Login

**The Grand Nudger**

(February 10, 2012 at 4:40 am)Abracadabra Wrote: My evidence for what? Evidence for a "cosmic mind"?

To begin with, I clearly don't have "testable" evidence.
I know enough about science that if I had "testable" evidence it would be a scientific question.
If I had a valid scientific testable hypothesis I'd propose it to the scientific community for testing.

Perhaps you meant to ask, "Why do I feel that these things are worthy of consideration"?
I can offer you answers to that question. But you may find them unsatisfying.
They are also deeply philosophical and not easy to explain in few words.
Plus I also have intuitive feelings about it, which may not be impressive for you, but they are for me.
Even scientists often pursue ideas based solely on "gut feelings" that they have about them.

To keep these posts as brief as possible, let me just say the following:

To begin with, I personally find this philosophy to be more compelling than the alternative secular idea.
The alternative secular explanation is that a brain made solely of leptons, quarks, and bosons can have an "experience".
In fact, the secular proposal is that an 'emergent property' of a biological brain is what is actually having an "experience".
Well, I don't know about you, but that's not a deeply satisfying explanation for me.
If leptons, quarks and bosons have no ability to "experience" anything, then why should an abstract notion of an
"emergent Property" of something made of leptons, quarks, and bosons, have any better chance of having an "experience".
In short, the secular explanation of consciousness, simply doesn't impress me as having a sound basis.
I personally find the mystical idea of some deeper cosmic entity to be more compelling.

So rather than pinning me up against the wall demanding that I give evidence for my views.
how about trying to convince me why I should accept the secular view that an abstract concept of an "emergent property"
from a biological computer made of lepton, quarks, and bosons, makes any more sense?

Good luck with that!

I'd personally say that we're at a totally undecidable impasse on that one.

You don't have testable evidence? That's unfortunate. At least we've made it very clear that this is not a scientific hypothesis. I'll have to mention at this point that if you don't have evidence, and this is not a scientific question, then any attempt to shoehorn science or some principle of science into what you're about to explain is a pointless endeavor. In other words, the very minute you invoke some part of science as a "reason to believe" you are claiming scientific evidence. I hope we don't see any of that. If we do, it's entirely likely that you're simply using science as a smoke screen (much like a creationist or ID'er), or using "sciency" sounding concepts to make something sound more credible than it is (to yourself, to me, to whomever, who knows).

I definitely didn't mean to ask you why you felt these things were worthy of consideration. I was asking for evidence. There isn't much that I feel is "worthy of consideration" if there is no evidence attached, but to each his own. If the reasons you believe are "deeply philosophical" then you should avoid constructing philosophies out of fallacy (or explaining/defending/proposing fallacious arguments in support of your philosophy). At least afford yourself the courtesy of intellectual rigor. If you do not do this, at least, then your reasons are not deeply philosophic at all. In light of your admission that you have no testable evidence, and without a valid or sound argument, then your beliefs are neither scientific, nor philosophic, but incoherent and unfounded by either metric. You're absolutely correct, your intuitive reasons for believing are not impressive to me. No more than a christian's intuitive reasons for believing are impressive to you. Scientists do often pursue a line of inquiry based on a gut feeling, but gut feelings do not figure in their conclusions at all. There is no parity here, and so this comparison is meaningless. It sounds very much like you're trying to level the ground but it simply is not possible to do so under the conditions you've laid out. Your gut feelings are as valid as anyone else's, which is to say, not valid at all in and of themselves.

That was quite the preamble. What people find compelling and what actually is are often not the same things Abra (christians find the bible and the concept of the abrahamic god extremely compelling. Are their beliefs worthy of consideration simply because they believe them to be compelling? Are yours? That's not the "alternative secular explanation, that's the conclusion reached by evaluation of all available evidence, and demonstrated by experimentation about as well as anything can be. Our brains might just be a little more complicated than your summary. In fact, I think you've used this summary precisely because it is a very underhanded strawman that allows you to argue an ancillary point instead of defending or supporting your own. If your argument is that our physical brains cannot have conscious experience than this is just the first place where science does weigh in on the issue. Your continued reference to a reduced summary of what brains are does not strengthen your argument. Let me give you an example of exactly why.

"It is ludicrous to propose that airplanes can fly. As we know, they are made of heavy metals that absolutely cannot fly. Have you ever seen aluminum levitate?"

This is exactly equivalent to the statement you're making. If you understand why this statement is in error then you understand why your own criticisms are also baseless (and I'm sorry, but extremely ignorant). Perhaps you should brush up on biology? Or maybe audit a course that focuses on nueroscience? This is not a subject that science has not weighed in on. If you're claiming that our thoughts and experiences are somehow spiritual rather than arising out of our machinery, then yes, science has ruled that out (at least as far as it can with the vagueness you've allowed in your proposition). Our experiences, thoughts, personalities etc are seated in our brains, which are "biological machines". Emergent properties, btw, are not abstractions. They are well evidenced, and well demonstrated. In any case, you've made claims, I engaged you in a discussion about those claims, let's try to avoid shifting the burden of proof, which is again, not deeply philosophic, but deeply flawed. As a matter of fact, if you believe that your own conclusions on these matters are worthy of consideration without any evidence, then why are you asking anyone else for evidence of anything in the first place? If you've shielded your own conclusions from this requirement but expect it of others (specifically with regards to claims that run counter to your own) you're engaging in special pleading. Which is again not deeply philosophic, but deeply flawed.

This is an impasse of your own making, not one that you can justify, which you very clearly stated the moment you admitted you had no evidence. Well, unfortunately nuero-scientists do have evidence, and if you want to see any of it you can go ahead and google "brain" or any related term. Your proposal is vastly inferior to theirs. This entire response has been an argument to personal incredulity, a logical fallacy which is not deeply philosophic, but deeply flawed.

I didn't ask you why quantum fields contained information. I asked you why your cosmic mind contained information. If you're basing your beliefs on strong scientific principles, or well established physics than you are claiming verifiable evidence btw. It's disappointing to see you waffle on your own claims so quickly. I didn't ask for a lecture about quantum mechanics, I asked very specific questions, and you didn't address any of them at all. Am I to assume then that for those questions I asked you have no answer?

Then it's good that I didn't ask you for a lecture on quantum mechanics, only to elaborate upon those claims you made. Which you failed to do here as you failed to do above. Is this another area where you don't have any answers?

I'm asking you questions for a couple of reasons. Firstly, so that we're discussing what you believe and not common uses or definitions of the words that you use to describe your beliefs since they are clearly not the same thing. This helps me to try and avoid straw-manning you. Secondly, I'm asking you questions so that you can respond with explanations or claims which are specific and cannot be backpedaled out of, which helps me to insure that you won't be moving any goalposts (or at least, if you do, that it is very visible). I know enough to make the claim that science has ruled out magic, and I know enough to realize when someone is using sciencey sounding words to describe magic, which you are. I'm not a physicist, I'm a farmer, so you should probably be a little disappointed that your claims haven't made it passed my bullshit filter.

Quote:Gives rise! That I can answer passionately. It's a dynamic on-going thing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that this mind consciously baby-sits the fabric of spacetime.
Clearly there are many processes that are indeed on 'auto-pilot' if you like.
There's no question about that. In fact, evolution itself was an 'auto-pilot' type of thing.
I could try to explain how I see this working, but again, it would become an extremely lengthy explanation.

The shortest explanation I can give goes like this:

The universe is "designed" like a pair of dice.
Let's say, you're the "God". You've designed the dice. And you toss them.
What can come up? Do you know? Yes you do. You know precisely what will come up.
In the case of a pair dice you can only throw a 2, a 12, or some whole number in between.
You'll never toss a fraction, or even an irrational number for that matter.
You'll never toss a zero. You'll never toss a 13 or higher, etc.
You know precisely what will come up in terms of "possibilities"
Yet at the same time you have no clue precisely which of the possible numbers will come up on any given toss.

Think of the universe as dice that have extremely high numbers on their faces.
God knows what can come up and what can't come up (just like you'd know with a pair of simple dice)
But just like you, God doesn't know precisely what WILL come up exactly on any given throw.
God is tossing dice. And then experiencing what comes up through the POVs that evolve from that toss.

This is an extremely crude explanation, but it's crude for the sake of brevity.
It's a metaphor. An analogy. Not to be taken literally.

Clearly the spacetime universe in which we live, has it's own "rules" of evolution.
Those rules are in place, and precisely determined by the numbers on the dice.
This kind of "God" has no need to dynamical baby-sit the evolution of the universe.

Can this God change the behavior of the universe through a POV that has evolved within the universe?
Yes and no. That partly depends on how highly evolved that particularity POV has become.
And on how much God is focusing on that particular POV.
Again, these are crude metaphors, and analogies.
It would require books upon books to try to flesh this stuff out in detail.

I have very deep thoughts concerning every possible situation you can imagine.
So for me this philosophy is not only viable, but it's actually quite interesting to think about.
It forces you to consider things that you might not otherwise even think of.

Can I convince you of this philosophy?
Probably not. But that's not my goal.
I don't need to convince you.

All I'm doing is stating that you (nor anyone else) could rule it out.
And there is nothing in all of science that has yet ruled it out.
And that's my only claim.

Ah, finally, a testable claim (I bet that was an accident). Care to show us the point of interaction? Just how have you determined this to be the case? How have you determined which processes are "clearly on auto-pilot" and which are not. Would you mind making me a short list of a few examples of processes that are not "on auto-pilot"? Nothing wrong with a lengthy explanation. The universe is not designed, not by your god, not by any god. Designed is a very poor choice of word on your part. Perhaps you mean something else, something other than the definition of "designed". I sometimes like to say that this or that part of a plant was "designed" for this or that, but it's always understood that I'm using slightly inappropriate language to convey a concept. If you're claiming that the universe was "designed" you are, btw, making claims to testable evidence, which have been ruled out. We've looked for "designs" and found interactions and effects of those interactions instead. I absolutely detest cosmological arguments btw. Pretty common argument from theists, we see it mostly (on this forum anyway) from creatards. You're starting to associate yourself with some pretty silly people Abra. Knowing what is possible on any given dice throw does not afford one predictive abilities that go beyond chance btw, that's also been ruled out by science. The best you can give are probabilities. You (nor I, nor anyone) is capable of accurately predicting the results of a single six sided die toss with any consistency. Just how are you proposing we make a claim to knowledge out of this, well, lets see? Ah, the dice playing god gambit. Well, the dice would be invoking testable evidence, the toss would be testable evidence. Care to identify one of gods dice, care to identify one of gods throws?

Which "behaviours" of this universe is this spirit capable of altering, and do you have any idea regarding the mechanism that allows this spirit to do so? These are testable claims. You've made a couple of claims here that have been investigated and discarded as nonsense. There are probably a great many more you could make, but I get the feeling you're being very guarded about those claims which you might make to a friendly audience. Your "only claim" is an argument from ignorance (an argument from ignorance regarding at least some things about which we are not ignorant , btw..which is to say, it's an argument from your own personal ignorance/incredulity). That was a pretty amusing sentence in itself, since it comes at the end of a literal wall-o-claims. My imagination may not be so limited as you believe. Why would my imaginative ability matter anyway? We're not talking about what might exist in our imaginations are we? I thought we were talking about a god which you believe exists in reality (and is apparently responsible for a great many things in the real world).

Sure, what you need as a foundation to justify this or that is your own personal decision. Your inability to make your own case has nothing to do with anyone else being ignorant or unimaginative.

Abracadabra · February 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Excuse me? Have you not understood a single word I've ever posted?
I made that quite clear at the very outset. And repeated it many times.
And it's only just now sinking in? I just don't know what to say at this point.

That is nowhere near what I'm saying.

On the contrary that's your position.

Just rephrase it in terms of spirit instead of airplanes and you'll see what I mean.

"It is ludicrous to propose a spiritual world. As we know, the world is made of leptons, quarks and bosons, that can't have any experience. Have you ever met a quark who had an experience?"

Yet at the same time you expect me to believe that a property that emerges from combinations of leptons, quarks and bosons CAN have an experience?

Talk about magic! That right there would be a proven scientific example of magic if it could even be proven to be true. However, the truth is that is truly nothing more than very limited unimaginative and uncreative speculation.

But that's an unreasonable question to ask me. I'm not claiming to know ever detail of how this cosmic mind works. It's a mystery that's why it's called mysticism. I don't understand how an entire universe can pop into existence out of nothing either, and neither do scientists yet they accept that it happened. They really have no choice, their very existence forces this upon them.

And besides, what make you feel that you have some sort of 'upper-hand' in this conversation? Can you explain how an emergent property of a collection of leptons, quarks, and bosons, can have an experience when you believe that these very things themselves are not capable of experiencing anything?

The current secular speculations do not have a leg-up on the mystical cosmic mind speculation. That is the folly in the arguments of atheists who claim that certain things can be 'ruled out'.

I haven't "failed" at anything other than to convince you that you don't have sufficient reason to rule out my speculations of what the true nature of reality might be.

But that doesn't prove anything other than to demonstrate your lack of creativity and imagination to be able to come up with theories that are compatible with everything we currently know.

Clearly you are content to rule things out without sufficient reasons.
Why should I accept your cerebral resignation to creative and imaginative theories.
All you're asking me to do is to become as closed-minded as yourself.
And I'm supposed to swallow that nonsense? Pft.

Three in a row now on what? You seem to be "keeping score" on a game that I'm supposed to be "proving" something to you.
I have no desire to prove anything to you, and I never even claimed to wish to do so.

I'm 62 years old. I have an entire lifetime of experience and contemplation in both the sciences and in the realm of spiritual philosophies that has led me to my current views. And now you expect me to convince you in a couple of posts on a internet bulletin board that is extremely hostile to my views so that you can magically and suddenly fully comprehend everything that I understand precisely in the way that I understand things without any ambiguity at all?

You've got to be kidding me. Your request is utterly absurd.

All I'm saying is that I can provide 'reasonable doubt' for any and all objections you can come up with concerning my spiritual philosophy. And that's all that I require to know that it cannot be ruled out.

And that was the only claim I ever made was it not?

You are totally trying to turn the tables on me UNFAIRLY.

You are trying to demand that I prove my spiritual philosophy to you, or convince you that it cannot be ruled out based on what you believe you know.

That was never my claim. My claim is that my spiritual philosophy cannot be ruled out by any Current Scientific Knowledge.

I'm really not concerned with what you might personally believe, or be convinced of.

And I keep repeating to you that my reasons are vast. I can't point to any one thing and say, "Hey this one thing has convinced me".

I also never claimed that "I believe, I believe, I believe". That again is your blatant misrepresentation of my position.

I've confessed spiritual agnosticism from the very start.

My only claim is that it can't be ruled out.

I your are suggesting that "I believe, I believe, I believe that it can't be ruled out". Then yes I most certainly do believe that.

I don't question that brains are indeed biological computers and that they "THINK" or process information.
You're computer processes information. Does that mean that is experiences those "thoughts".

What you are objecting to here is totally covered in my spiritual philosophy.
In fact, the Eastern Mystics have already covered this aspect of things long ago.
Yes, absolutely brains are biological computers. That a very intrinsic part of my spiritual model.
This is what creates POVs for the cosmic mind to experience.
This is precisely why the cosmic mind does this in the first place.

You keep wanting me to explain everything but how is that even remotely possible. I could write an entire book on this topic alone!

Just for kicks I'll try to address it briefly here, although since you are so hostile to my spiritual views I really don't know why I bother.

Christians believe that when a body is born God places an individual "soul" in that body. That soul is completely separate from God.
That's not how it works in my spiritual model. Or more accurately, that's not how it works in the Eastern Mystical view.
What happens is this:
A biological computer is created (i.e. a brain)
God (the eternal cosmic mind) is the only entity that can truly experience what these computers are "thinking".
There are two facets to these computers. An "ego" which is just the computer itself. And God, the actual entity that experiences these thoughts.
Which is the real you? Well, that's the question that the Eastern Mystics raise.
The ego is nothing more than the illusion that is created by the biological computer. (i.e. the brain)
The entity that experiences this illusion is God (the true eternal entity that has created this situation in the first place)
Can the ego die? Well in a sense it can. And in another sense it can't.
It can die by simply ceasing to exist and being totally forgotten about by the mind of God.
Or it can achieve "eternal life" by becoming such a desirable POV that God decides to keep it in memory and maintain it eternally.
However, it can't truly "die" in any real sense because it is nothing but a biological computer program to begin with.
When you shut your computer off has it "died"?
It can only 'die' in the sense of not being remembered by the Cosmic mind.

Yes, yes, yes, I know,.... This seems really out there. Where am I coming up with all this seemingly utter nonsense?
Well duh? Did I not always claim that I'm considering Eastern Mystical Philosophies as the foundation of these ideas?
I've never made any secret about this.
All I'm saying is that given enough thought, I can personally imagine a scenario where all of this can indeed be made to work in a way that cannot be "ruled out" by current scientific knowledge.

How many times do I need to harp on that before it's finally understood?

That is my only position. And it's a totally valid position.

I'm asking you questions for a couple of reasons. Firstly, so that we're discussing what you believe and not common uses or definitions of the words that you use to describe your beliefs since they are clearly not the same thing. This helps me to try and avoid straw-manning you. Secondly, I'm asking you questions so that you can respond with explanations or claims which are specific and cannot be backpedaled out of, which helps me to insure that you won't be moving any goalposts (or at least, if you do, that it is very visible). I know enough to make the claim that science has ruled out magic, and I know enough to realize when someone is using sciencey sounding words to describe magic, which you are. I'm not a physicist, I'm a farmer, so you should probably be a little disappointed that your claims haven't made it passed my bullshit filter.[/quote][/hide]

Ok Mr. Farmer let's talk about moving goalposts, etc.

First off, let me say that I have a deep respect for farming. I homesteaded myself in a very back-to-basic way for about a decade between about the mid 70's to the mid 80's. I had horses, bees, chickens, and I did a lot of gardening. Huge gardens which I worked using the horses. In fact, it was during that period of my life when I really studied Buddhism, Yoga, Taoism, and the fundamental ideas of the eastern mystics. I was still in touch with the scientific world at that time too, but you might say that I was on sabbati from it at that time in terms of career.

But let's get back to moving goalposts. Who's moving goalposts? You are! You must have a fantastic post-hole drill.

All I've ever done is claim that my spiritual philosophy cannot be "ruled-out" by current scientific knowledge. Yet here you are acting like I should have a testable scientific hypothesis to offer and that if I can't produce one that should represent failure on my part to back up my claims.

Where did that come from? Who's goalpost is that? I certainly never set that as a goalpost.

My only claim is that people who jump on me stating "Your philosophy has been ruled-out by science" are making claims that they can't support. Moreover, they clearly aren't even in a position to make any such claim. To begin with they can't possibly understand my philosophy well-enough to make that claim, and secondly many of them that make this claim don't even truly understand just how limited the science truly are when it comes to making definitive statement about the state of reality.

Science truly isn't in a position to rule out much of anything actually.

Can they rule out unseen undetectable spacial dimensions? No, not only can they not rule them out but they are even proposing them!
Can they rule out parallel universes where entire kingdoms can reside? No. Again, they are actually proposing them!
In fact most people are aware that Inflation Theory actually predicts the existence of multiple universes.
In other words, there are plenty of places for unseen "gods" to hide.
This idea that science has 'ruled out' these kinds of philosophies is utter nonsense.

Moreover, this "Cosmic Mind" that I'm calling "God" doesn't even necessarily need to be a single entity.
For all we know it's a whole advanced civilization of beings who are creating this universe as a sort of amusement park.
I make no claim about the "true nature of God".

All I claim is to have a philosophy that cannot be ruled out by science.
So please don't move that goalpost and then try to accuse me of moving it.

My only claim ever is that my spiritual theory has not yet been ruled out by scientific knowledge
That is the GOALPOST.

It's the only goalpost I've ever set. And I'll stand by this goalpost firmly. If you intend on setting other goalposts that's a totally different issue. But don't accuse me of moving my goalpost.

So I'm glad you brought that issue up.

You're getting far too excited, have cup of herbal tea and relax.

I can explain away your concerns easily.
You ask for a list of processes that are on 'auto-pilot'
Well, clearly all of chemistry and physics are on 'auto-pilot' that should be obvious.
The laws of physics are constant and dependable. If they weren't there could be no such things as science.
Also the universe most likely wouldn't evolve into anything with structure if it had no consistent laws of behavior.
So the 'auto-pilot' processes are a given.

Don't misunderstand this to mean that something like evolution necessarily had to create something like human beings.
That not what I mean by 'auto-pilot'. I'm not saying that things necessarily had a specific 'goal' but rather that they simply had to unfold by certain laws (i.e. they do not require the baby-sitting guidance of a conscious mind)
The 'auto-pilot' concept is indeed totally compatible with science. It's basically required for science to work.

So that's a given.

In other word, given enough gas and gravity as star will form, live, and die according to the laws of physics.
That's what I mean by 'auto-pilot'. No baby-sitting consciousness required.

Now for processes not on 'auto-pilot'?
Well, how about free will of conscious beings?
If by "auto-pilot" I mean processes that are not being baby-sat by consciousness, then clearly any process that is the result of free will choice is being 'baby-sat' at least by the consciousness that is making that free will choice.
So it can't be said to be on 'auto-pilot'.

Now if you are asking me to give a firm hardcore list of exact processes that I feel are either on 'auto-pilot' or a result of 'free-will' conscious intervention, I can't do that. I don't know precisely where that line is myself. However, I do hold that it's vague precisely where that line might be drawn. In fact, contemplating precisely where that line might be drawn is indeed a question of just how far-reaching "magic" can be isn't it?

Basically we consider "magic" to be consciousness overriding things that we feel should be on 'auto-pilot'.
So that very concept is indeed at the heart of questions concerning precisely what is 'magical' and what is not.

But let's go back to the goalpost concept. Have I set any goalpost of what I believe is possible with magic?
No, I'm sure I haven't because I'm not even certain myself how far that can be taken.
My only claim is that my spiritual philosophy cannot be ruled-out by science.
In fact, I personally haven't even brought up the concept of "magic". Everyone else has been jumping on that term.
Precisely how much a conscious mind can control the universe is a mystery to me.
We can obviously control who things evolve.
I mean computers would have never 'evolved' on auto-pilot if we hadn't consciously invented them.
So clearly a free will consciousness can indeed affect things that are on 'auto-pilot'.
The question there has more to do with precisely what mechanisms might be required to achieve that task.

First off, who are you to say that the universe is not designed? Who is anyone to say that the universe is not designed?
Any scientist who proclaims that science has ruled out that the universe could have been designed would be a fool.

Although, I confess, that if you are thinking in terms of "Christian Theology" that fable can be disproved.

I thought I had explained this before.
It's like dice.
If you "Design" a pair of dice and you toss them and the number 4 comes up. Did you "design" the 4?
Well, yes, indirectly you did. Because you "designed" the dice.
But you didn't "design" specifically the outcome of any given throw.

In other words, Christian Creationists are proclaiming that God "designed" planet Earth precisely, and that he "designed" each and every animal species, and in particular he "designed" humans.

I'm not supporting that kind of "designing God".

I'm saying that the laws of physics were 'designed' even before the Big Bang. And thus precisely what could or could not evolve from that Big Bang was predetermined just like the roll of dice are predetermined based on the design of the dice themselves.

And yes, I fully understand that science speculates that the "laws of nature" in this universe might have "evolved" differently as the primordial big bang expanded and cooled. That may or may not be a correct speculation by science. Maybe the laws could have only unfolded in one particular way, they don't know for sure yet. In fact, String Theorists are hoping that String Theory will explain why these forces and particles could indeed only be the way they are.

But it doesn't really matter to me. Even if multiple laws of physics could have evolved, all that says is that the original dice had very rich potential. My spiritual philosophy only requires that the cosmic mind knows the limitations of what might possibly come up. In fact, I intuitively hold that the spiritual mind doesn't even need to consciously "design" these dice. They just are what they are. This very idea is just a metaphorical idea that I'm attempting to convey as an analogy of dice being tossed. All I'm really saying is that the cosmic mind can only create what it creates and therefore it's not going to be utterly shocked by anything that arises from this process. In other words, nothing can happen in the universe that's going to surprise God. And it is only in that sense that God is "omniscient". (i.e. God understands the true nature of the dice)

Just like you aren't going to roll a 13 when tossing a pair of dice. If you rolled a 13 it would totally blow your mind and you couldn't explain it because the dice you "designed" cannot possibly produce a 13.

That a fundamental principle of my spiritual philosophy. Nothing can happen that will surprise God because God designed the dice.

I think you are totally misunderstanding my dice-tossing-God metaphor.

I'm not suggesting that we should be able to predict the toss of any dice.
All I'm saying is that God tossed dice to create a universe and that the 'design" of the universe is on the faces of the dice (and not in the toss)
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with any humans being able to predict a given toss of any dice.

Again you are misunderstanding. This is not a testable hypothesis. If it were testable it would be a scientific question.

The only way you could "test" it is if you new the true nature of the dice and could show that the current universe fits one possible combination of a toss.

To begin with you have to understand that "God dice" have extremely large numbers of faces. As a practical matter than fact alone would make it beyond the reach of science even if we understood the nature of the dice.

So this philosophy is not scientifically testable. And therefore it cannot even be 'ruled-out' by science.

Again, you're trying to move the goalpost.

I'm claiming to have a spiritual philosophy that has not been ruled out be science.
That's my ONLY claim.
If I believe that I can do something using "magic" and science can rule out that specific thing, then clearly I'm wrong.
Evidently you're trying to PIN ME TO THE WALL, on some specific claim of magic.

But isn't that moving the goalpost?
That wasn't what I was originally complaining about.
I was originally complaining that atheists are over-zealous about claiming that science can rule out anything spiritual.

When it comes to things like 'magic' that's an extremely loose term.
I don't claim to know precisely what is and isn't magically possible.
Moreover, even if I had a particular specific belief in some particular specific "magic" and that turned out to be wrong, that wouldn't collapse the entire philosophy. All it would do is show that I was wrong concerning how far I thought magic could go.

That's a totally different issue altogether.

My spiritual model actually provides good reasons why it would not be easy to scientifically measure magical abilities.
In fact, look at what the eastern mystics are claiming,.... Only a Buddha (or spiritually awakened person) would actually be in harmony with the "mind of God". Therefore only these people would be able to actually 'perform' magic. A biological ego couldn't preform magic on it's own. Only the cosmic consciousness can do that. So only FEW people would make it into the kingdom of this cosmic consciousness anyway. (ha ha)

Seriously, many of the things taught by Jesus are actually Eastern Mystical views being expressed in a culture that believed in a Zeus-like Godhead. Yet, in a very foundational way they are expressing these same things.

Well, your imagination is important to these things just like it's important so scientists. Scientist need to imagine hypotheses before they can even propose testing them. You'll never make any progress on anything without imagination and creativity.

And consider this; If you are considering that a divine being of "infinite knowledge" might exist and be the basis for reality, why should you not stretch your imagination to the very limits of your capacity? Surely anything that you can imagine a God of infinite knowledge could easily trump you.

Therefore take the most imaginative theory you can possibly muster and realize that it probably doesn't even scratch the surface of the truth of reality.

In fact, apparently this same thing is true in science. If the string theorists are right, then reality is not only wilder than we have previously imagined, but it's far wilder than we are even capable of imagining!

If you're going to try to imagine a spiritual philosophy of an infinitely knowledgeable "God", then where is there any justification for holding anything back?

The only 'case' I need to make is that science can't rule out my spiritual philosophy.

Because that is the only "goalpost" I've set.

And as far as I'm concern my goalpost is still firmly planted in the ground and no one has uprooted it yet. Nor do I see how they possibly could.

I think people have been over-reacting to my signature line stating "You are God".

So I've taken that down and replaced it with a far more realistic signature line. (ha ha)

genkaus · February 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm

Long long post.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You are indeed making an error here. Especially if you're claiming not to rely on science. You keep limiting your epistemological resources to just what you believe to know about the "physical world" and the apparent consciousness of beings embedded in that particular physical world.

That's not how I view spirituality (or spirit). So since it's not the basis for my model of spirit, your arguments fail to apply. You're arguments are far too limited and restricted by your own demand that we only adhere to what we can know scientifically about the physical world (even though you apparently can't even see this restriction that you are demanding yourself.)

Hopefully after replying to all of your concerns in this post you may come to understand why I do not accept your limited views. They simply don't apply to my model of spirit.

I'm curious how you divined my view of spirituality from my criticism of Descartes' "perpetual dream argument". Do you not pay attention to which argument you are replying to?

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No. What you're demand here is simply false with respect to the model of spirit that I am considering.
You simply don't understand the model of spirit that I am considering. That's all.
Your very demand that there can only be two possibilities (i.e. it's either physical in the sense of spacetime physics
or it's non-physical) only applies to the limitations that you placed on this this concept of spirit.
Apparently your limitation is to consider anything that might be physical in terms of the scientific descriptions of a spacetime fabric.
Yet you claim that you aren't relying upon, or presuming scientific knowledge.
So this is an error in your own way of thinking.
You have evidently limited the term "Physical" to apply solely to what we consider to be the "fabric of spacetime".
And by that term I'm referring to everything that the physical sciences can describe in terms of particles, and structure.
So that would include all physical phenomenon that arises within this physical universe (i.e. the fabric of spacetime)

Now you might run out and grab a dictionary and attempt to argue semantics saying "But that's what the term physical means you moron!"
But that is precisely what I object to. My position is that there exists some sort of "spirit world" that is indeed "Real".
Well what do I mean by "real"?

Man alive, you like to talk a lot. Everything you said here can be condensed into a single sentence - "The transcendent spiritual reality, which I believe exists, would be fundamentally different from spacetime constrained physical reality that we know of".

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I mean that it has an existence, and therefore it must also have some sort of structure or defining characteristics that makes it what it is.
If that were not in place how could it even be said to be "real"?
I'm certainly in agreement with that line of thinking.

Therefore any concept of spirit must necessarily be a concept of some form of structure.
Thus if it has structure, then it must have rules and laws of how that structure behaves.
And if it has laws of how it behaves, then it has "physics" that explains it.
In other words, it has its own set of physical laws, (or physics)
Ultimately it must be "physical" in that sense. (albeit not in the same sense as the laws of physics of spacetime).
It other words, it isn't restricted by the same laws of physics as the fabric of spacetime.
Yet because it must have its own structure (i.e. laws of physics), so in that sense it too must be "physical".
But not in the same way that our bodies are "physical" or that the fabric of spacetime is "physical".

It's my hypothesis (if you want to get technical about it) that whatever this ultimate spiritual form is,
it is what gives rise to the fabric of spacetime (that we call "physical",
but spirit itself is not limited the physic of spacetime.

So when I speak about a physical spirit I'm not speaking about a spirit that is restricted by the fabric of spacetime as we experience it.
I'm speaking about something much deeper that actually gives rise to our physical experience.

And yes, I absolutely will point to the scientific observations and discoveries of things like quantum fields to support my hypothesis.
Precisely because they do loan it support.
The very concept of these quantum fields provides (or even demonstrates) that the very type of "non-physical" structure I'm proposing.
Not only can such structure exist, but evidently must exist based on scientific observations.
Many scientific theories assume the existence of "structure" or information that lies beneath the fabric of spacetime.

This mysterious and illusive "non-physical" physics lies at the heart of much of science.
Quantum Mechanics postulates the existence of such "non-physical" informational structure in the form of quantum fields.
The Big Bang theory postulates that "something must have banged".
In fact, the current scientific explanation there is that the universe began as a "quantum fluctuation" of a quantum field.
It goes right back to relying upon the axioms of Quantum Mechanics that premise the existence of these non-physical fields of information.
M-Theory postulates the preexistence of mysterious membranes that basically represent the same thing as an ocean of quantum fields.
The membrane itself is not what we consider to be the fabric of spacetime, but rather it is the mysterious substrate that lies beneath it.
And that presumed "non-physical" information or structure beneath the fabric of spacetime.

You act like I shouldn't be permitted to mention science at all when discussing "epistemological ideas". But that's utter nonsense.
If you are considering your supposedly "epistemological ideas" based solely on two concepts: (i.e. physics=spacetime versus consciousnss)
then you are restricting yourself to an extremely limited philosophical world. And you are ignoring potential underlying structure.
This is one reason why I don't even care to discuss things with people who claim to be pure epistemologists.
They basically piss me off by demanding far too limited and restricted thinking. I'm going there. That would be a step backwards for me.

Again, try to be a bit more concise. How about "Evidence from quantum mechanics suggests that there exists a non-physical, non-spacetime constrained reality that has a separate structure of its own".

So what? Non-physical does not automatically make it spiritual and having a structure does not make it information. For this reality to be considered "spiritual", it must have an element of consciousness separate (though not necessarily independent) from its structure, whatever the structure may be. Similarly, for a structure to be information, there must be a consciousness to perceive and identify it. Unless you are saying that "consciousness is the structure", which would simply be a different way of saying "pure consciousness exists" and I don't think you are, then the issue of primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness isn't resolved - only pushed back further. We still have to determine whether it is the structure that forms the basis for consciousness or vice-versa. And according to the evidence you presented, while we have found the structure, there is no evidence of consciousness - which supports the former conclusion.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Well at least we can agree on something.

I personally can't imagine a spiritual world that doesn't have some form of structure either.
How could something be said to "exist" if it has no structure (or information) associated with it at all?
Now that would be a really weird idea.
So at least we do seem to be in agreement on that point.

Can you imagine a structure without consciousness? And once again, structure is not the same as information unless there is a consciousness to perceive it.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No it's not a "missing point".
The problem I have is that you are attempting to restrict the "structure" in question to being solely the fabric of spacetime.
It is precisely on that point where I am disagreeing with your "hypothesis" and premises.

I don't care if this imagined reality of yours is bound by a framework of spacetime or not. The question still stands - if structure can exist without the consciousness - whatever the structure may be?

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I agree. Where I disagree on your restriction that this "structure" must be limited to the fabric of spacetime.

That is NOT the structure that I'm considering. Spacetime merely arises from the structure that I'm considering.
You're trying to consider that the fabric of spacetime is the structure in question completely. And that is where we part ways.
My position is that the fabric of spacetime is merely a facet that arises from the "ultimate structure" of spirit that lies beneath it.

Therefore your arguments simply don't apply to my model.

Are you attempting some sort of slight of hand. Or trying to build a strawman. In all the quoted text, I haven't mentioned spacetime constraints even once. Just because your spiritual reality would be independent of "spacetime", does not mean that it would be independent of the very nature of its own existence. Primary dependence upon existence is primacy of existence.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That argument is only valid if you view the fabric of spacetime as being the totality of 'structure'.
This is the point where I'm disagreeing with you.
I'm quite happy and convinced that 'structure' exists beneath the fabric of spacetime.
You don't even seem to be considering that possibility at all.
You keep speaking like consciousness must either give rise to structure (i.e. the fabric of spacetime),
or that structure (i.e. the fabric of spacetime) must give rise to consciousness.
I'm saying that such a philosophical model is extremely limited and doesn't take into consideration other possibilities.
I'm totally open to considering structures that lie beneath the fabric of spacetime and actually even give rise to it.
In fact, our best scientific theories to date all assume this to be the case via their postulates and axioms.

There you go again, building the "spacetime" strawman. It doesn't matter what the nature of structure is. Either consciousness is dependent upon it or it is not. There can be not third option.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Whoa. Hold it. Stop. Now you are talking about "reality"?
Consciousness is dependent upon "reality" and the "reality" is dependent upon consciousness?

Two things fall out of this.
The first being an impression that you view the fabric of spacetime as "reality"
since that was clearly the "structure" that you have been alluding to as being 'physical'

No, by reality here I was referring to you "spiritual" reality.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The second being that you are presuming that I'm suggesting that consciousness gives rise to THAT "reality".
No of course not. That model could never work. Obviously.
It's no wonder that you think I'm stupid if you are under the false impression that that's what I'm thinking.
I'm not considering that model. IMHO that kind of a model is behind the times as much as Newtonian Physics is behind Relativity.

Good, so we can establish that even in that spiritual reality, the structure (existence) holds primacy over consciousness.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm way beyond that simple model, as should be apparent to you by now after my previous explanations.
I simply have no reason to restrict the 'structure' of spirit to consisting solely of spacetime physics.
On the contrary, I have a myriad of reasons for believing that the fabric of spacetime cannot possibly be all that exists.
I've already given arguments associated with Quantum Mechanics, The Big Bang, and M-Theory for why I feel justified in considering structure beneath the fabric of spacetime.
And I've even given considerations concerning the very nature of time.
Not only do we have reasons to believe that the fabric of spacetime is not the only "structure" that exists,
but we even have reasons to believe that our sense of time within the fabric of spacetime is nothing more than an illusion associate with that fabric.

So if you are limiting your considerations of "reality" to an idea that the fabric of spacetime constitutes "reality" then I'm wasting my time even talking with you.
Clearly you have already made up your mind that the fabric of spacetime = reality.

I'm not going to consider that restriction. I've moved beyond that and I'm not about to go back there.
I see no reason to consider such a limited view of "reality"

More unsupported ranting. Once again, please point to the area within this argument where I said that reality is equivalent to spacetime. I do believe that, but for the scope of this argument. I'm not using that.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No, I don't see anything ridiculous about it at all.
On the contrary as far as I'm concerned this is precisely how things must be.
And besides, what do you even mean by 'ridiculous'?
The whole point to a belief in a spiritual world innately includes a belief in basically the unexplainable and seemingly impossible.

You don't see anything ridiculous about something which is non-existent to exist? Your belief is not in something that is seemingly impossible, but it is possible and impossible at the same time. We are not talking about your belief about the spirit world here, we are talking about your belief in the cause of the spirit world.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You ask me if something is "ridiculous"?
I can tell you a lot of things that I see as being utterly ridiculous yet they MUST BE TRUE.
It's ridiculous than anything can exist at all. For how could anything have ever come to be? Yet here we are. Now THAT's ridiculous!
Yet obviously it's blatantly true. So the very fact that we exist at all flies in the very face of anything we can even begin rationalize.
The very existence of the universe is proof positive that it's an irrational thing.

Why is our existence ridiculous or irrational?

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Your epistemological hopes and dreams that it could somehow be rationalized if you think hard enough about it is ultimately "ridiculous'".
Why should that even be the case?
Why do you keep demanding that reality must not be "ridiculous"?
What's your basis for that?

The basis is reality. It is the standard by which we determine what is ridiculous and what is not within that reality.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Again, that's only true if I accept your extremely limited view that everything must be thought of solely in terms of a dichotomy between a fabric of spacetime and consciousness.

My position is that the ultimate structure of spirit goes far beyond that.
You need to step back a moment and look at the big picture again with this new view of spiritual structure.

Obviously as far as your imagination can throw it.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The mystical philosophy goes like this,...

There exists a cosmic mind.
That mind exists as a structure that is underneath the fabric of the cosmos that we experience and it actually gives rise to it.
That doesn't meant that the this underlying mind has no structure of it's own.

That is simply another way of saying that it is "pure consciousness".
The question still remains if whether the structure gave rise to the consciousness or vice-versa.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Now this cosmic mind views its own spacetime creation via many different vantage points
(i.e. the POVs of ever sentient being that evolves within it).
That's not going to automatically permit it to totally control the spactime structure from any given vantage point.
But then again, maybe it can!
What if things that ancient sages said are TRUE?
"If only you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains"
So you look at a mountain and try to move it and you can't do it.
Big deal? Maybe your POV doesn't believe that you can move mountains and that's why you can't do it from that POV.

If that was true, then the insane would rule the world.

That is the mystical view.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You may say that from your POV that's utterly absurd and ridiculous. So?
That isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that this is how your POV of this experience appears to the cosmic mind.
Hey, does this seem far-fetched and hard to believe?
Sure it does. But for me, it's no harder to believe this than an idea that anything could have come to be in the first place.

So it is no harder for you to believe something you cannot perceive than something you can? How the hell do you retain any mental integrity? Oh, that's right. You don't.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: They are both equally absurd situations. And I feel that this is important. From my perspective either idea is equally absurd.
Yet one of them must be TRUE.

One of them is - the second one.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You may personally choose to accept the absurdity that something came into being from nothing as being not mysterious.
Fine.
But how does that equate to being able to rule out the another concept of equal absurdity?
It doesn't.
Either hypothesis is equally mysterious, thus they are both a hypothesis of mysticism.

Now you are devolving into typical fundamentalist territory. Whoever said anything about "something coming from nothing"?

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I have problems comprehending how an emergent property of a spacetime fabric would experience anything.
Talk about ridiculous?
That's just as ridiculous to me.
How could an emergent property have an experience if the thing that it is emerging from is not capable of having an experience?
That is just as absurd idea as anything else.

So because you have comprehension issues, you turn to your imagination for answers. Objects have emergent properties all the time. Properties which the things they emerged from are not capable of. That is why we call them emergent properties and not inherent properties.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: For me a deeper mystical hypothesis actually makes more SENSE.

But to each their own. Chose your own absurdity. Reality is equally ridiculous in all of these philosophies.

So basically, since you are incapable of making sense of what you can perceive (the very definition of rationality), you think that what you cannot perceive makes more sense? In your claims about absurdity of reality, I see a desire to evade reality. Well, you can evade reality if you want, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you're going to argue with me that you have a better explanation or that you believe you can rule these things out,
you'll have to excuse me whilst I have a deep satisfying belly laugh because that very proposal is utterly ridiculous to me.
(i.e. the very idea that you think you have ruled something out absolutely)
You're going to claim to have "ruled something out" just because you favor one absurdity over another?
That my friend, is a grand display of ridiculousness.

And please keep in mind it is YOU who has claimed to have "ruled things out".

Well, since reality seems utterly ridiculous to you, I would take it as a compliment to be considered ridiculous by you. To you who considers the world we live in, the world we can perceive by our senses, to be absurd and by contrast, a world that is beyond perception, to make sense, no rationality is possible.

Reason is the human capacity to make sense of things within this reality. If you consider this reality itself absurd, you are not capable of making sense of things within it and therefore you are incapable of reason. You are the textbook definition of irrational.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No, that's false. It does not argue that consciousness can and does exist without structure. Where did you ever get that idea?

From the excerpt from the Chandogya Upnishad ofcourse. When Uddakala asks Svetaketu to bring him a fruit. Then he asks him to break it apart and see what is left - the seeds. The he asks them to break them apart and see what is left and so on. In the end, Setaketu says nothing and then his father says "That nothing is the essence - the pure consciousness called Brahman from which everything else originates. The formless reality which is the source of all forms." Then he goes on to give a few more clever analogies about it and in the end says "That is you".

Clearly, the mystics think that the absolute consciousness is pure consciousness and is formless.
Further, in another form of mysticism
"In Advaita, the ultimate reality is expressed as Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna means formless, attributeless, mega-soul, or spirit-only."

A msytics words, not mine.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That is simply a misunderstanding on your part.
The Mystics do not claim, I repeat,... they do not claim to understand what spirit is or anything about its true nature.
In fact why do you think they call it "Mysticism"? It's a mystery how it can be like that.
They do not claim that a consciousness can and does exist without structure.
That's a totally false claim on your part about what mystics believe or insist upon.
In fact anyone who claims to know the true nature of spirit is themselves deluded.
The mystics are quite happy to confess that they do not understand the true nature of spirit.
They make no claims about what it must be or depend upon, or not depend upon.

Oh, yes they do. Quite often, infact. They make quite a lot of claims about it being personal or impersonal, material or immaterial, immanent or ever-changing.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: This misunderstanding arises from your limited views that structure must equate to the fabric of spacetime only.
I'm sure that most mystics do indeed believe that the cosmic mind transcends the fabric of spacetime,
but that in no way is a demand that it must have no structure at all.
Apparently this is the very concept that causes you to believe that you can rule out mysticism.
You are restricting "all possible structure" to necessarily being dependent upon the fabric of spacetime.
I can see where you would think you could rule things out from that POV.
It is that very POV that I do not accept as a foundational premise.

So when the mystics talk about the Brahman being Nirguna (formless, attributeless), they somehow magically knew what I would consider to be a form and came up with that word specifically to suit me? It simply couldn't possibly be that they actually think that the ultimate consciousness is pure consciousness without any structure whatsoever - whether limited by spacetime or not.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You say, "Primacy of consciousness and Primacy of existence are the only two possible axioms. Once you have ruled out one, the only one left is the other."

Think about this: If structure gives rise to consciousness, then what is it that is experiencing this consciousness?

Nothing, obviously. There can be no experience without consciousness.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Well, it must be the structure that is having this experience. So you're right back to square one again.

No, the structure cannot experience.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It's necessarily a circular situation no matter how much you try to reduce it or create an imagined dichotomy.

Any circularity disappears when you realize that a structure can exist without consciousness and the consciousness cannot exist without structure.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Attempting to apply a reductionist concept of "cause and effect" is a misguided notion to begin with.
Ultimately it would necessarily need to be the structure that is capable of having an experience of consciousness in the first place anyway.
So a reductionistic approach attempting to dichotomize reality in an effort to explain consciousness is a folly to being with.
Clearly you aren't even paying attention to what the mystics are saying.
They are saying that your reductionistic dichotomizing approach is your folly right there.
You're never going to explain your ability to experience reality rationally via a dichotomistic approach.
The truth is in wholeness, not in separation.

Actually, it is only through this approach a person can rationally explain or experience reality. The thing you refer to as the "dichotomist appraoch", is the law of identity.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Again this reveals your premise that the fabric of spacetime constitutes "reality".

How can you claim to be looking at 'reality' to gain knowledge about 'reality' whilst simultaneously placing all your preconceived restrictions on what you think 'reality' even means?

That "premise" as you call it, was discovered rather than being preconceived.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I just did, and nothing has changed. You're still making the same erroneous unsupportable assumptions you made the first time I looked.

And you need to get your eyes checked, since you keep seeing the word "spacetime" everywhere when it wasn't mentioned even once.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That would only be true in your model where spacetime equates to the only structure that exists.
But the model I'm considering is not bound by that restriction.

Yes, a model that has no basis in reality would not be restricted by reality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You Genkaus, are demanding that you can rule out my model of spirituality based on restrictions of your limited model. Talk about ridiculous?

No, I'm ruling it out on the basis of logical impossibility,

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: We simply aren't considering the same philosophical picture at all.

No, we are not. I'm looking at the world around me. You are not looking at all.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You are apparently viewing the fabric of spacetime as being "reality", and arguing that given that premise, it necessarily follows that consciousness must have arisen from that structure, because it clearly cannot be the other way around.

Even without the fabric of spacetime, consciousness must arise from the structure because consciousness cannot exist without one.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I would actually agree with your conclusions based on your model of reality.
But that's not my model.
So you have no business telling me that you can "rule out" my model of reality based on your model.
You also have no basis for suggesting that I may not have thought deeply enough about my model.
On the contrary, I've already considered your model a very long time ago. That's past history for me.
IMHO, you're model ignores far too much about what we actually now about "reality",
and you fail to take into consideration many doors that are wide open in our understanding of "reality".

Am I asking you to accept my philosophical model of reality? No, not at all.

Your model of reality is an insult to any rational person.

Even if a structure can exist without the fabric of spacetime, it would not give rise to any consciousness. Consciousness is a phenomenal process. Absent any form of spacetime to have phenomena, the consciousness cannot exist.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for claiming to be able to "rule out" my model.

I'm well aware that you don't consider rationality to be a basis to rule out anything.

(February 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Apparently you didn't even have a clue what my model entails.
You are thinking solely in a very restricted and limited sense that only the fabric of spacetime should be considered "real" or be representative of structure.
That's your model of reality, not mine.
There's simply no basis for your assumption and axioms, IMHO.
On the contrary we actually have a solid scientific basis for postulating otherwise.
In fact, all of the most profound theories of science begin with this very premise that structure lies beneath the fabric of spacetime.

So my philosophy is not only richer than yours, but it's also based more firmly in the roots of scientific knowledge.

I think the following excerpt describes your philosophy accurately.

"What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”

Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.

Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.

To the [mystic], as to an animal, the irreducible primary is the automatic phenomena of his own consciousness.

An animal has no critical faculty; he has no control over the function of his brain and no power to question its content. To an animal, whatever strikes his awareness is an absolute that corresponds to reality—or rather, it is a distinction he is incapable of making: reality, to him, is whatever he senses or feels. And this is the [mystic’s] epistemological ideal, the mode of consciousness he strives to induce in himself. To the [mystic], emotions are tools of cognition, and wishes take precedence over facts. He seeks to escape the risks of a quest for knowledge by obliterating the distinction between consciousness and reality, between the perceiver and the perceived, hoping that an automatic certainty and an infallible knowledge of the universe will be granted to him by the blind, unfocused stare of his eyes turned inward, contemplating the sensations, the feelings, the urgings, the muggy associational twistings projected by the rudderless mechanism of his undirected consciousness. Whatever his mechanism produces is an absolute not to be questioned; and whenever it clashes with reality, it is reality that he ignores.

Since the clash is constant, the [mystic’s] solution is to believe that what he perceives is another, “higher” reality—where his wishes are omnipotent, where contradictions are possible and A is non-A, where his assertions, which are false on earth, become true and acquire the status of a “superior” truth which he perceives by means of a special faculty denied to other, “inferior,” beings. The only validation of his consciousness he can obtain on earth is the belief and the obedience of others, when they accept his “truth” as superior to their own perception of reality."

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: February 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

We should probably try to break these down into smaller posts in the future. It's a bit clunky on both our parts.

No, no, I understood that you claimed...that you were making no claims to evidence. I doubted that this was actually the case, and it turns out that my doubts were well founded. Repeating your "leptons, quarks and bosons," line of reasoning will never lend it any more validity than the first time you decided to use it.

I'm not asking you to provide me with every detail of your cosmic mind, I'm trying to get some elaboration on just one, or a few parts of your proposal. You don't have to have complete knowledge, but I'd like to see some knowledge, otherwise I'm going to start wondering if there's anything behind the claims, or if they are new age buzzwords and platitudes (ever the risk...quantum this and that is all the rage now).

Scientists accept no such thing, just stop. If you continue along with this sort of bullshit I;m going to call you out on ever having been involved in science in any way shape or form. The universe came from "we don't know". That's the current position of science on the subject. This whole "something from nothing" bullshit is irritating. Where did your cosmic mind come from? Something or nothing?

How many times are you going to let the lepton sentence fall out of your mouth? The "leg-up", that secular explanations have is called evidence.

What does my imagination have to do with what does or does not exist Abra? Absolutely nothing, and neither does yours.

No, I'm not asking you to be close-minded. I'm asking you for evidence, valid and sound arguments, in short, reasons other than "because I can imagine it".

Age does not magically confer wisdom or access to truth. If you could competently explain it, it's entirely likely that I could fully comprehend it. Which is why I'm asking you to explain the proposition.

"Reasonable doubts" work in the courtroom, but I'm coming from truth claims made by scientific inquiry, where evidence, and not "reasonable doubt" is what's required. I'd settle for a good argument. I'd point out that an argument in and of itself does not determine what actually exists, but I do appreciate a well thought out argument.

What's unfair about asking your for evidence or arguments in support of your claims? If you know something I don't I want to know what it is.

Firstly, I'm not demanding anything, you can end this conversation at any point (as can I). I'm merely pointing out that you have made claims to evidence, and that the arguments you presented are, in each and every case so far, logical fallacies.

Yes, that was your claim, and if you are unable to elaborate upon that claim then how can you determine that it is true? How am I to determine whether or not you really do know something that I don't as an observer? I cannot read your mind.

NP, your reasons are vast, lets just pick one, stick to it, elaborate upon it, and we'll see where it takes us yes?

You're pulling the "I believe, I believe, I believe" bit right now. There still hasn't been any evidence, and you continue to repeat arguments that are invalid, belief is all that is left.

Agnostic, as in you believe, but do not know? See above.

"It cannot be ruled out" is not your only claim, not at all. Reread your own posts.

Sure, my computer "experiences" those thoughts as far as it's capacity allows (bits are physical, not spiritual, there is a very physical thing going on, which my computer monitors and expresses, which is exactly what we designed it to do). Sometimes language is ambiguous when you try to make comparisons between two things that are only very remotely related. The way a computer works and the way the human brain works are similar in effect (marginally) but vastly different in the specifics. Precisely why the cosmic mind does what, exactly?

Well, you should write that book then, everyone has at least one book in them. I'm not asking you to explain everything Abr, I'm asking you to explain something...anything.

If you think that explaining these things to me is a waste of time then you shouldn't attempt to explain them to me. I have no idea why you bother, again, I can't read minds.

What happens, or what you believe happens? You're basing this again off of no evidence correct? Why should I take any of this seriously? "Given enough thought" appears to mean "as long as you have very low standards of evidence and are willing to believe in magic". Is that another "eastern mystery"...the ability of a sentence to mean anything except what is written, or everything except that which you do not believe? Are these not claims by the way (as per your "only claim I'm making" comment)?

If you make a claim that you cannot support with evidence that runs counter to a claim which is supported by evidence, then yes, science is, in effect, "ruling out" the validity of your claim Abra. Truth claims are a put-up or shut-up game. As I've said, I'd accept a valid and sound argument as well. You said you had reasons to believe, that you were being reasonable, that this was philosphy, you've made the claim that much of this is "well established" in physics. Those are your own metric, now I'm asking you to meet the bar you set. If your only argument is "You cannot prove me wrong" then that is called "shifting the burden of proof", which does not meet the bar you set. Science is in a great position to rule out a great many things. Simply because you don't wish for it to be so does not make it so. If you make a falsifiable claim (which you have done, even though you probably haven't intended to) then you put yourself under the spotlight, you make yourself subject to science when you invoke science as support for a claim.

Science proposes or rules out this or that based on available evidence. Your definition of a god is obviously extremely permissive Abra.

Facepalm

Let me get this straight, you haven't offered any reason to believe in a single cosmic mind or god, and you just upped the ante to an entire civilization of gods and cosmic minds? Well, as much as I;d like to drive this entire conversation into the ground based on this and this alone...I'm going to pass it over. I'm perfectly content to be shown any evidence, or any reason, to believe in just one of these creatures. You've made quite a few claims about the "true nature" of god right here, in this very post. You have a philosophy comprised of logical fallacies, and again, you have invoked (bad)science in support of this philosophy.

So, all of chemistry and physics are on auto-pilot......care to list whats left? If you can't give me a concrete list then why did you even bring it up? Do me a favor in the future, if you distinguish between things like whats on auto-pilot and what isn't..avoid making the claim that some things are on auto-pilot and some things aren't, because you obviously have no fucking clue which is which. So goddamned irritating. Make a claim..retreat from that claim....please don't do this again or you'll find our discussion less than pleasant, and less than serious.

Care to elaborate upon free will, or demonstrate that it exists? I can clear up any misconceptions you have about magic's reach if you'd like. Exactly nothing, no such thing.

Computers would never have evolved (and never did evolve...strange sentence structure) because they are not objects subject to evolution. I don't know exactly what you think this means, but it's more than likely that you aren't entirely sure of what evolution is or what it can and can't do/how computers work if you're referencing a computer........We can "control" evolution insomuch as we can become the selective force, sure. That's how we ended up with domesticated animals and agricultural crops.

A conscious mind, in and of itself, doesn't appear to have the ability to "control" any part of the universe whatsoever. Which explains exactly why people jump on the word "magic".

Who am I to say that the universe is not designed? A person who is considering the evidence available against the definition of the word designed, and determining that we have no evidence for any design or designer...that's who. Do you have anything to add? Any scientist who claims that the universe was not designed is merely making a statement of fact with respect to all available evidence.....do you have anything to add? If you designed the dice, and carved the 4 on one of it's faces, then yes, you designed the 4....... That's it, I'm calling massive bullshit, you haven't been honest with me, I'm not having a conversation with a person who understands science in the very least. You're an apologist. No different than the christians you're criticizing in this very post. Your predetermined design is exactly equivalent to the christian ID concept.

I think that I'm done with this conversation, which is dissappointing, because I was reading your response and replying point by point and then I see this garbage? Well, good luck with your beliefs, good luck with your claims that arent claims, and your evidence that isn't evidence. What a joke.

If you'd ever like to reengage in this conversation, bring something other than one giant argument from ignorance.

Abracadabra · (This post was last modified: February 10, 2012 at 8:08 pm by Abracadabra.)

With all due respect to everyone, I'm bowing out of these absurdly long discussions on this topic. Because they are indeed getting out of hand, and they aren't productive. I'm going to seriously take the stance expressed by my new signature line, even though it represents pseudo comedy.

I will address a couple points very quickly, not intended as an 'argument' but just to reply to thoughts that were posed:

(February 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: Can you imagine a structure without consciousness? And once again, structure is not the same as information unless there is a consciousness to perceive it.

If you are asking me if I can imagine a structure that exists and no conscious mind is aware if it then no I can't.
What sense would it even made to proclaim that such a state of affairs could exist?
If no one is around to perceive it, then how could it ever be proven to exist?
What would it even mean for it to exist in that case?
So no, I personally cannot imagine a structure that exists without consciousness.
In fact, since such a thought itself would require my imagination to create it, that pretty much seals the deal for me.

(February 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: I think the following excerpt describes your philosophy accurately.

"What is mysticism? Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”

I simply disagree.
You've included terms such as non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge.
That doesn't fit with many of my descriptions.
They can be thought of rationally in terms of what is known thus "non-rational" cannot be applied.
Neither can non-definable, or non-identifiable. All that can be applied is "non-testable" in terms of scientific experiment. But all these other terms you are using do not automatically follow from that.
Just because a hypothesis is untestable does not mean that it is non-rational, non-definable, or non-identifiable.
In fact, there are a lot of things in String Theory are not testable,
that doesn't automatically make them non-rational, non-definable, or non-identifiable.
You are assuming way too much, and simply attempting to push your erroneous assumptions onto my ideas without merit.

(February 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.

Nonsense.
Perception of "reality"? What do you even mean by that?
That very statement right there demands that all of "reality" must necessarily be "perceivable".
Also "perceivable" to whom? And when?'
Scientists themselves are proposing hidden dimensions of space that are not currently perceivable and may never be.
They are also proposing the existence of strings that are not perceivable and may never be.
They are proposing multiple universes that are not perceivable and may never be.
In fact, Inflation theory predicts that such multiple universes must exist.
You demand that I consider only that which can currently be perceived when scientists don't adhere to those restrictions?
Why should my philosophies be any more restricted than modern scientific theories.
So why should I care about your personal restrictions when clearly scientists don't even adhere to those restrictions?

As far as I'm concerned the definition I gave for atheist in my sig line fits you to a "T".
No disrespect intended, but that sure seems to be your position on things.
So wasting time arguing with your is totally fruitless and useless.
We're not getting anywhere. You're just determined to argue endless at all cost.
My philosophy cannot be ruled out by current scientific knowledge.
And you haven't shown otherwise.

I've also pissed away your epistemological argument because I don't restrict "reality" in the same way you do.
Your epistemological argument simply doesn't apply to my philosophy.
Your axioms concerning "physical reality" are far too restrictive.

So to continue to converse with you would be a waste of time.
You refuse to back down from your unrealistic demands that even modern scientists don't bother adhering to.

I have no reason to be interested in your restrictions.
Like my sig line says, you're just exhibiting highly restricted creativity and imagination.
Even scientists don't do that.
I'm not going there either.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Where did your cosmic mind come from? Something or nothing?

I have no clue.

Neither am I arguing that a cosmic mind existing make any more sense than a universe popping into existence out of nothing.
I'm not suggesting that one of these idea necessarily has a "leg-up" on the other one from any "logical" point of view.
They are both equally absurd, IMHO.
I'm ultimately agnostic and confess that either of these two situations may very well be true. Either one of them.
I can't personally rule out either one of them.
And that's my whole point.

Now I just said that neither one has a 'leg-up' on the other, but that's not exactly true.
That's only true when asking the question from the point of creation (how did it all begin)
But I hold that if we take a look at the other end of the rainbow the cosmic mind appears (to me) to have a leg-up.

How so?
Well, I've already explained that several times.
To me a cosmic mind makes more "sense" than an emergent property when it comes to having an "Experience".
For me, that gives the "Cosmic Mind" philosophy a "leg-up".

I'll grant you it's a very weak leg.
It probably has knobby knees and hairy calves.
It's not a super-fine leg wearing sheer black stockings ending in spiked high-heels.
But it's a leg-up none the less.

(ha ha)

That's probably one of the single most powerful things I can point to from my perspective.
I just have a real problem with the "emergent property" speculation.
A deeper spiritual answer just makes more sense to me.

And I can't rule it out.

That's all I'm saying.

Hey, if my theory ever evolves to the point where the 'leg-up' is wearing sheer black lace hose and high-heels, I'll take it to the scientific community and see what they think of it.

That's all I know to tell you.

In the meantime, I really don't have time to continue these in-depth conversations. They are starting to "bite" into my real life.

So thank you very much for the conversation to this point, and I wish you the best farming ever! Wink

genkaus · February 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: With all due respect to everyone, I'm bowing out of these absurdly long discussions on this topic. Because they are indeed getting out of hand, and they aren't productive. I'm going to seriously take the stance expressed by my new signature line, even though it represents pseudo comedy.

You just need to talk less.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If you are asking me if I can imagine a structure that exists and no conscious mind is aware if it then no I can't.

Actually, I was asking if you can imagine a structure that exists without itself being conscious.

Actually, I was asking if you can imagine a structure that exists without itself being conscious.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: What sense would it even made to proclaim that such a state of affairs could exist?

The sense would be to show you that existence of objects is not dependent upon anyone's awareness of it.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: If no one is around to perceive it, then how could it ever be proven to exist?

That wouldn't affect its state of existence.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: What would it even mean for it to exist in that case?

It would mean that existence is independent of consciousness.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So no, I personally cannot imagine a structure that exists without consciousness.

And that is your failure in comprehending the role of consciousness with respect to existence.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, since such a thought itself would require my imagination to create it, that pretty much seals the deal for me.

The existence of the structure itself does not depend upon your imagination.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I simply disagree.
You've included terms such as non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge.

You do realize that the word "excerpt" means that they are not my original words.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That doesn't fit with many of my descriptions.
They can be thought of rationally in terms of what is known thus "non-rational" cannot be applied.

The very concepts you propose fly in the face of rationality. Consciousness independent of phenomenal world? Something that is possible and impossible at once? Consciousness being pure consciousness and dependent on a structure at the same time? All this goes against everything we know rationally.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Neither can non-definable, or non-identifiable.

Did you or did you not say that mystics cannot claim to know anything or identify anything about the nature of spiritual reality?

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: All that can be applied is "non-testable" in terms of scientific experiment. But all these other terms you are using do not automatically follow from that.

They don't follow, they precede that. How would you test something that has not been defined, identified or is in fact rational.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Just because a hypothesis is untestable does not mean that it is non-rational, non-definable, or non-identifiable.

No, but a hypothesis about something that is non-rational, non-definable and non-identifiable is automatically non-testable.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, there are a lot of things in String Theory are not testable,
that doesn't automatically make them non-rational, non-definable, or non-identifiable.

That's because it would be the other way around.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You are assuming way too much, and simply attempting to push your erroneous assumptions onto my ideas without merit.

If the shoe fits...

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Nonsense.
Perception of "reality"? What do you even mean by that?

It means that reason can only be applied once reality is perceived.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That very statement right there demands that all of "reality" must necessarily be "perceivable".

No, it doesn't demand anything of reality, but sets limits upon reason.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Also "perceivable" to whom? And when?'

To those who have the tools of perception, when they have them.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Scientists themselves are proposing hidden dimensions of space that are not currently perceivable and may never be.
They are also proposing the existence of strings that are not perceivable and may never be.
They are proposing multiple universes that are not perceivable and may never be.

But they are not imperceptible and therefore not beyond the scope of reason.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: In fact, Inflation theory predicts that such multiple universes must exist.

They very well may, since their existence is itself independent of anyone's perception.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You demand that I consider only that which can currently be perceived when scientists don't adhere to those restrictions?

No. Just don't present concepts about things that cannot be perceived and goes contrary to everything that can be as something rational

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Why should my philosophies be any more restricted than modern scientific theories.

They should be based on reality, not flights of fancy.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So why should I care about your personal restrictions when clearly scientists don't even adhere to those restrictions?

Scientists restrict themselves to reality. As should you.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: As far as I'm concerned the definition I gave for atheist in my sig line fits you to a "T".

That's about as much a fact as your definition of a wiccan.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: No disrespect intended, but that sure seems to be your position on things.

No. All mysteries have not been ruled out. Just the crap regarding magic and spirits.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So wasting time arguing with your is totally fruitless and useless.
We're not getting anywhere.

I agree. Especially since you don't even bother to read the arguments and reply to what you imagined I said.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You're just determined to argue endless at all cost.

And you are just determined not to think rationally.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: My philosophy cannot be ruled out by current scientific knowledge.
And you haven't shown otherwise.

I have. You just refuse to see it.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I've also pissed away your epistemological argument because I don't restrict "reality" in the same way you do.

No, you apply any attributes to it that your imagination bestows.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Your epistemological argument simply doesn't apply to my philosophy.

I agree. My epistemological arguments apply to actual reality, not your imaginary one.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Your axioms concerning "physical reality" are far too restrictive.

No. These axioms are applicable to non-physical reality as well. Non-physical does not automatically mean spiritual.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So to continue to converse with you would be a waste of time.
You refuse to back down from your unrealistic demands that even modern scientists don't bother adhering to.

Its interesting when demands based on reality are considered unrealistic. And modern scientists adhere quite faithfully to the constraints set by reality.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I have no reason to be interested in your restrictions.

That's because you don't think you are restricted by reality. You are.

(February 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Like my sig line says, you're just exhibiting highly restricted creativity and imagination.
Even scientists don't do that.
I'm not going there either.

What you don't understand is imagination and creativity are not tools for imposing your desires on reality.

~~Cosmic Ape~~ · February 10, 2012 at 9:30 pm

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: What argument of science are you talking about?
Where has science ever proclaimed that there cannot be a spiritual essence to reality?
I've been in the sciences all my life and I have never heard of any such scientific argument.

If we cant test it and its theoretical then its superfluous to understanding reality. The spiritual bullshit goes in the same category as god bullshit, unprovable garbage thats not demonsterable to reality.

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: Of course they don't. That's not what science is about.
Neither am I claiming that anyone should do that.
I'm not asking anyone to conclude that reality 'must be spiritual'.
All I do is reject the lies that atheists spread who claim that a spiritual essence of reality as been RULED OUT.

Why should anyone believe they are special and get a special afterlife when they die, thats the pretentious attitude that I hate. You're a fucking monkey and youre trying to cling to any sense of self worth you can, I know what its like, but I havn't wanted any of that spiritual afterlife nonsense to be true since I grew up and cared about what was true...I wont rule it out when you prove its existence, and since you cant and people more intelligent cant either, its still on the chopping block as supernatural hogwash.

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That my friend is utter bull shit.
It's a street myth that is gaining increasing popularity because it is being wrongfully supported by atheists that science has ruled out any possibility of a spiritual essence or foundation of reality.

Whats utter bullshit is postulating such garbage based on only personal opinions and assertion of importance. As if you deserve an afterlife but the pigs and fish can go fuck themselves, they rot in the ground, unlike us awesome apes. Or do you deny you're an ape too? And sorry the only "street myths" are the shit people like you peddle, and I'm glad you say its gaining popularity. Youre basically saying being a rational critical thinker is going in style which is great. But since a lot of people are superstitious, supernatural, bigots I still think our species has a long way to go in Evolution.

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: The real truth is that science has no clue what the "Foundation" of reality might even remotely be.

We can base whats real with the Scientific method. Again, fractally wrong, and this time you dumbed it down worse than before. At this point you are starting to just sound like a theist anyway, you might as well be with this superfluous spiritual nonsense you cant prove with the scientific method.

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: That is indeed the TRUTH, my friend.

Again you assert shit that isn't truth and cant be proven. Next...

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: It's an OPEN QUESTION.

What can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Do I p

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: ersonally favor a spiritual explanation? Yes.

Then you've shown you're biased and dont care about whats actually true.

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But that's a totally different thing. That just my own personal leanings. I'm not asking anyone else to believe like me.

No its not, reality is the thing that doesnt go away no matter how hard you want it go away

(February 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: But don't tell me that a spiritual reality has been RULED OUT because that bull shit.

I cant rule anything out 100% no, but anything seen as nonsense and cant be proven goes back in the pile with fairies and xenu.

Abracadabra · February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm

(February 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm)genkaus Wrote: Actually, I was asking if you can imagine a structure that exists without itself being conscious.

I fully understand what you were asking. Clearly you simply aren't capable of comprehending my answer. And that comes as no surprise to me.

You are thinking reductionistically like Western philosophers.

I am thinking holistically like Eastern philosophers.

No, I cannot imagine any structure existing without some consciousness being involved. That very notion makes no sense at all. If there is no awareness that such a structure exists, then what sense does it even make to speak about it existing?

In fact, this is a basic premise of Eastern Mysticism.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm)genkaus Wrote: What you don't understand is imagination and creativity are not tools for imposing your desires on reality.

What you don't understand is that your arrogant beliefs are never going to be imposed upon me.

I've already pissed away your epistemological argument and demonstrated that your limited premises and axioms don't even apply to my philosophy.

And according to you, that was your strongest argument.

So we're done.

You're assertion that I must accept your epistemological primacy of existence axiom failed.

I'm not interested in listening to your secondary arguments as you try frantically to grasp at straws to come up with something better.

genkaus · February 10, 2012 at 10:25 pm

(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: You are thinking reductionistically like Western philosophers.

I am thinking holistically like Eastern philosophers.

No, I cannot imagine any structure existing without some consciousness being involved. That very notion makes no sense at all. If there is no awareness that such a structure exists, then what sense does it even make to speak about it existing?

In fact, this is a basic premise of Eastern Mysticism.

Yes, that is the basic false premise of eastern mysticism. Speaking about their existence is irrelevant. Awareness about the existence is irrelevant. If existence depended on consciousness, then we'd be living in chaotic and arbitrary world of miracles as described in holy books, not in the rational and ordered world we currently live in.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: What you don't understand is that your arrogant beliefs are never going to be imposed upon me.

Because you continue to evade reality.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I've already pissed away your epistemological argument

Yes, you have been pissing quite a lot.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: and demonstrated that your limited premises and axioms don't even apply to my philosophy.

Yes, they are applicable to philosophy of the real world, not imaginary one.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And according to you, that was your strongest argument.

Nope, the argument was not mine.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So we're done.

You're assertion that I must accept your epistemological primacy of existence axiom failed.

Only if you are to be rational. Which you have demonstrated you have no interest in being. As I notice, you have not replied to any arguments talking about how primacy of existence would still be applicable to your imaginary spirit world. You simply chose to ignore them.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm not interested in listening to your secondary arguments as you try frantically to grasp at straws to come up with something better.

That's because you are not interested in reality.

Abracadabra · (This post was last modified: February 10, 2012 at 11:25 pm by Abracadabra.)

(February 10, 2012 at 10:25 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So we're done.

You're assertion that I must accept your epistemological primacy of existence axiom failed.

Only if you are to be rational. Which you have demonstrated you have no interest in being. As I notice, you have not replied to any arguments talking about how primacy of existence would still be applicable to your imaginary spirit world. You simply chose to ignore them.

I didn't see any arguments along those lines.

Your original axiom didn't hold because you were not acknowledging a larger scope of structure beyond what is detectable in terms of the physics of spacetime.

I'm considering a far larger structure which is perfectly compatible with axioms and postulates accepted and proposed by many scientific theories.

You are also taking a western reductionistic stance that structure and consciousness can be treated as two entirely separate and independent things.

I'm taking the eastern holistic view that western reductionism makes no sense. If a structure is not capable of "experience" and it suddenly become 'conscious' then what is it that is having an "experience"? The structure?

No it can't be. You've already reductionistically decided that the structure itself is not capable of experiencing anything. Yet now you are going to claim that some "abstract property emerged" from this structure due to the complexity of the structure and it is this "abstract property" that is having an experience.

I personally don't buy into that.

The Eastern picture that is must be the structure itself that is having the experience makes more sense to me. Especially within the philosophical picture that this structure is ultimately the mysterious entity that we refer to as "God".

It may not make sense to you. And that's fine.

But it's my position that you totally out of line if you believe that it can be ruled out by current knowledge.

It's that simple.

In fact, your reason to rule it out isn't any different from my reason for ruling it in.

You're saying that since we have no obvious reason to rule it in, we must rule it out.

I'm saying that since we have no obvious reason to rule it out, we must at least keep an open mind to the possibility that it might actually be true.

Personally I think my position is more sensible than yours. Tongue

(February 10, 2012 at 10:25 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(February 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I'm not interested in listening to your secondary arguments as you try frantically to grasp at straws to come up with something better.

That's because you are not interested in reality.

Sure I am.

I'm just not interested in your pompous attitude that if I don't accept your bull shit I'm being unreasonable.

That's simply hogwash.

I'm not telling you that you have to accept my philosophy, or that you must rule your philosophy out.

But you most certainly are taking such an outrageously arrogant position.

And that is arrogant on your part.

You have no sound argument to force your axioms down my throat.

Yet that is precisely what you are attempting to do.

And you're actingly like as if I'm stupid because I refuse to eat your shit.

Forget it Genkaus.

If you don't think my philosophy is sound. Fine. Reject it for yourself.

But don't try to ram your views down my throat under the false pretense that if I don't eat your shit, I must be stupid.

I simply won't stand for it.

That's childish arrogance.

Take it somewhere else.

Like Rythmn pointed out, let's not get into the "Goalpost Moving" games just to try to appear to win arguments on a public forum.

Your original assertion was that I must accept your epistemological axiom of a primacy of existence based on your argument that physics = reality.

I showed where your very notion of "physics" is limited and does not embrace all that is known by science. Thus it does not apply to my philosophy.

You lose.

It's over.

You're assertion that I must accept your axioms did not hold.

In fact, that's a silly thing to do in philosophy anyway. Axioms are always unprovable speculation to begin with. You should have known better than to even go there.

~~~

And where are you headed now?

It looks like your going to start arguing that western reductionism is a more sound philosophical foundation than eastern holism. That's a whole different conversation that I'm not the slightest bit interested in arguing about. Start a thread on that topic if you like. But don't expect to see me there because quite frankly I'm not interested in debating that.

I'm happy with my philosophical views and I have no need to justify them to anyone. I continue to ponder them and refine them.

Plus I truly am agnostic. I'm also considering the possibility of a pure secular reality as well.

All I'm saying is that IMHO, right now the Eastern Philosophy appears to me to have a 'leg up' on western philosophy.

That's just my current leanings. That could change. It's just my current view right now.

I've already considered the things you've mentioned and there's no substance to them. They make far too many limited assumptions that I'm not prepared to accept. Like spacetime = the totality of reality.

I don't accept that limited view. And neither do scientists actually.

(February 10, 2012 at 9:30 pm)Cosmic Ape Wrote: I cant rule anything out 100% no, but anything seen as nonsense and cant be proven goes back in the pile with fairies and xenu.

I totally agree Cosmic Ape.

But that wasn't how these conversations got started.

All I did was state that I'm OPEN-MINDED to the possibility of a spiritual essence to life.

I got jumped on by people who were claiming that spirituality as been RULED OUT!

So I argued that to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in modern science that currently rules out a spiritual philosophy that I can construct.

Does that mean that everyone should jump at my philosophy and say, "Hey it must then be true!"

No of course not.

But it does mean that they have no right to demand that it's been "Ruled Out"

And that's all I've been arguing against the whole time.

Are we nothing more than highly evolved Apes?

I most certainly do believe that's precisely what we are!

I absolutely accept that without a problem. There is nothing 'special' about a human being. And my philosophy doesn't require that there needs to be.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Human Freedom	Ignorant	60	4891	April 15, 2016 at 7:27 pm Last Post: Ignorant
	Problem of Divine Freedom	MindForgedManacle	57	9635	April 21, 2014 at 3:27 pm Last Post: Tonus
	Denial of freedom	dazzn	100	39594	June 5, 2013 at 4:00 pm Last Post: Violet