Freedom of Religion

[genkaus]

I didn't see any arguments along those lines.

Because you didn't look.

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.

No, the axiom applies even to the structure beyond spacetime.

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

The "primacy of existence" being one of them, which your structure is incompatible with.

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?

The eastern holistic view relies on "primacy of consciousness". The structure does become conscious. It is the structure that has the experience. But only when it has a specific shape and nature. Not every structure in existence is conscious or can undergo experience.

The structure and consciousness cannot be treated as two separate things. Consciousness is the emergent property of a specific structure - it cannot be separated or exist independently from it. That does not mean that any arbitrary structure would also be conscious.

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.

The structure is having experience. The mechanism through which it is having experience can be abstractly referred to as consciousness. Not every structure is capable of having experience -only those of specific form and nature.

I personally don't buy into that.

The truth is not for you to buy into.

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".

What the picture is missing is that it requires a very specific structure that is capable of having experience.

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

Can and has. The irrational simply refuse to see it.

It's that simple.

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

My reason isn't my imagination or "not wanting it to be true". Yours is. They are fundamentally different.

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

No, I'm saying that we have an obvious reason to rule it out - that a structure can exist without being conscious but consciousness cannot exist without a structure.

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.

And since we do, we need not entertain the notion.

Personally I think my position is more sensible than yours.

A position based on senselessness cannot be sensible.

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.

Like I said - not interested in reality.

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

No, you are telling me that a philosophy based on imagination and wishful thinking is as rational and valid as the one based on reality. That is unacceptable.

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.

Other than the fact that you could not provide any argument as to why those axioms won't be applicable to your spiritual world.

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.

Reality can be a bit tough to swallow.

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

I have. Long before you came into picture.

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.

Its the other way around. Its because you are 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.

No, my original argument was that whatever the nature of reality, the existence within it must hold primacy over any consciousness. You haven't been able to show that this could be false in any situation.

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.

And I showed you that I've never used the argument from physics.

You lose.

It's over.

In your dreams. But then, to you, that is reality.

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

True. You must accept them only if you are rational.

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.

Ofcourse they are. Which is why I never attempted to prove them. all that I showed was that whatever knowledge you are claiming, that axiom lies on the basis of it. But you are not claiming any knowledge, you are claiming imagination.

And where are you headed now?

I'm not going anywhere.

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.

No, its not. The western reductionism argues that existence and consciousness are separate and can exist independently of each other. The eastern holism (atleast according to you) argues that neither can exist independently of the other and therefore every structure must be conscious. They are both wrong.

I'm arguing that structure can exist without consciousness and not vice-versa.

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.

You continue to make the irrational even more so?

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

Agnosticism - claiming pride in not knowing anything.

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

Right. Which one of the two false philosophies is more true?

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.

Ignoring reality in favor of imagination.
Ignoring what I've said in favor of what you think I've said.
Ignoring what science says in favor of what you want science to say.

I'm sensing a pattern here.