Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Surgenator]

First and foremost, I have had numinous experiences, as I mentioned, that influence my opinion. I also lucid dream. Regularly. I have since I practiced a form of meditation that also resulted in other beneficial changes Because of this, I can experiment with the dream world probably more often than the average person. In doing so, the line between “reality” and “not reality” becomes experimental. Through my explorations, I find my sensory responses are the same in dreams as they are when awake. My experiences are often shared in the dream world as well. This has all influenced my exploration into the “truth” with regard to the nature of “objective reality” as well as the nature of consciousness.

I have looked to science and found that unfortunately “consciousness” was given to the church to explore for much of human history, while science took the study of “reality” (matter/energy). “Mind” was eventually brought into scientific investigation through psychology and neurobiology, however, my opinion is that separating explorations of consciousness from explorations of matter, did both explorations an injustice. This is not to say that scientific research into areas of reality and mind have not resulted in amazing revelations that have expanded our knowledge immensely. I refer to scientific experiments because it is the best we have right now. I recognize this is what we must do to gain even a bit more knowledge. It seems, however, that if we study mind and matter using a different approach, we may be closer to “truth" about the larger picture of reality. At least that’s what I think, but you don’t have to trust me.

Science methodology of observation->hypothesis->experiment->results->peer scrutiny->publication->independent confirmation->theory is not dualistic, monistic, materialist, idealistic, etc... Scienctist often adopts the physicalist point of view for their hypothesis not because they have to but because it works. It gives testable and repeatable results. Science is pragmatic. If you want science to support your ideas, your ideas need to graduate from its philosophical underpinnings and give some testible claims.

He’s the run-down of the philosophical and scientific perspectives I have explored.

Neutral Monism- “Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysical perspective. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two.” Hammeroff (an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness) and Pemrose (mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science) proposed Orchestrated Objective Reduction (a neutral monist biological perspective) which views the issue of consciousness from angles of molecular biology, neuroscience, quantum physics, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and aspects of quantum gravity. They propose that microtubule lattices in each cell operate as little minicomputers that interact with space-time. This is based on Penrose's objective collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which assumes collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the space-time curvature of these states within the structure of the universe. That’s the simplest way to put it. This seems to align with other revelations of quantum mechanics, and is expanded upon when considered in light of another proposed explanation based on quantum explorations, holographic universe theory.

First, read up on how nuerons actually work. http://www.bris.ac.uk/synaptic/basics/basics-1.html
Second, Penrose's collapse theory will have a hard time explaining the oscillations of neutrinos. Since the neutrinos have two possible sets of solutions, flavor or mass, that are superpositions of with respect to each other, which way would the wavefunction collapsing to. It would have to collapse continuously which is contradictory to the idea Penrose's theory proposes.

Today many physicists are researching the concept of the universe as a hologram. I can’t possibly be brief and go into naming them all (I can link to research if you’re interested). The idea, however, is that the universe resembles a hologram and reality is an illusion within the hologram. In this theory, a hologram is composed of grids and is linked through a web, or grid matrixes based on specific patterns. “Dark matter” has been proposed as being like “scaffolding” for the universe. Like I said, there actually seems to be a lot of research right now into proving/disproving this theory.

Dark matter is not the scaffolding your think it is. It doesn't layout some microsopic grid that you would need to make a hologram. Dark matter holds galaxies and galaxy clusters together via gravity. That is the closest is comes to scaffolding, period.

Additionally, genetics studies post the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 have opened us to a whole new world with regard to how we view our genes. Now, they report, everything in the environment has the ability to influence the expression of our genes (through methylation and histone protein changes) and is intrinsically integrated with our mind. Further gene expression (not just genes) are passed from parent to child. Again, lots of research here (entire databases called Bioinformatics have been created just to keep track of it all). I always find the agouti mice experiments to be interesting as they show just how much influence a little methylation can have. I would recommend looking into it. This idea that the gene expressions of every cell are very sensitive to the environment, leaves me to speculate that there is a dynamic dance occurring between the biological systems, all the matter and energies in the environment, and the possible “lattices”, “scaffolding”, or “grid matrixes” that result in experience.

You were doing so good until the end. Then you went into some hippy-pseudoscience bullshit.

Further, I am aware that some computer scientists have proposed that organization of life on earth could be viewed similarly to “cloud computing”. In this theory the brain is not a stand-alone computing device but rather a terminal with outside memory distributed over the “Internet of the physical Universe”. Further it proposes a new role for DNA as sharing informational recourses, and introduces a new type of a computational model that makes the most of the slow neurons. The suggested biological cloud computing model is said to resolve the problem of complexity in biological systems with advanced cognitive abilities. It also is said to furnish a reliable and fault tolerant model of operation characteristics of biological systems.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Finally, to put this all together into a pretty picture, a thought experiment. Imagine a scenario in which the universe and it's entire history started and stopped all in the same instant. Instant beginning, instant end. Instant creation, instant destruction. All potential possibilities existing at once and frozen, as if for inspection and contemplation. Now if you can, imagine this viewed from a perspective of staring at slides, stacked snapshots of moments, all captured all at once.

Everything at once, means there is no cause and effect. Plus, this is effectively the many-world intepretation of QM. I thought you were using Penrose's intepretation. FYI, they are not compatible.

Some quantum physicists claim to have created a reality such as it exists in this perspective. Using only a few photons, however, but they are excited because, viewing from this perspective they seem to be capable of unifying quantum mechanics with general and special relativity. A unified theory. If assumed, it clarifies regarding action at a distance and other entanglement phenomena. The experiments used quartz plates and detectors and describe creating a reality that could be viewed from the perspective above, but by changing variables, it could also be viewed from the experience perspective below.

They must be very excited to show the many-world interpretation of QM. I wonder how they find the time.

Continue thought experiment. Now diving into a snapshot, we view from the perspective of little Joey who is riding his scooter down the street and experiencing these snapshot moments in "real time". He is going down a unique path having experiences resulting from his choices, collapsing waves of possibility with every act of free will. His experience is reality for Joey. The only reality he knows.

How do you get snapshots if there is no time. Or causality.

Now zoom in on Joey and his world, zoom into the cell, view the microtubules in their lattices, communicating with the scaffolding, the grid matrixes comprised of dark matter, view his DNA and the methyl groups and histone proteins turning up and down the volume dials of each of his genes, allowing access to or restricting information, interacting with the microtubule scaffolding. View all of his biological systems also responding in turn.

So much wrong here.

Now zoom closer, into the lattices, into the scaffolding, the grid matrixes and first see the quantum world, the world of photons and quarks. Energy is matter and matter is energy. Photons appearing and disappearing. A holograph image, not a solid world. Vibrating matter/energy being received by Joey’s sense receptors and interpreted as an experience in Joey’s consciousness.

Vibrating energy

Entertaining the experiential data and the theories has me questioning the nature of reality as Newtonian physics described, that is for certain. It also makes me question the potential for an intelligent ‘other perspective’ observer, as well as many more influential variables with regard to our reality.

I don’t think I can go much further at this point. I guess I’ll leave it there for now.

You can do a lot more. You can take a class in physics and biology.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes the lighter is one with all there is, so it must also be one in consciousness, not the mind conscious, but so called super consciousness, or the ocean of consciousness, there is nothing outside of this consciousness.

So a consciousness not at all like the consciousness we might be referring to when we use the word consciousness regarding whatever it is we have? Sounds like a convoluted no, to be honest. But lay that aside.

It's simply not possible that some "superconsciousness" is present somewhere - but that it isn't comprised of every little thing that might be in my hand? As in, the ocean is there, but the lighter is just dross floating in it, not a part of it? Maybe it's made out of a bunch of stuff, but -not- lighters? Why must they be included? What about lighters, or any specific thing, leads you to state that they are "one in consciousness" or "one with all that is" I mean, clearly the lighter isn't one -with me, or you-....is it?

[psychoslice]

Yes the lighter is one with all there is, so it must also be one in consciousness, not the mind conscious, but so called super consciousness, or the ocean of consciousness, there is nothing outside of this consciousness.

So a consciousness not at all like the consciousness we might be referring to when we use the word consciousness regarding whatever it is we have? Sounds like a convoluted no, to be honest. But lay that aside.

It's simply not possible that some "superconsciousness" is present somewhere - but that it isn't comprised of every little thing that might be in my hand? As in, the ocean is there, but the lighter is just dross floating in it, not a part of it? Maybe it's made out of a bunch of stuff, but -not- lighters? Why must they be included? What about lighters, or any specific thing, leads you to state that they are "one in consciousness"?

that's Ok if you think that, but I see it all as one, nothing separate, there are so called separate parts in our body, but in reality the body also is one, its all working in one unity, one harmony. Drop the mind, the senses that separate all, and there you have it.

[ShaMan]

[psychoslice]

He he, that's funny and cute ShaMan.

[The Grand Nudger]

that's Ok if you think that, but I see it all as one, nothing separate, there are so called separate parts in our body, but in reality the body also is one, its all working in one unity, one harmony. Drop the mind, the senses that separate all, and there you have it.

Right, until it's not and one organ just destroys you because it isn't "working in one unity" at all, and may never have been (if this is even a lucid way of describing how our bodies function to begin with....)

But yeah, I'm okay you're okay, we're all okay - and we have thoughts...okay.

You and I are one, and you, I and the lighter in my hand are one, in what has to be the most unsatisfying menage a trois I've ever personally been a participant in? So..how do you know where I end, and you begin. Are you actually stating your own opinions when I ask you questions or are you just stating my opinions which I have conveniently supplied you with - being that we are one? Is there any difference? Do you have opinions, or are they all just my opinions? In fact, if you and I are "one"....maybe there just isn't any you at all, only me. You're a lesser hobgoblin of my mind. Do you think it would be fair to propose that, and how accurate do you think that proposition may turn out to be?

Amusingly, if you and I are one with the lighter.....why is it that only I seem to be able to manipulate it right now (or can you give it a quarter turn to the left for me, followed by an end to end flip)?

[psychoslice]

that's Ok if you think that, but I see it all as one, nothing separate, there are so called separate parts in our body, but in reality the body also is one, its all working in one unity, one harmony. Drop the mind, the senses that separate all, and there you have it.

Right, until it's not and one organ just destroys you because it isn't "working in one unity" at all, and may never have been (if this is even a lucid way of describing how our bodies function to begin with....)

But yeah, I'm okay you're okay, we're all okay - and we have thoughts...okay.

You and I are one, and you, I and the lighter in my hand are one, in what has to be the most unsatisfying menage a trois I've ever personally been a participant in? So..how do you know where I end, and you begin. Are you actually stating your own opinions when I ask you questions or are you just stating my opinions which I have conveniently supplied you with - being that we are one? Is there any difference? Do you have opinions, or are they all just my opinions? In fact, if you and I are "one"....maybe there just isn't any you at all, only me. You're a lesser hobgoblin of my mind. Do you think it would be fair to propose that, and how accurate do you think that proposition may turn out to be?

Your making it all sound like its rocket science, its all natural, we are all one and this we call the Cosmos, that's about how much I can say, because whatever I say isn't going to be the truth. The truth is not a concept, its what is, you can experience it all in what is called an enlightenment experience, but that also isn't what is, its secondary to that which is.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, I don't think that any of this sounds like rocket science at all Slice....what is it that you think rocket science is? What's all natural and how have you determined that this is so? How are we all one....and what is a "we" if there is only one? I mean...personally...I can say with certainty that I'm not "one with the cosmos" [que shitty drum music and patchouli stench]. If you are, that is interesting, but I'm not...and if you're something that I'm not....then it doesn't sound like we're "one" after all, eh?

Where do I go get some of this "enlightenment experience" business that you are incapable of expressing? Where did you get it (how much did it set you back..and what's their policy on returns)?

[psychoslice]

LOL, I don't think that any of this sounds like rocket science at all Slice....what is it that you think rocket science is? What's all natural and how have you determined that this is so? How are we all one....and what is a "we" if there is only one? I mean...personally...I can say with certainty that I'm not "one with the cosmos" [que shitty drum music and patchouli stench]. If you are, that is interesting, but I'm not...and if you're something that I'm not....then it doesn't sound like we're "one" after all, eh?

Where do I go get some of this "enlightenment experience" business that you are incapable of expressing? Where did you get it (how much did it set you back..and what's their policy on returns)?

That's Ok, we are all where we are, I am where I am and you are where you are. Its ok if you think we are all separate, that's how its suppose to be, that is why we have our senses to feel through life, but we are more than that, its up to you to discover that, and if you don't then that's ok also, its no big deal and its not a race to the finish.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's Ok, we are all where we are, I am where I am and you are where you are. Its ok if you think we are all separate, that's how its suppose to be, that is why we have our senses to feel through life, but we are more than that, its up to you to discover that, and if you don't then that's ok also, its no big deal and its not a race to the finish.

But we're one, how could we be in separate places simultaneously? You're wherever I am, and I;m wherever you are. I'm wondering if there's actually anything to discover or whether you just decided that it was time to inject some platitudinous bullshit that you weren't willing to stand up for.....or had never actually considered in any way whatsoever before having uttered it.

Looking like a bit of both at present. Bravo? All for what...because you wanted to say that a lighter was conscious. For fucks sake man.....