Freedom of Religion

[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:

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.

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.

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.

---

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!