Freedom of Religion

[genkaus]

If only spells or magic ever produced an effect to judge...ergo. falsifiable. These things claim to have effects which cannot be produced Genk. Are you arguing for magic without any effects, or spirits without any relationship to the subject? That's not what magic and spirits are (or how they have ever been described).

---

When someone says "I can make things happen by pyschic powers", we don't need to get into a lengthy argument about whether or not it's philosophically or logically possible, we can just say "Yeah? Show me." Which they can't, and haven't. This is what gives us that provisional certainty that scientific inquiry bestows upon things like magic. Of course, anyone is free to demonstrate the effects of magic at any time and that would force us to completely reverse our determination of "nonsense"..wouldn't it? It isn't nonsense because we have an argument against it, it's nonsense because they have no evidence for it, and all evidence we have leads us to the conclusion that it is not possible (unless we're horribly, fundamentally wrong in many areas).

Actually, I've never heard them make any claim without a caveat. They usually add something else in the end such as "as long as the spirits are willing" or "as long as the negative energy is not blocking my powers".

[The Grand Nudger]

That's fine, that caveat does not make the claim unfalsifible. We can have them keep trying until either A: the spirits are willing and negative energy is not blocking their powers, or B: it becomes painfully clear that their claims were unfounded. Either they can, at some point, do what they said they could do or they cannot. Which is exactly what we did. We might also ask them to elaborate upon or demonstrate spirits, or negative energies. To propose a mechanism by which their magic works. A position does not become unfalsifiable simply because the proponent has attempted to design it as such.

[Abracadabra]

NOTE: Anyone interested in a summary of this post may skip directly to "The Bottom Line" at the very end of the post. Thank you.

---

You're totally assuming to have complete and absolute knowledge of what the nature of any "Spiritual World" must be like.

No, I'm not. Read the first argument again and compare it to the case where this is the real world and every human has a dream world.

Every time you dream, you perceptual capacity is limited to what your perceptual capacity in the real world happens to be. For example, if someone has been blind from birth, he'd not be able to see in dreams either. This does not mean that the dreamer has absolute or complete knowledge of the real world just because his perceptual capacities are copied from it.

---

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.

---

In other words you're limiting it to only one of two possiblities. It's either "physical" in some sense, or it must be pure consciousness without any physics associated with it at all.

Those are the only two possibilities. Either it is physical or it is non-physical. These possibilities are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

---

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"?
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.

---

I'm not claiming that a "Spiritual World" must necessarily be "non-physical" in the sense of having absolutely no structure of any kind whatsoever. That wouldn't make any sense to me either.

So you can rule out #2 altogether as being nonsensical. I'm all for that.

Fine, so we can eliminate #2 completely.

---

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.

---

If there exists a "Spiritual" essence to reality, then it must have some type of 'structure'. Otherwise what sense would it even make to say that it "exists"?

The missing point here is that the structure itself be independent of the spiritual essence.

---

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.

---

You say,"Which means, there is a waking world which is independent of our consciousness".

Why? Why does it need to be independent of our consciousness?
That's a totally arbitrary demand on your part.
If there is a spirit world, the structure of that world and the consciousness of that world may indeed be totally inseparable.
It just is what it is.

Either the structure is independent of consciousness or it is dependent upon consciousness. There are no other options.

---

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.

---

If it is dependent on consciousness, it cannot exist without consciousness. Thus, if consciousness is required to have a structure, then consciousness cannot depend on it and therefore can exist without the structure. This contradicts the accepted premise that consciousness cannot exist without the structure. Therefore, the premise of this line of thought - that the structure is dependent upon the consciousness - is wrong. The only option left is that the structure is independent of consciousness.

---

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.

---

And that entity (whatever it is) is precisely what we are calling "God".
That is more along the lines of how I imagine things to be.
You seem to be taking the stance that it must be one or the other, but that it can't be a interdependent combination of both.

I ask you, "Why can't it be both?"

What's your argument of why it can't be both?

Both, as in, consciousness is dependent upon the reality and the reality is dependent upon the consciousness?

---

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'

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.

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"

---

In this case, we need something different than both to explain their existence. Since neither can give rise to the other, these two things must have been caused by another thing, something that cannot be classified either as consciousness or as existence. Something that is neither neither spiritual, nor material, neither conscious, nor unconscious, neither an existent nor a non-existent. Do you see how ridiculous this proposition is?

---

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 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.

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?

---

Further, even if this were the case and consciousness and existence are by their nature inseparable, then consciousness would be able to alter existence in any manner possible. This still would rule out the possibility of an objective existence independent of consciousness which is the basic premise of the scientific method. In which case, the entire body of knowledge according to science would automatically be unreliable.

---

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.

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.

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.

That is the mystical view.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

---

My fundamental philosophy is that "spirit" (whatever spirit might be) does indeed have structure.
In other words, it's "physical" in some sense. Perhaps not in the sense of spacetime physics.
As far as I'm concerned the cosmic mind (i.e. spirit) can exist in the ocean of quantum fields somehow.
It gives rise to all of spacetime, and we are it.
Everything we are is it.
Our bodies.
Our minds.
Our conscousness.

And that is fundamentally wrong. If there is something like a "spirit" to reality, then
1. It is the consequence of a particular structure arising within reality.
2. It has a physical aspect which is within the realm of science and testing.
3. It cannot, without any intervening physical agency, alter the reality.

Therefore, it cannot be considered the ultimate cause of anything and certainly not everything.

Tat t'vam asi, - We are it.

That's the idea.

You're claiming to be able to rule that idea out?

---

You do realize that the concept of Tat t'vam asi relies upon the primacy of consciousness?

In the lines preceding the statement, it is argued that if you take away the framework surrounding the consciousness piece by piece, then all you are left with is pure consciousness. That pure consciousness is what is called the Brahman (divine soul) and one of its manifestations is the Atman (human soul). It argues that consciousness can and does exist without a structure - something we have agreed is not possible.[/hide]

No, that's false. It does not argue that consciousness can and does exist without structure. Where did you ever get that idea?
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.

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.

---

I don't see where your epistemological argument ruled anything out.
Your argument is built upon totally arbitrary premises and axioms that you totally made up.
(i.e. reality is either pure consciousness, or pure form) but it can't be both.
Why can't it be both?

Because it being both would require a cause that is neither conscious nor real. 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. Nothing arbitrary about it.

---

Now you're talking about a 'cause'.
In other words, even though you claim to be working in "epistemology" you're still assuming "cause and effect".
That very concept is basically a scientific observation of how spacetime appears to work.
And I've already brought up concerns about the very nature of time as well.
We can't even be sure that time exists in terms of 'cause and effect' at all.
For all we know, all that exists is some sort of mysterious "now".
So to even speak about a 'cause' is presumptuous.

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?
Well, it must be the structure that is having this experience. So you're right back to square one again.
It's necessarily a circular situation no matter how much you try to reduce it or create an imagined dichotomy.
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.

---

Who are you to demand how God must be limited.

One who has decided to look at reality to gain knowledge about reality.

---

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?

---

Well I finally did address Genkaus' epistemology. I misunderstood precisely where he was coming from the first time, but in the end it didn't make much difference, his argument still didn't stand.

Look again.

---

I just did, and nothing has changed. You're still making the same erroneous unsupportable assumptions you made the first time I looked.

---

In fact, Genkaus seems to think that I haven't thought through my philosophies very much or something. But I've already considered the kinds of objections that he's been raising. In fact, it's extremely rare to find anyone who can offer an idea that I haven't already considered before. Life is almost becoming boring because of this.

Well, you could try to argue it out in the realm of philosophy, or you could just attempt to "cast a spell" in a controlled experiment...... Science just may have something resembling a clue as to what's "going on".

That still wouldn't work, since the hypothesis of "spirits using spells" is inherently unfalsifiable. The validity of the experiment relies on the fact that something like spells cannot affect the results.

---

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bottom Line:

You Genkaus, are demanding that you can rule out my model of spirituality based on restrictions of your limited model. Talk about ridiculous?

We simply aren't considering the same philosophical picture at all.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Called it didn't I..lol.

[Abracadabra]

If only spells or magic ever produced an effect to judge...ergo. falsifiable. These things claim to have effects which cannot be produced Genk. Are you arguing for magic without any effects, or spirits without any relationship to the subject? That's not what magic and spirits are (or how they have ever been described).

---

When someone says "I can make things happen by pyschic powers", we don't need to get into a lengthy argument about whether or not it's philosophically or logically possible, we can just say "Yeah? Show me." Which they can't, and haven't. This is what gives us that provisional certainty that scientific inquiry bestows upon things like magic. Of course, anyone is free to demonstrate the effects of magic at any time and that would force us to completely reverse our determination of "nonsense"..wouldn't it? It isn't nonsense because we have an argument against it, it's nonsense because they have no evidence for it, and all evidence we have leads us to the conclusion that it is not possible (unless we're horribly, fundamentally wrong in many areas).

I agree Rythmn, there would be no need for any lengthy arguments in such cases.

But that wasn't what was going on between me and Genkaus.

Genkaus was proclaiming to have philosophically 'ruled out' any spiritual philosophy using epistemology.
So the arguments given in return address those philosophical and epistemological claims.

It really has nothing to do with "magic" at all.

Hell's bells 'magic' is already proven. The universe exists.
If that's not the greatest magic show ever I don't know what is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hell's bells 'magic' is already proven. The universe exists.
If that's not the greatest magic show ever I don't know what is.

Clearly.....

[Cosmic Ape]

Hell's bells 'magic' is already proven. The universe exists.
If that's not the greatest magic show ever I don't know what is.

You're fractally wrong...Magic is proven huh? so tell me what scientific theory or law that's called...

Physics and Chemistry is what makes up the Universe. That's it.

[Abracadabra]

Hell's bells 'magic' is already proven. The universe exists.
If that's not the greatest magic show ever I don't know what is.

You're fractally wrong...Magic is proven huh? so tell me what scientific theory or law that's called...

Physics and Chemistry is what makes up the Universe. That's it.

And where did all that physics and chemistry come from?

A rabbit's hat?

No magic required huh?

Yeah right.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, Abra, no magic required. Which is good, since we can't find any magic anywhere we look. In other words, if our universe did depend on magic we'd be fairly well screwed. I think you're using the word "magic" when another word would better describe the concept you're trying to communicate. Clearly, your magic isn't magical (at least in your mind...and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.....lol)

[Abracadabra]