form including plants is obvious. The consideration of a cause for a lifeless universe can be looked at separately from the cause for life to arise from a lifeless universe. In addition I think that we can look at unconscious life such as plants and conscious life separately as well.I understand that your contention would be that through a series of natural processes conscious life evolved from a lifeless universe. On one level I’m ok with that as I’m not concerned except as a matter of interest how our world and the life in it came to be. The question of course is, are those natural processes the result of an external intelligence or did they just happen to happen.Consciousness however is in another category. You and I look and experience the same world and come to our own subjective conclusions about whether or not Tom exists; we won’t always agree as to what is moral; we won’t always agree about what is beautiful; or what tastes or smells good etc. Even though the difference is so small that we don’t notice it our perception of the passage of time is different.The point being is that regardless of how our consciousness came into existence what matters is the person that we become with it. That is the part that God cares about. I believe that Christianity gives the fullest explanation of how God relates to us and what the point of life is. Essentially what He asks of us is that we love others as we love ourselves. God is calling us to overcome our looking out for number one mentality. That seems to be a truism in that it can be found in all major world religions as well as in the secular world.In my view the far more reasonable conclusion to come to is that all life and particularly conscious life has come from an intelligent root as opposed to a non-intelligent root regardless of the process that has brought us to this point, however our consciousness that prompts us to ask the question also allows us to subjectively come to our own conclusions. I contend that that in itself is suggestive that there is more to life than mindless natural processes.Regardless of our theistic beliefs though, we should continue to research consciousness and the brain both in a search of knowledge but also a search to improve the lot of those with the various forms of mental illness. Here is a case where Paul G Allen, a secularist has established the BRAIN initiative and Francis Collins a committed Christian is working with him on the project. Toward the Final Frontier: The Human Brain

Do they? How do you know? How do you define "consciousness?" If the distinction between life and non-life is obvious, surely you should be able to define that distinction. Please be specific. Why, specifically, do you think that conclusion is more reasonable than alternative hypotheses? From what I can tell, you think that the fact that we are capable of curiosity is by itself indicative of intelligent design; is tht correct? If so, why? Please be specific as to why the existence of curiosity in the human mind, the capacity to question our own origins, is indicative of anything beyond "mindless" processes. Is there some specific mechanism caused by an intelligent agent that results in curiosity, that would not exist without the intelligent agent? Why do you think this, and how do you think you know it?

Non- life does not fly or have sonar. Consciousness i suppose is essentially self awareness although have no clue as to how non human life experiences that self awareness. Life is made up of cells whereas non-life isn’t. I do. The answer is of course philosophical and not scientific but just the fact that we search for meaning and purpose and have a curiosity about our roots, whether they be human ancestors or about Tom, to me is suggestive that as it seems to be in general a part of our nature then there is a something that is real that we are searching for. If we just emerged from lifeless elements then I wouldn’t expect that evolution would have produced this curiosity however if we emerged from lifeless elements as a result of a pre-existing conscious intelligence then there would be reason to expect that we would be curious about such things. I believe that there is. Whether it was something that required intervention at some point or whether the design was complete from the beginning I don’t know. I believe it to be the case for the reasons I have outlined numerous times in this thread.

Airplanes and submarines are alive? Are birds and dolphins self-aware? What about other animals? Plants? How do you know? So is Tom made up of cells?What if, someday, we encounter alien life - it can talk to us, it is self-aware, it can build complex machines like we can, it has culture and so on. What if that life form does not have cells? Would we exclude intelligent self-replicating crystal structures from being "alive" simply because they don't have cells? Even if they meet every other definition of "life?"Do biologists define "life" as "that which is made of cells?" If not, why do you think that is? That's not an answer, GDR. That's simply repeating yourself. I asked why you think that A suggests B....and you just repeated that you think that A suggests B. Why? Why would we not be curious, even if we evolved from lifeless elements?I'll point out that we did evolve from lifeless elements, you're made of lifeless elements that happen to be arranged in a pattern conducive to the complex self-replicating reactions we identify as "life" (or, to put it in your own terms, you're made of cells that are made of water and carbon and nitrogen and so on). That's not really in question. What's in question is whether an intelligent Tom made it all happen.Please be specific in your answer - why would you expect our relative curiosity about our origins to be different depending on whether we are the result of intelligent design or mindless evolution? I'm well aware that's what you believe, GDR. I was asking what you think that mechanism might be, and why you think it exists.You've outlined precious little over 367 posts in this thread. Most of what you've done is repeat yourself, or respond to specific questions with high-level, nonspecific answers - much like in Message 1033, to which I am replying.There's a reason I'm asking these specific questions, GDR. When I ask you "do you think there is some mechanism causing this," I don't want an answer of "yes." I want you to tell me exactly what you think is going on - there should be a reason that you think A is more likely than B, and yet so far all I can get you to do is to repeat that you think A is more likely than B.We're far beyond personal opinion here, GDR. It's not jsut a matter of "well I think blue is better than red." We're talking about actual possible worlds here - different worlds, different hypotheses, and each of us thinks that the real world is different. And yet there is only one reality, only one objective world, and so one or both of us must be wrong.If you cannot answer why, if you can only repeat your conclusions, that's a rather large red flag that your beliefs are based on wishful thinking and fantasy, and not any sort of careful analysis of the real world.

Not without human help which once again shows that for that to happen a designer is required. I don’t know. My dogs seem to have a sense of self-awareness but who knows what goes on in their minds. How would anyone know that animals don’t have a sense of self-awareness. I have no idea. I guess when you asked for a definition of life I assumed you meant on this planet. Fine by me. They have talked about the possibility of silicon based life as opposed to carbon based which I imagine would allow for a different definition. I came up with that off the top of my head as you asked for my definition of life. Here is a fuller one. You’ll have to ask a biologist for their definition.
1/ a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2/a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b : one or more aspects of the process of living It is an answer, which keeps getting repeated as I keep getting asked the same question. If you are looking for objective scientific evidence we both know I don’t have any which is no different than the individual who claims that there are only naturalistic causes, and that natural processes are simply the result of an infinite number of preceding natural processes. Ok then, put it the other way around. Would you expect lifeless elements without any intelligent planning to happen to come together in such a way that life is formed, evolution happens, and we wind up with at least one creature who has a curiosity about these things with the intelligence to consider and discuss it? I wouldn’t say that having an intelligent origin would necessarily cause us to have a curiosity about our origins. That is confirmed by the fact that I’m pretty sure that humans are the only life form that considers it.However the fact is that we do have a curiosity about it. Although it is far from conclusive it seems reasonable to think that if we are the result of an intelligent designer that we might as part of our consciousness carry something of the mind of that designer. If we are the result of intelligent design then we can assume that the mind of that designer is inventive and from our experience inventors in our society our successful partly because they have a curiosity about how things work, so I think we can assume the same thing about Tom.If however we are the result of nothing but mindless processes then I can see no reason to suspect any curiosity about things that have no bearing on our lives. For that matter I find that the naturalistic speculations on why altruism exists extremely unconvincing, as mindless evolution is about survival and propagation of the gene pool, but we’ve already been all over that.Bottom line though it all boils down to what we find philosophically suggestive that forms our subjective conclusions. Once again though the fact that we consider origins and still come to such a widely divergent views is to me indicative that we are the result of pre-existing intelligence. I would expect that if we are the result of mindless processes that we would all be in agreement on origins, however that is just an opinion without a firm reason for thinking that way.I imagine that you will say I’m repeating myself again but I am not trying to make a scientific argument. I am only giving the reasons that I think the way I do. None of it is conclusive. They are simply my opinions based on what I know, or at least think I know. I think I’ve covered this but I’ll try again. As far as why I think it exists I outlined right in the OP. I think it exists, partly by my own experiences that include thoughts and experiences, (nothing astounding), that I believe were not initiated by my own consciousness. I find the argument for the resurrection of Jesus much more compelling than the argument against it. I find the argument that intelligence and morality is far more likely to come from an intelligent and moral origin as opposed to a mindless one. I find that the idea that we want to leave a lasting mark in this world indicative of the idea that life does have an ultimate meaning and purpose. None of this is conclusive but in my view they are all things that are suggestive of an intelligent designer. (I hesitate to use that term as I am not in agreement with ID movement itself.)As to the mechanism I can only speculate. It is my current belief that with our 5 senses we are only able to perceive a part of our reality. I don’t know what term to use, but science talks about multi-dimensions, parallel universes, dark matter, dark energy etc. I believe that there is another universe/dimension all around us that we don’t perceive. Let’s consider the thought that vision was something that just didn’t exist and that we were creatures with only 4 senses. We would perceive the world very differently than we do and we would have no frame of reference to consider the existence of vision as another sense. Possibly if we had another sense or two we would perceive a great deal more than we do now.I am also of the opinion that is some way the world we perceive is interlocked with the world that we don’t perceive in ways that are invisible to us. It would be the interlocking of these two worlds that would be the mechanism that would allow Tom to influence this world from his. I think our sense of time and consciousness in some way overlaps the two. I realize all of this is highly speculative but it does afford me one way of considering how things might work.I think that is probably about the best I can do in trying to answer your questions.