Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[sswhateverlove]

That's all fun, but where did the designer come from?

It's either a natural process (like evolution) or you have an infinite regress.

Putting those perspectives together, in our experience of reality (can't make any assumptions beyond this), I would speculate that consciousness is the designer and the designed. Consciousness is the creator and the created. Mind and matter are the same, wherefore reality and intelligence are intrinsically entwined.

[The Grand Nudger]

The cause is the effect (the effect the cause), iow? Bootstrapping. I think you're going to run into tons of problems on this one. If consciousness created the universe (but is a feature of said universe) where did consciousness reside before the universes creation? Mind and matter -may- be the same, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with bootstrapping or the rest of your statement. Same with reality and intelligence, or at least the perception of reality and intelligence. Perhaps intelligence is creating it's own reality (certainly could be argued) but what are all of the non-intelligent things doing, and in what medium could they be doing it if they are not capable of creating reality - do they even exist?

[sswhateverlove]

It'll take me awhile to wade through it, and it may be beyond me to comment upon, but I'll give her a shot. Is there anything in that dissertation specifically that you want addressed? Care to paraphrase?

It seems to be taking holographic universe theory and revelations of epigenetics and integrating the ideas with cloud computing to describe a different view of consciousness and of reality. It goes through and describes the theoretical principles o f each and integrates them. I am interested in your thoughts on what it implies as well as your opinion.

---

The cause is the effect (the effect the cause), iow? Bootstrapping. I think you're going to run into tons of problems on this one. If consciousness created the universe (but is a feature of said universe) where did consciousness reside before the universes creation? Mind and matter -may- be the same, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with bootstrapping or the rest of your statement. Same with reality and intelligence, or at least the perception of reality and intelligence.

I guess in this post I was trying to use simple language to best describe a certain idea, however, when you integrate the concepts I'm discussing (such as the details in my thread regarding time progression) I hope you will better understand.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I said, may take me awhile. If you can't elucidate upon the article in specifics you're just going to have to wait - and I may give you an opinion about some portion of it that is unsatisfying to you (and not the portion that interests you). Guess we'll just roll those dice?

when you integrate the concepts I'm discussing (such as the details in my thread regarding time progression) I hope you will better understand.

-You- integrate them for me...it's your baby. It's absurd to expect another to simply arrive at your eureka moment (especially by wading through a mountain of text to which you have supplied no direction). If you cannot describe to me how those concepts have been integrated and what you find to be compelling about them then I will most likely be unable to have the discussion you wish to have (and will have wasted my time and yours in the interim).

Hope in one hand, shit in the other.

Off the top of my head - just looking at the abstract, my opinion is still the same as it was before. I don't see any intelligent design in that abstract (any more than I saw it in simulated reality). I'm wondering where -you- see it. Similarly, I don't see any consciousness designing or creating our universe from either corner. I suspect that you are omitting something incredibly important in reaching this conclusion.

[sswhateverlove]

-You- integrate them for me...it's your baby.

I have posted 150-something times in 5 threads and a majority of the posts have been doing what you're asking of me. I have explained different things in science that, when integrated with other ideas, are leading me to have a certain opinion. I have given a great deal of information and linked to relevant resources.

It's absurd to expect another to simply arrive at your eureka moment (especially by wading through a mountain of text to which you have supplied no direction).

If you reread my 5 threads and the things I am saying about each of the topics, you will get the overview. If you have any additional questions that would provide you with more clarity without actually reading the source information, please let me know.

And I am not expecting (or asking) you to simply arrive at my eureka moment. I'm asking you to do, as many of you claimed you would, and consider my opinion in light of my evidence and engage in intellectual discussion with regard to it.

---

I don't see any intelligent design in that abstract (any more than I saw it in simulated reality). I'm wondering where -you- see it. Similarly, I don't see any consciousness designing or creating our universe from either corner. I suspect that you are omitting something incredibly important in reaching this conclusion.

Yes, that dissertation is putting together theories that together give a different perspective on the nature of consciousness. Beyond that, there are other areas of science that I posted about here and in other threads that consider this idea relative to other revelations and (from my perspective) give some weight to the idea of ID.

Again, the simplest answer to what you're asking is that I think this stuff because of the things I've read over years and years of study. Do you think I'm going to be able to write up all the convincing data in a paragraph? Very unlikely. If you're interested in discussing your opinion of what I'm saying, I would appreciate you also being interested in researching what I'm saying.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've been linking articles and then stating your conclusion - but not the process between those two (I keep asking about airplanes and albatrosses, don't I, but you drive right over that and link another wall-o-text). Nevertheless, suppose you had been doing whats been asked. You've clearly failed to communicate what you hoped to communicate.

You're link bombing amigo, no reason not to call it what it is. I could link you 400 articles on comp mind, describe -my- conclusion, omit my process, and then bitch and moan that you haven't been considering my opinion - but then I'd be an asshole.

To be blunt, I don't actually have any confidence that you understood the papers you linked.....which is why I ask you to paraphrase the bits you find compelling and how they tie together.

Do you think I'm going to be able to write up all the convincing data in a paragraph?

Yeah, actually, I do. If you can't explain it simply and succinctly, then you probably don't understand it very well.

[sswhateverlove]

Yeah, actually, I do. If you can't explain it simply and succinctly, then you probably don't understand it very well.

If I could conclude anything based on all my research, it would be that the nature of reality and consciousness (or the research pertaining to it) cannot currently be explained in any way that would be considered "simple" or "succinct". I'm sorry.

I'll put some more thought into how to simplify it a bit more for you, but it could take me a while.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not asking about the nature of reality or consciousness, I don;t expect you to have "the answer". I'm asking you about how you strung the research to an intelligent designer - and that ought to be simple and succint. Otherwise I would doubt that you actually -did- string them together at all. If you ask me why I find comp mind compelling I may not be able to explain mind to you in toto or to your satisfaction - but I can explain why I find it compelling in a very, very short paragraph

Honestly, I can do it in one sentence.

[Chas]

That's all fun, but where did the designer come from?

It's either a natural process (like evolution) or you have an infinite regress.

Putting those perspectives together, in our experience of reality (can't make any assumptions beyond this), I would speculate that consciousness is the designer and the designed. Consciousness is the creator and the created. Mind and matter are the same, wherefore reality and intelligence are intrinsically entwined.

And what was the universe doing for the 13.7 billion years before our consciousness emerged?

The idea that our consciousness makes reality is incoherent.

[sswhateverlove]

And what was the universe doing for the 13.7 billion years before our consciousness emerged?

The idea that our consciousness makes reality is incoherent.

The idea would be that there was no "before consciousness emerged" because consciousness and the material universe are one and the same elements.

"Consciousness makes reality" would assume that one came before the other and again, I refer to my other thread with regard to time progression. If we assume a different perspective regarding time progression, than the idea of one thing resulting from another in terms of how we perceive it would be illusory.