U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-30-2014, 06:30 PM
 
40,103 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
This is your error . . . you see these as separate issues. They are not. Of course the entire body and brain complex of neuronal states embodies our consciousness. But that IS the problem.There is no physical locus within that complex for the composite consciousness we experience as our awareness to reside EXCEPT in the resonant neural field that accompanies the state. Our consciousness manifests as an energy field. It cannot reside within the MATTER of our body/brain complex . . . any more than flames can continue to reside in the combustible matter that produces them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I guess you see consciousness as an energy emanation from the brain?

Although flames obey rules of fluid dynamics and gaseous dispersion, they are not organized to observe the combustion from whence they came, or to do anything other than dissipate heat and combustion byproducts. They are less organized than the system they emerge from, in fact. So I don't see what good your analogy does you.
If the comparatively crude AIs we are currently producing can encapsulate all their functions including rudimentary self-awareness, I see no reason for the far more evolved and adapted intelligence that comprise each of us, to be less, rather than more, elegant. Or for us to have to multiply explanations in developing a theory of how it might work.
Not quite . . . you are making the same mistake that everyone seems to when evaluating analogies . . . but the analogy is useful for establishing the basic idea. You know that the earth has a protective EM field. Our body/brain system has a similar field that emanates from it that is NOT of the measurable type (dark energy field) which embodies us as a composite energy field that we interact with and is recognized as our Self. Unlike fire . . . it IS organized, interactive and identifiable . . . NOT an illusion. Like the earth's protective field . . . it does not reside in physical matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2014, 07:15 PM
 
43 posts, read 33,722 times
Reputation: 65
Default You might be wrong...

Quote:
Originally Posted by .EL. View Post
Why are you here if not to think and theorize? But if you don't want to think, that's OK too.
I don't believe in invisible sky fairies. I'm not an atheist, because I actually think atheism is a form of faith. The faith in the absence of a deity. Truth is, none of us KNOW.

I consider myself an evangelical agnostic. I love gospel music, but not for the message. Just for the music. Hence, evangelical agnostic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2014, 09:14 PM
 
43 posts, read 33,722 times
Reputation: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by .EL. View Post
Perhaps you should read the complete version (the link is on my original post).
tl;dr
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 08:27 AM
 
39,205 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Not quite . . . you are making the same mistake that everyone seems to when evaluating analogies . . . but the analogy is useful for establishing the basic idea. You know that the earth has a protective EM field.
Just for info..my 2 c worth

Analogies. They are useful in clarifying an argument difficult to understand by using a simpler similar scenario. In fact, the most common misuse of analogies is to use a scenario that is undeniably true (like the earth's protective shield) and by analogy, argue that it proves a claim that is unvalidated, like this body/brain system of Mystics. While the analogy is perhaps useful (though I gather that Mystic's 'consciousness field' is in fact comprising the entire cosmos -reality including us, inside and out, and the 'emanating a field' idea is quite far from what Mystic's theory argues) it should not for a moment be supposed that the truth of the analogy does a single thing to validate the claim of which it is an analogy.

Quote:
.... Our body/brain system has a similar field that emanates from it that is NOT of the measurable type (dark energy field) which embodies us as a composite energy field that we interact with and is recognized as our Self. Unlike fire . . . it IS organized, interactive and identifiable . . . NOT an illusion. Like the earth's protective field . . . it does not reside in physical matter.
There is no good reason to believe in this body/brain field, no valid reason to relate it to or distinguish it from Dark matter (1) which is still unproven, though the circumstantial (mathematical) evidence for its existence is persuasive, but that it is 'Conscious' is totally speculative hypothesis,

Fire is of course organized, interactive and identifiable, in terms of predictable physical processes. It does not of course have what we would call 'consciousness' or intelligence, but that is not the distinction, Mystic, that you were apparently trying to make. Further, doesn't that contradict your own theory in denying that all matter , (including chemicals and chemical reactions, like fire (and of course Light and radio waves too -all matter) is permeated by this consciousness 'Universal field' of yours?

The question of illusion is always a fun one. Fire is NOT an illusion. It is undoubtedly real. The way we see it may be called an illusion, in that how we perceive the reality depends on the the organs of perception we use, and their limitation, but the same can be said of all reality.

You should (but probably won't) recall the analogy I used in the Gaylenwoof -Hard Q thread where I observed that we are like radar operators. The image gives us correct information (give or take the odd glitch or misinterpretation) about the real world out there, but it is an 'illusion' or not what we would see for ourselves.

I am not sure whether there was an implied contrast between chaotic unorganized matter and organized (read 'Intelligent') qualities of this hypothetical body/brain field, but of course, there is no good reason to suppose that this is so. Your easy claims that it is fact and undeniable are simply invalid.

It seems to me, old mate, that you have outdone yourself here. In all senses of the word.

(1) and isn't it your theory, mate, that our consciousness (brain/body) field is part of the Cosmic God -'Mind' which Is manifest through dark matter - please explain if the two things are different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 09:54 AM
 
19,950 posts, read 13,643,840 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meester-Chung View Post
atheists never said we came from nothing
I've never seen an atheist that can explain where life came from at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 10:03 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,946 posts, read 8,262,189 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I've never seen an atheist that can explain where life came from at all.
Perhaps you run in the wrong circles. Or maybe prefer your theist version of magic.

Either way, you do not seem qualified to speak on the subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 12:14 PM
 
40,103 posts, read 26,772,494 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Not quite . . . you are making the same mistake that everyone seems to when evaluating analogies . . . but the analogy is useful for establishing the basic idea. You know that the earth has a protective EM field. Our body/brain system has a similar field that emanates from it that is NOT of the measurable type (dark energy field) which embodies us as a composite energy field that we interact with and is recognized as our Self. Unlike fire . . . it IS organized, interactive and identifiable . . . NOT an illusion. Like the earth's protective field . . . it does not reside in physical matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Just for info..my 2 c worth
Good to hear from you, Arq. I hope you are OK. Seems like you were gone for about a month.
Quote:
Analogies. They are useful in clarifying an argument difficult to understand by using a simpler similar scenario. In fact, the most common misuse of analogies is to use a scenario that is undeniably true (like the earth's protective shield) and by analogy, argue that it proves a claim that is unvalidated, like this body/brain system of Mystics. While the analogy is perhaps useful (though I gather that Mystic's 'consciousness field' is in fact comprising the entire cosmos -reality including us, inside and out, and the 'emanating a field' idea is quite far from what Mystic's theory argues) it should not for a moment be supposed that the truth of the analogy does a single thing to validate the claim of which it is an analogy.
You still like your materiality, Arq old chum. There is nothing BUT field . . . manifesting in myriad ways. We are used to experiencing reality through our senses in specific ways that provide analogues to understand the different ways fields manifest. I use the analogies to provide a cognitive basis for comprehending the actual reality without requiring rigorous (and largely incomprehensible) explanations.
Quote:
There is no good reason to believe in this body/brain field, no valid reason to relate it to or distinguish it from Dark matter (1) which is still unproven, though the circumstantial (mathematical) evidence for its existence is persuasive, but that it is 'Conscious' is totally speculative hypothesis,
Au contraire . . . there is every reason since there is nothing BUT field. I admit you can refuse to see the unified field as a consciousness field . . . but then you are stuck with trying to explain how our consciousness could possibly exist within it. (I know . . . "emergence.") The fundamental difference between consciousness and everything else seems to escape you.
Quote:
Fire is of course organized, interactive and identifiable, in terms of predictable physical processes. It does not of course have what we would call 'consciousness' or intelligence, but that is not the distinction, Mystic, that you were apparently trying to make. Further, doesn't that contradict your own theory in denying that all matter , (including chemicals and chemical reactions, like fire (and of course Light and radio waves too -all matter) is permeated by this consciousness 'Universal field' of yours?
Again . . . it is just the familiarity with the phenomenon that makes it useful to convey a transformation from what is considered material stuff to less material stuff. That is all that exists . . . transformations of field into other manifestations that are less "material" in appearance. The extent that consciousness manifests within the myriad forms of stuff is admittedly unknown . . . though most of what we consider living stuff seems to have some aspects of it. I am put in mind of the phrase "Whatsoever ye do to these the least of my creatures . . . "
Quote:
The question of illusion is always a fun one. Fire is NOT an illusion. It is undoubtedly real. The way we see it may be called an illusion, in that how we perceive the reality depends on the the organs of perception we use, and their limitation, but the same can be said of all reality.
You should (but probably won't) recall the analogy I used in the Gaylenwoof -Hard Q thread where I observed that we are like radar operators. The image gives us correct information (give or take the odd glitch or misinterpretation) about the real world out there, but it is an 'illusion' or not what we would see for ourselves.
Actually . . . we are in complete agreement here.
Quote:
I am not sure whether there was an implied contrast between chaotic unorganized matter and organized (read 'Intelligent') qualities of this hypothetical body/brain field, but of course, there is no good reason to suppose that this is so. Your easy claims that it is fact and undeniable are simply invalid.
It seems to me, old mate, that you have outdone yourself here. In all senses of the word.
As always . . . we seem irreconcilably at odds over the nature of reality, my friend.
Be well,
~Mystic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2014, 02:27 PM
 
39,205 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Good to hear from you, Arq. I hope you are OK. Seems like you were gone for about a month.You still like your materiality, Arq old chum. There is nothing BUT field . . . manifesting in myriad ways. We are used to experiencing reality through our senses in specific ways that provide analogues to understand the different ways fields manifest. I use the analogies to provide a cognitive basis for comprehending the actual reality without requiring rigorous (and largely incomprehensible) explanations.Au contraire . . . there is every reason since there is nothing BUT field. I admit you can refuse to see the unified field as a consciousness field . . . but then you are stuck with trying to explain how our consciousness could possibly exist within it. (I know . . . "emergence.") The fundamental difference between consciousness and everything else seems to escape you.
Again . . . it is just the familiarity with the phenomenon that makes it useful to convey a transformation from what is considered material stuff to less material stuff. That is all that exists . . . transformations of field into other manifestations that are less "material" in appearance. The extent that consciousness manifests within the myriad forms of stuff is admittedly unknown . . . though most of what we consider living stuff seems to have some aspects of it. I am put in mind of the phrase "Whatsoever ye do to these the least of my creatures . . . "
Actually . . . we are in complete agreement here.As always . . . we seem irreconcilably at odds over the nature of reality, my friend.
Be well,
~Mystic

There were a number of reasons why I stayed away. But I missed the place...

It is not a question of liking materiality, Mystic, but of knowing that material is there, and not 'Knowing' (certainly not, despite all your arguments to demonstrate it) that there is anything else.

I am happy to see reality as being something from which consciousness - like 'Life' - eventually emerges. In that respect, I do not refuse anything. It is yourself, rather, so it appears to me, who makes a distinction between human consciousness and other kinds of consciousness (I am still not sure where you stand on animal consciousness) and insists on relating it on no sound evidence that I can see to there being a fully intelligent and reasoning 'Field' (Aka 'God')' by making the Cosmos -reality and everything 'Conscious'.

You will see that I am not 'stuck' with explaining anything as you rather hopefully suggest. It merely indicates how difficult you seem to find it to understand my reasoning position. You certainly seems to misrepresent it a lot by suggesting that I am 'stuck' with problems that I don't have at all.

" it is just the familiarity with the phenomenon that makes it useful to convey a transformation from what is considered material stuff to less material stuff. That is all that exists . . . transformations of field into other manifestations that are less "material" in appearance."

I agree. If you call the 'Field' reality or existence or nature, which I do. Transformations of one kind of particle into another. Just as happens with fire. I do reject the idea that this somehow represents a less organized kind of matter than matter, though in a way it does, as the atoms of solids don't jump about so much, but the 'order' of physics still applies. Where I really disagree is using this as an analogy or metaphor of conscious cosmic intelligence. The analogy is wonky and the claim without substance.

The extent that consciousness manifests within the myriad forms of stuff is admittedly unknown . . . though most of what we consider living stuff seems to have some aspects of it. I am put in mind of the phrase "Whatsoever ye do to these the least of my creatures . . . "

I would say that the extent of consciousness within myriad forms of stuff is known, (1) or at least any element of it beyond what we can determine experimentally is pure supposition. Your free interpretation of Matthew 25.40 (2) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, `even' these least, ye did it unto me is hardly appropriate, let alone supporting evidence.

I am glad that we are in agreement over the nature of illusion - in one sense (there are others as in seeing things that are not there as distinct from things that are there but only appear in a particular form because of our optical and mental gadgetry) . And I am happy to fundamentally disagree with you on the nature of reality - provided that you understand that I have sound reasons (argued at length) for my position, and I have yet to see anything convincing (despite arguments at length) that supports yours.
Keep well, mate...2 old dogs keep snarling...

(1) You cannot dismiss 'emergence' just by posting a headslap icon . To repeat, the basic valency of particles, the cohesion of atoms, the interaction of molecules, the reactions of chemicals, the complication of reaction and action into what we would call 'life' and the reactions of plants to stimuli, animals to stimuli and the evolved instincts of creatures to their environment, prey or predator, others of the species and thus through the problem solving and organization of higher animals to ourselves.
I see no reason to doubt the emergence of consciousness or intelligence from matter, nor even to suppose that human consciousness is of such an order that it is not the same as animals consciousness - which begs the question of what the Consciousness of the 'Field' is. Human or --material?

(2) The term is 'adelphon' brothers (and sisters) and not critters. And the fact that this appears only in Matthew suggests that it is his own views, nobody else's, much less those of Jesus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 05:08 AM
 
39,205 posts, read 10,887,543 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I've never seen an atheist that can explain where life came from at all.
In fact you have, but you then (or at least other God - apologists) argue that we can't prove it or produce life ourselves or, if we can, argue that doesn't prove how it began in the first place.

And in fact the question of where life came from is irrelevant to the religion -debate anyway. I see it more as a pretext or evasion of the real issues by finding one thing that atheism (supposedly) can't answer (like 'who made everything, then?') and making this the pretext for an unthinking dismissal of the entire atheist case.

It is of course dishonest. A rhetorical trick, in an apologetics system that pretty much depends on them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 05:32 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,941,688 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Our body/brain system has a similar field that emanates from it that is NOT of the measurable type
If it isn't measurable, you have no idea if this is true or not. In your attempt to hide your guessing from the scrutiny of others by pretending it is some sort of hidden magic, you've accidentally made it impossible for you to know anything about it either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top