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.

[Abracadabra]

I'm not going anywhere.

Ok, let's just agree to disagree then.

I was willing to that from the get go.

[genkaus]

I'm not going anywhere.

Ok, let's just agree to disagree then.

I was willing to that from the get go.

For "agreeing to disagree" to be a valid conclusion, this would have to be a matter opinion, not facts. Its not a matter of opinion.

[Abracadabra]

I'm not going anywhere.

Ok, let's just agree to disagree then.

I was willing to that from the get go.

For "agreeing to disagree" to be a valid conclusion, this would have to be a matter opinion, not facts. Its not a matter of opinion.

See, there you go again Genkaus, arrogantly trying to ram your opinions down my throat as though they are facts that cannot be denied.

It's simply not true that science has totally ruled out a spiritual essence to reality. If you believe that fine. But just because you've convinced yourself of it doesn't make it a fact.

I'll believe it when the scientific community publishes it. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that such a finding would make world news headlines.

In the meantime, you're just another person who has an opinion. Albeit a very strong one evidently.

[The Grand Nudger]

Science has made headlines, consistently, as it swept away claims of the supernatural.

[genkaus]

See, there you go again Genkaus, arrogantly trying to ram your opinions down my throat as though they are facts that cannot be denied.

It's simply not true that science has totally ruled out a spiritual essence to reality. If you believe that fine. But just because you've convinced yourself of it doesn't make it a fact.

I'll believe it when the scientific community publishes it. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that such a finding would make world news headlines.

In the meantime, you're just another person who has an opinion. Albeit a very strong one evidently.

I'm not trying to ram anything. You can stay in denial of reality as much as you like, but don't expect my sanction that yours is a valid opinion.

You're wrong. That's all there is to it.

Besides, science has not and cannot prove the "primacy of consciousness" as much as it cannot prove law of identity. Both of these are still presupposed truths for scientific inquiry to be valid.

[Abracadabra]

Besides, science has not and cannot prove the "primacy of consciousness" as much as it cannot prove law of identity. Both of these are still presupposed truths for scientific inquiry to be valid.

Ok, I apologize for proclaiming that you are arrogantly trying to shove your opinions onto me. I confess that this was overly-presumptuous on my part in the first place. Obviously you just aren't understanding where I'm coming from. That's all.

Based on your quote above, you stated, "Both of these are still presupposed truths for scientific inquiry to be valid."

Sure, these are both presupposed "truths" for scientific inquire to be valid.

But that doesn't mean anything.

First off, scientific inquiry may not be valid with respect to the true nature of reality. Maybe what we believe we see before our eyes is actually an illusion (or there is far more to it than we see). There are many philosophies that suggest the former (that it doesn't need to preexist)

There are valid philosophies that suggest that the "Big Bang" didn't created us, but rather we created the "Big Bang" precisely due to our belief in scientific methods. In other words, there are philosophers that suggest that we create the universe from within. We create 'science' (and construct an entire physical world via explanations) as we imagine to explain it.

After all, if their premise is that we are imagining the physical world, then it automatically follows that we are actually constructing it as we go.

I'm not necessarily supporting these types of philosophies, but clearly they exist, and they cannot themselves be ruled out.

Secondly, even if I accept a physical structure "out there" that is the fabric of spacetime, (which I actually do accept), that doesn't mean that this is all that exists. In fact, that is my view.

I hold that the fabric of spacetime that we describe using the scientific method is merely a small part of "reality". It doesn't even come close to representing all of reality. In fact, I personally believe that what we currently know about the fabric of spacetime is indeed just the tip of the iceberg with respect to actual 'reality'.

And apparently scientists are more than willing to embrace this. They too are proposing extra hidden dimensions even to the fabric of spacetime. So they are even proposing that there is far more to spacetime than we even currently know.

We currently know of 4 dimension if you count time. They are proposing that there are a total of 11 dimensions to spacetime. That's 7 unseen and yet undetected physical spacetime dimensions. So in other words, all of our current modern science basically only knows 4/11th's of the true nature of spacetime and is completely in the dark of 7/11th's of it.

In short even scientists are proclaiming that we know very little even about the fabric of spacetime itself. So how could they possibly rule anything out of something they know so little about?

Scientist themselves are proposing that this is most likely the case. In fact, many of them are wishing hard for it to be true and would have huge parties if they could discover evidence to support their dreams.

This ironically gives a bit of clout to those former philosophies I mentioned that claim that we make this stuff up before we actually discover it. (i.e. we create it in our minds before it becomes physical reality)

But I'm not even anywhere near done.

There is also the mystery of time. I'm not going to belabor that point because I had already addressed it in a previous post. But our knowledge of the nature of time is extremely vague. Sure we have the precise and accurate ability to quantify the temporal motions between bodies within the fabric of spacetime via Special and General Relativity. But those very observations right there give rise to huge paradoxes concerning the "True Nature of Now".

According to Relativity there can be no such thing as a universal absolute "now". This instantly implies that the very concept of "now" is fuzzy. Moreover it implies pasts and futures must necessarily coexist. The very concept of a relative "now" demands it. This brings into question our very notion of time being a linear chain of cause and effect moving from some absolute past toward some absolute future.

In short, all that science has "discovered" about time is that it's far weirder than we could have ever imagined it to be. And that we truly have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the true nature of "time".

So once again science reveals a completely absence of knowledge of the true nature of things. Even though it has pinned down precise equations for plotting the behavior of motion with the fabric of spacetime.

What's next?

Well we have the scientific Inflation Theory that predicts the existence of multiple universes. We have Quantum Theory that suggests the possibility of infinite many parallel realities (at least via some interpretations of it). Other interpretations suggest equally bizarre things, not the least of which is that things can be in instantaneous connection over vast distances (something that is ruled out by General Relativity as being possible within the fabric of spacetime itself). Thus Quantum Mechanics is pointing to the existence of some other "world" or reality that exists even beneath the fabric of spacetime.

So there exists scientific evidence for these things. These ideas are not something that I'm pulling out of a rabbit's hat.

~~~

Therefore we can't make any presumptions about what needs to be 'presupposed'. Primacy of consciousness, primacy of existence. Those can be nothing more than stabs in the dark. Pure guesses.

We simply don't know enough about the true nature of reality to demand a primacy of anything as a solid axiom to begin with.

~~~

If you doubt my words, considering finding a copy of Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", either in book form, or as a DVD. Watch, or read, the chapter entitled "What is Space". He addresses this notion quite clearly.

He first introduced Newton's concept of an absolute space. Then shows why that can't hold. Then turns to General Relativity as a description of space and shows that even after you have removed all "physical objects" from the fabric of spacetime, you still have a fabric left. A fabric that is even detectable at least in terms of inertia.

In other words, there can be no question whatsoever, that something exists, even beneath the very fabric of spacetime.

That's a given. And it's certainly an accepted principle of science, that something exists even beneath the facade of what we call "the physical world".

That's a scientific principle, well accepted. And all of the laws and rules of quantum mechanics also still apply. In other words, not only does this non-physical underlying fabric of spacetime exist, but it necessarily contains structured information.

And it is in that "world" where I suspect the true nature of spirit to reside (very much along the lines of how the Eastern Mystics view it)

And when you stop and think about it and ask, "What are our brains ultimately?" Are they merely a structure that has emerged from leptons, quarks, and bosons?

Well, they are surly that.

But from when to leptons, quarks, and bosons arise?

Well that should be obvious based on our current scientific understanding of the cosmos. Lepton's, quarks, and bosons, arise out of the ocean of "quantum fields" which is the "structure" of the seemingly "emptiness" that lies beneath the fabric of spacetime.

~~~

So, in short, my "primacy" axiom, would be that everything arises and belongs to, this underlying non-physical mysterious structure that gives rise to everything, both in terms of physics and consciousness.

They are inseparable. It's holistic. And that's a valid term because clearly within this underlying quantum structure time knows no bounds. It knows no bounds in terms of past and future, it knows no bounds in terms of speed limits of light. It's a primordial eternal "now" that ultimately contains everything that can ever arise from it, including the ability to have an experience.

That's my story, and um stick'in to it.

If you believe that you can "rule it out" then you are only deluding yourself.

You may chose to not personally believe it or even not wish to entertain it.

But to claim that you could "rule it out" is simply a misunderstanding on your part.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's starting to look like you're just writing a script Abra.

[Violet]

Indeed; Religion is like a priest's penis: it should not be forced down a child's throat. ANYONES throat.

Goodness Abra... at least you aren't like this (I think?):



Please focus on your Kazam element

[genkaus]

Ok, I apologize for proclaiming that you are arrogantly trying to shove your opinions onto me. I confess that this was overly-presumptuous on my part in the first place. Obviously you just aren't understanding where I'm coming from. That's all.

I think I do. Simply put, your position is that as long as there is no scientific certainty regarding a subject matter (such as existence of a spiritual world), any position or belief regarding that subject matter can be considered acceptable or atleast not incompatible with science as long as that position does not directly contradict any of the certain scientific findings.

My position is that this position is incorrect because we shouldn't simply check for inconsistencies with scientific findings but also scientific premises. If the position or belief concerning the subject matter invalidates the very premise of scientific inquiry, then it is incompatible with science, regardless of anyone being able to point to a scientifically certain knowledge which it contradicts.

Based on your quote above, you stated, "Both of these are still presupposed truths for scientific inquiry to be valid."

Sure, these are both presupposed "truths" for scientific inquire to be valid.

But that doesn't mean anything.

The premises on which we rely for science to give us correct answers being false doesn't mean anything?

First off, scientific inquiry may not be valid with respect to the true nature of reality. Maybe what we believe we see before our eyes is actually an illusion (or there is far more to it than we see). There are many philosophies that suggest the former (that it doesn't need to preexist)

Again with the "true nature of reality". As I've pointed out before, the nature of reality, whatever it may be, cannot be anything other than true.

Also the two statements "what we see is an illusion" and "there is far more than we see" are not equivalent. These two would be parts of different philosophies. One suggests that what we perceive does not exist, the other that our perception of existence maybe incomplete but it exists nonetheless. The latter provides conditions for increase of knowledge, while the former denies any possibility of it.

There are valid philosophies that suggest that the "Big Bang" didn't created us, but rather we created the "Big Bang" precisely due to our belief in scientific methods. In other words, there are philosophers that suggest that we create the universe from within. We create 'science' (and construct an entire physical world via explanations) as we imagine to explain it.

After all, if their premise is that we are imagining the physical world, then it automatically follows that we are actually constructing it as we go.

I'm not necessarily supporting these types of philosophies, but clearly they exist, and they cannot themselves be ruled out.

This is a very apt description of philosophy based on "primacy of consciousness". While I accept that you do not necessarily support these philosophies, I disagree with your statement that they cannot be ruled out. They can be ruled out because they are self-refuting.

What is a fact? A fact is a statement about a state of existence that does not depend upon anyone's consciousness of it. When applied to only physical existence, a fact would become a statement about a state of physical existence that does not depend on anyone's consciousness.

If the proposed philosophy is the correct description of reality, then there cannot be any facts or truths about physical existence, since all facts and truths about it would depend on consciousness. The statement "entire physical existence depends upon someone's consciousness" is also about state of physical existence. That means it is stated as a fact, which it itself, as a premise, disproves. Thus, it refutes itself.

Secondly, even if I accept a physical structure "out there" that is the fabric of spacetime, (which I actually do accept), that doesn't mean that this is all that exists. In fact, that is my view.

I hold that the fabric of spacetime that we describe using the scientific method is merely a small part of "reality". It doesn't even come close to representing all of reality. In fact, I personally believe that what we currently know about the fabric of spacetime is indeed just the tip of the iceberg with respect to actual 'reality'.

And apparently scientists are more than willing to embrace this. They too are proposing extra hidden dimensions even to the fabric of spacetime. So they are even proposing that there is far more to spacetime than we even currently know.

We currently know of 4 dimension if you count time. They are proposing that there are a total of 11 dimensions to spacetime. That's 7 unseen and yet undetected physical spacetime dimensions. So in other words, all of our current modern science basically only knows 4/11th's of the true nature of spacetime and is completely in the dark of 7/11th's of it.

In short even scientists are proclaiming that we know very little even about the fabric of spacetime itself. So how could they possibly rule anything out of something they know so little about?

Scientist themselves are proposing that this is most likely the case. In fact, many of them are wishing hard for it to be true and would have huge parties if they could discover evidence to support their dreams.

This ironically gives a bit of clout to those former philosophies I mentioned that claim that we make this stuff up before we actually discover it. (i.e. we create it in our minds before it becomes physical reality)

But I'm not even anywhere near done.

There is also the mystery of time. I'm not going to belabor that point because I had already addressed it in a previous post. But our knowledge of the nature of time is extremely vague. Sure we have the precise and accurate ability to quantify the temporal motions between bodies within the fabric of spacetime via Special and General Relativity. But those very observations right there give rise to huge paradoxes concerning the "True Nature of Now".

According to Relativity there can be no such thing as a universal absolute "now". This instantly implies that the very concept of "now" is fuzzy. Moreover it implies pasts and futures must necessarily coexist. The very concept of a relative "now" demands it. This brings into question our very notion of time being a linear chain of cause and effect moving from some absolute past toward some absolute future.

In short, all that science has "discovered" about time is that it's far weirder than we could have ever imagined it to be. And that we truly have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the true nature of "time".

So once again science reveals a completely absence of knowledge of the true nature of things. Even though it has pinned down precise equations for plotting the behavior of motion with the fabric of spacetime.

What's next?

Well we have the scientific Inflation Theory that predicts the existence of multiple universes. We have Quantum Theory that suggests the possibility of infinite many parallel realities (at least via some interpretations of it). Other interpretations suggest equally bizarre things, not the least of which is that things can be in instantaneous connection over vast distances (something that is ruled out by General Relativity as being possible within the fabric of spacetime itself). Thus Quantum Mechanics is pointing to the existence of some other "world" or reality that exists even beneath the fabric of spacetime.

So there exists scientific evidence for these things. These ideas are not something that I'm pulling out of a rabbit's hat.

What is missing here is any evidence or even suggestion as to why there would be a "consciousness" in that reality. That consciousness or spirit is what you are trying to pull out of a hat.

In order to equate that extra-spacio-temporal reality with your spiritual reality, first you need a reason to suppose that there might be some sort of consciousness there. As you have stated before, you have no reason, which is fine.

Next step would be to determine if a consciousness could exist in that reality. The only way of determining that is by studying the nature of consciousness in this physical reality.

While we do not understand its nature completely, there are a few things we do know. First of all, we know that anything that is conscious have a very complex biological structure giving rise to the consciousness. Secondly, consciousness requires an environment for the subject to be conscious of. Consciousness is the name given to a very specific mechanism by which the subject becomes aware of objects around it, space around it, passage of time with respect to it etc. Consciousness is therefore bound to the physical world.

If you assume that consciousness can exist without the spatio-temporal world - you are either redefining consciousness as something as yet unrecognized or, if you go by the current definition, you are going against science.

Therefore we can't make any presumptions about what needs to be 'presupposed'. Primacy of consciousness, primacy of existence. Those can be nothing more than stabs in the dark. Pure guesses.

We simply don't know enough about the true nature of reality to demand a primacy of anything as a solid axiom to begin with.

Its less about ability and more about requirement. Without the presumption, no rational statement can be made about anything within reality.

If you doubt my words, considering finding a copy of Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", either in book form, or as a DVD. Watch, or read, the chapter entitled "What is Space". He addresses this notion quite clearly.

He first introduced Newton's concept of an absolute space. Then shows why that can't hold. Then turns to General Relativity as a description of space and shows that even after you have removed all "physical objects" from the fabric of spacetime, you still have a fabric left. A fabric that is even detectable at least in terms of inertia.

In other words, there can be no question whatsoever, that something exists, even beneath the very fabric of spacetime.

That's a given. And it's certainly an accepted principle of science, that something exists even beneath the facade of what we call "the physical world".

That's a scientific principle, well accepted. And all of the laws and rules of quantum mechanics also still apply. In other words, not only does this non-physical underlying fabric of spacetime exist, but it necessarily contains structured information.

There may be a structure, but it cannot be called information unless there is prior certainty of consciousness.

And it is in that "world" where I suspect the true nature of spirit to reside (very much along the lines of how the Eastern Mystics view it)

And here is the slight of hand. Throughout your argument about the limitations of scientific understanding about the nature of "true" reality, you neither suggested nor defended the possibility of consciousness existing in that reality.

The question is simple. It is irrelevant whether there is or can be a reality that is independent of spacetime. Tell me how it is possible of a consciousness to exist independently of spacetime?

And when you stop and think about it and ask, "What are our brains ultimately?" Are they merely a structure that has emerged from leptons, quarks, and bosons?

Well, they are surly that.

But from when to leptons, quarks, and bosons arise?

Well that should be obvious based on our current scientific understanding of the cosmos. Lepton's, quarks, and bosons, arise out of the ocean of "quantum fields" which is the "structure" of the seemingly "emptiness" that lies beneath the fabric of spacetime.

Irrelevant.

So, in short, my "primacy" axiom, would be that everything arises and belongs to, this underlying non-physical mysterious structure that gives rise to everything, both in terms of physics and consciousness.

They are inseparable. It's holistic. And that's a valid term because clearly within this underlying quantum structure time knows no bounds. It knows no bounds in terms of past and future, it knows no bounds in terms of speed limits of light. It's a primordial eternal "now" that ultimately contains everything that can ever arise from it, including the ability to have an experience.

That's my story, and um stick'in to it.

If you believe that you can "rule it out" then you are only deluding yourself.

You may chose to not personally believe it or even not wish to entertain it.

But to claim that you could "rule it out" is simply a misunderstanding on your part.

And this is the final destination of your irrelevant ramblings and unjustified leaps. From findings gaps in scientific knowledge to justify existence of non-spatio-temporal reality, you leaped to the conclusion that this reality would contain consciousness as well, ignoring the current reality that consciousness cannot exist independently of the spatio-temporal reality.

Further, this axiom would have the same effect on physical reality as the "primacy of consciousness" and thereby deny the existence of all facts , including itself.

But then, once you have committed yourself to this irrational position, it obviously won't be a rational argument that convinces you.