Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The God Hypothesis
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 31 of 150 (689817)
02-04-2013 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 7:13 PM


Re: The Hard Problem of Consciousness
"The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers.[4] Providing an answer to this question could lie in understanding the roles that physical processes play in creating consciousness and the extent to which these processes create our subjective qualities of experience.[5]
Prediction - the hard problem will never be solved. It might be jettisoned as a bogus problem, but it won't be solved.
These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain.
Physics is wholly described in conscious terms (i.e. by conscious minds). If consciousness could be wholly described in physical terms, wouldn't you have a closed solipsistic loop? And maybe that would prove that we don't exist.
Using a general definition of Physics ... I do not know of anything not covered by "Physical"
Maybe mathematics?
So because I see QM is the direction to go in resolving the hard problem of consciousness ...
Unlikely. but you won't be the first to try this.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 7:13 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 32 of 150 (689818)
02-04-2013 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 7:13 PM


Re: The Hard Problem of Consciousness
Hi SA,
SA writes:
For philosophers who assert that consciousness is nonphysical in nature, there remains a question about what outside of physical theory is required to explain consciousness."
So is consciousness physical?
Or is consciousness nonphysical?
What is consciousness anyway?
You mentioned the brain and the body.
At my age my brain is getting to the point that information that it receives to store doesn't stick like it used too, when I was much younger.
Now to the problem you have with Jesus being God or not being God.
Mankind was created in the image and likeness of God. So if you can understand mankind you can understand how God and Jesus could be one.
You have a physical body that is made up of many parts of which your brain is just one part. Jesus had a physical body, and is one manifestation of God.
You have an eternal spirit that dwells in your body. The Holy Spirit is one manifestation of God.
You have a mind that processes information. The mind is one manifistation of God. (He is all knowing)
So God has a body, mind, and spirit. All three are manifest in different ways, just as your are.
You have a body, mind, and spirit. The spirit is the part of Nicodemus that Jesus was telling him had to be born of the Spirit as he had already had a water birth.
When a person is born of the Spirit he/she becomes one with God, by choice.
When it comes to a conscience I do not believe there is any such entity. Mankind is hardwired as to what is right and wrong. Then as he/she grows from birth learn what is preceived to be right and wrong by what they are taught. So a battle takes place in the mind to either do what is right or what is wrong. Every individual chooses what is right and wrong for themselves usually according to what they have been taught. Rather than what is hardwired in.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 7:13 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 150 (689834)
02-05-2013 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 7:01 PM


Re: Dualism
Are you insisting that consciousness, awareness etc. are inherently unable to be investigated and explained scientifically - Or not?
If so - Why?
SA writes:
I still want to point out that no one here has explained to me why QM can not be relevant to discussion of Metaphysics or Pantheism in general or even the mind as a soul.
Are the mind and the soul ultimately physical in nature? Is the mind a by-product of brain activity in your little hypothesis - Or not?
SA writes:
I never used the word "prediction" or "prophecy" so to bring up Nostradamus or Biblical Prophecy is completely irrelevant as is Astrology.
I didn't say that were predicting anything. I said that the links you are making between Buddhism and Quantum theory rely on the same sort of "ooh if you interpret it in this way it all makes sense" thinking that things like astrology rely upon.
SA writes:
What I said was that Buddhist Metaphysics describe the underlying Quantum Nature of all matter.
If that is the case then, rather than long winded assertions and relentlessly declaring what you don't mean, why not clearly and concisely state what it is about reality that Buddhists observed and quantum theory has since confirmed. Be specific.
SA writes:
Buddhist have already made all the observation Quantum Physicist have made about the nature of our Universe.
If you interpret an astrologists vague musings to be in accordance with the facst as they later become known you will convince yourself that he can tell the future. It's all in the interpretation after the facts are known isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 7:01 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:21 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 150 (689835)
02-05-2013 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 5:33 PM


Re: Dr A's Invisible Man Hypothesis
SA writes:
Not sure what you mean about an invisible man here? Are you talking about a white man with a beard sitting in the sky throwing lightning? In otherwords an "personal" God ? Not sure why people can not get it through their thick skulls that I am not a Christian or Jew for that matter. I am not a Monotheist in any sense of the word.
I didn't suggest you were. But the 'invisible man' hypothesis comes in many guises.
SA writes:
I would still think the Soul existed even if there is no God. The only reason I use the term "God" is to differentiate my soul Incarnated in my body from my soul discarnated after I die. In one case I am separate from other souls because I am caught up in the illusion of mind located in a body. Once the body dies so does the illusion. Though I do not need life after death to be a soul I find that paradigm more consistent.
Here your 'soul' acts as the seat of your unbodied consciousness. The ghost in the machine. The invisible man that is you. As Dr A put it:
quote:
And so we come on to consciousness. Can't solve the Hard Problem Of Consciousness? Well, in that case I myself am an invisible man having the property of solving the Hard Problem Of Consciousness.
I suggest you re-read Dr A's invisible man analysis again because it obviously applies to your position here (whether you realise it or not)
SA writes:
This is the problem inherent in Pantheism. The whole discussion of the nature of the soul and dualism is completely separate from my God Hypothesis. That is my arguments for the Soul have nothing to do with Pantheism.
Except that the entire basis of your 'god hypothesis' relates to consciousness/awareness and you are citing the 'soul' as the seat of one's conscious mind. So the two things are very much entwined.
Your whole god hypothesis is blatantly substance dualist in nature. Whether you realise it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 5:33 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 35 of 150 (689852)
02-05-2013 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Spiritual Anarchist
02-04-2013 6:06 PM


Re: God?
Yeah I guess as an atheist most of my life I always wondered why anyone would call the Universe God. Esp when the Pantheist I met usually didn't believe in religion or a personal God. Not sure what other term to use. Usually I just say "The Source" but then I feel like I am watering down the experience to make it palatable.
But if beneath the subatomic level of the Universe there is pure energy, and if this energy interacts on the quantum level to create our Universe ...and maybe other Universes and this is a creative act of awareness ..
...then the Universe is a being.
But the Universe is not aware. Some tiny specs of it are, ie humans, but that requires having a brain. The Universe doesn't have a brain.
I guess I should just call it The Awareness Hypothesis" . I think it is self evident that there are sentient beings in the Universe and I think it can be found to be true using observation that the Universe itself is sentient. That sentience is the nature of anything living and the universe is a living thing.
Why should I think that the Universe is either sentient or living? And what observations are you talking about?
Quantum Physics to me is the Biology of the Universe . We are biological and reproduce using materialism in nature. The Multiverse is biological in a different way and reproduces Universes using the energy of the Quantum.
Sorry, but that's just a meaningless word salad. It makes no sense.
If consciousness was simply electrochemical baths in the brain creating predictable behavior patterns in animals that were in no way self aware ...except in relation to survival ...then the hard problem of consciousness would not exist.
How do you know that? How do you know that the hard problem of consciousness can't be solved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 02-04-2013 6:06 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 36 of 150 (689854)
02-05-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by AZPaul3
02-04-2013 6:18 PM


Re: Awareness
It makes it feel like there's a seperation between the me that is in my head and the body that its attached to.
Interesting.
You are not talking about reflex reactions, I don't think.
Actually I was including reflex reactions, but that's just one part of it.
And I don't think you're talking about physics in action where you push the wrong way on the ice and no matter how hard you wish end up on your butt anyway.
You're right, I'm not talking about that at all.
Care to share?
Sure.
We're all sitting around passing the bong. "Hey, I need a lighter", I say. Jimbo throws one really hard right past me. Before I even realize what's happening, my arm springs and my hand flies out and grabs it out right of the air. "Whoa, you're a Jedi", Jimbo jokes. "Yeah, that was weird", I realize.
I'm playing the piano, even though I know which notes are to be played, and I'm willing my hands to play them, sometimes my fingers just won't do what I'm commanding them to. Other times, I'm approaching a particularly difficult part of a song, and my fingers just nail it. "I don't know how the hell I just made it through that part without messing up", I'll think to myself in amazement.
I notice I'm out of bread so I get in the car to go to the store. Then I start thinking about what other things I might need from the store. I get into pretty deep thought and then I realize that I've already driven half-way to work. Thinking back I don't even recall making specific turns, did I even use the blinker, holy shit who was driving this thing?
Or how about when your leg cramps up and your all: "OMG, stop! STAHP!" (Hrm, does your leg receive a signal from the brain to contract the muscle when it cramps up like that? Or is that the muscle going haywire or something?)
Or when you have a twitch, or some shakes, or you flinch.
Here's a good one:
You are now breathing manually.
When its involuntary you don't even think about it. Its outside of your mind. Then when it enters your mind, you have to take control of your body yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 02-04-2013 6:18 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AZPaul3, posted 02-05-2013 5:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 37 of 150 (689860)
02-05-2013 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Straggler
02-05-2013 8:12 AM


Re: Dualism
Strag writes:
why not clearly and concisely state what it is about reality that Buddhists observed and quantum theory has since confirmed. Be specific.
Do not try to bend the spoon, that's impossible;
rather try to realize the truth.
"There is no spoon."

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 8:12 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 11:32 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 150 (689864)
02-05-2013 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by 1.61803
02-05-2013 11:21 AM


Re: Dualism
But I've just used a spoon to eat some birthday cake.
How did I do that if the spoon doesn't exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:21 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Panda, posted 02-05-2013 11:41 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 40 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:42 AM Straggler has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 39 of 150 (689865)
02-05-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
02-05-2013 11:32 AM


Re: Dualism
Straggler writes:
But I've just used a spoon to eat some birthday cake.
How did I do that if the spoon doesn't exist?
Because the cake is a lie!

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 11:32 AM Straggler has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 40 of 150 (689866)
02-05-2013 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
02-05-2013 11:32 AM


Re: Dualism
Reality is illusory according to the Buddhism.
Reality in Buddhism - Wikipedia
Reality may be illusory according to proponents of
Holographic universe theorist.
Holographic principle - Wikipedia
I for one am a empiricist/pragmatist and am content to sleep better knowing things like spoons do exist enough to eat cake with, even if I can not say how or why.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 11:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 12:14 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 41 of 150 (689870)
02-05-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by 1.61803
02-05-2013 11:42 AM


Re: Dualism
The "illusion" of reality seems to be referring to the fact that any perception of reality is necessarily subjective. This is essentially inarguable.
But recognsing that perception of reality is subjective is very different to claiming that things don't exist or that reality isn't real. If that is the case what is it that we are perceiving?
Anything beyond this recognition that our perception of reality is subjective probably reduces to solipsism. And that is an ontological rabbit hole that has little to reccommend it.
Numbers writes:
I for one am a empiricist/pragmatist and am content to sleep better knowing things like spoons do exist enough to eat cake with, even if I can not say how or why.
I would argue that the methods of science are as they are because our perception of reality is necessarily subjective. Science provides the means and methods, checks and balances to reach the most objective conclusions about reality that we can in recognition of the fact that without such rigour we are prone to highly dubious interpretations of reality as we individually perceive it to be.
Dubious interpretations such as universes that are alive and aware. Dubious interpretations such as inappropriate links between ancient mysticisms and modern physics. For example.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 11:42 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 12:48 PM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 42 of 150 (689872)
02-05-2013 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
02-05-2013 12:14 PM


Re: Dualism
Strag writes:
Dubious interpretations such as inappropriate links between ancient mysticisms and modern physics. For example.
It is not dubious to recognize the simularities between one religious frame of thought and a scientific one.
Wisdom and knowledge can come in many forms. Not just the Straggler approved variety.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 12:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 1:12 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 43 of 150 (689875)
02-05-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by 1.61803
02-05-2013 12:48 PM


Re: Dualism
Numbers writes:
It is not dubious to recognize the simularities between one religious frame of thought and a scientific one.
What "similarities" are you talking about - be specific?
The fact that two wiki articles both contain the word "illusion" doesn't mean that an ancient mysticism has in some way pre-empted quantum theory in the way that SA is claiming does it?
Numbers writes:
Wisdom and knowledge can come in many forms. Not just the Straggler approved variety.
"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." - Buddha (allegedly)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 12:48 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by 1.61803, posted 02-05-2013 1:40 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 72 by mrnobody42, posted 02-18-2013 11:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 44 of 150 (689878)
02-05-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
02-05-2013 1:12 PM


Re: Dualism
The similarities are well documented and spoke about in just about any physics literature you care to read, and I provided two links that show more than just the word illusion.
But I'll bite and say that the Buddhist and Hindus offered the idea that reality is in constant flux and transient, that nature itself is illusory and can not be pinned down. These ideas being discussed 1500 BC. Which is astounding considering they are right. It is imo interesting and I agree coincidental that Quantum mechanic experiments showed, at that level, things are in constant change. Things like light had a dualistic nature. How empty space is frothing with quantum foam and it is impossible to peek at reality without changing the outcome. The Chinese were talking about organic patterns of life for thousands of years. And today it is understood that there is some inherent patterns to how reality manifest itself. Some current theories suggest reality arises from a two dimensional matrix. That reality may very well be illusory. Did the ancient Vedic Sages have some supernatural powers that gave them this knowledge? No. I believe they where just very fucking smart.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 1:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 02-05-2013 6:35 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 150 (689890)
02-05-2013 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2013 10:50 AM


Re: Awareness
This is totally off topic, but, hey ...
It makes it feel like there's a seperation between the me that is in my head and the body that its attached to.
Most of the reflex reactions, like the doctor hitting your knee with that little rubber hatchet of his or accidentally touching a hot stove, are short circuited in the spinal column, if I recall. There is a threshold of signal that just passes up the cord to the brain, but over that threshold the spinal wiring will loop back part of the signal to some muscles to twitch away from the danger. The brain doesn't find out about it till after the fact.
Muscle spasms and cramps are not brain directed and are mostly chemical screw-ups in the tissue or nerves from over use, under use or injury.
So, yeah, I can see where you would say these things are "body" vs brain controlled.
Some of the other incidents you cite, however, I'm not so sure .
The reason I found this interesting is because a few articles I read some months ago (wish I could find them) covered a number of studies with some strange implications. Some Neurologists and Psyrinks are starting to suggest that the conscious mind is just an input/output interface between the universe and the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is where all the analysis and the decision-making take place and the conscious mind carries out those commands that require an outside interface. All the senses are wired into the brain and are shared by the subconscious and conscious, but the subconscious decides what to do about it all. They also speculated that the conscious mind’s realization of the actions may precede or lag behind the actual action as well as serving as memory of intent already decided by the subconscious.
So in your lighter-catching scenario the story goes that the subconscious calculates the path of the lighter using the input from the senses and commands quick movement. The conscious mind was told to move so quickly that it takes a few micro-seconds for the realization of the act to catch up. Presto, instant Jedi.
Something similar with the piano scene. Your realization of the movements of your fingers are ahead of the commanded action and open to distraction from both the rest of the universe and thoughts bubbling up from your subconscious. But for the harder parts (the quicker more complex parts) there is less time between command and action thus realization within the conscious lags behind the subconscious commands.
You go on auto-pilot. Practice, practice, practice is strengthening the subconscious auto-pilot program to the point where you sit at the keys and go on auto-pilot for the entire performance.
I could speculate that in the driving scenario the route to work is more familiar than the store to the subconscious through repetition. So when your conscious mind fiddle-farts around with distractions (maybe you’re tired and let your mind wonder) instead of giving the subconscious the intent reminders the subconscious mind falls back on the most familiar auto-pilot route in the map.
No idea if there is any efficacy to this stuff but I found it interesting.
Thanks, CS.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Had to add QS so's y'all know what we're talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2013 10:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-06-2013 11:06 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024