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.
What about the ENTIRE brain state is what is to be referenced do you NOT understand??? Our consciousness is produced and nuanced by every single thing going on in the brain during each instant of consciousness.
Any evidence for this claim?
Quote:
It is that entire complex brain state that is "observed" by our consciousness.
Or this one? Are you consciously aware of the chemical reactions the brain is using to regulate your body temperature, for example? This claim seems to run counter to the whole of idea of the existence of our autonomic nervous system, among other problems.
Quote:
It is ONLY because our consciousness resides as a resonant neural field within the unified field that it can observe the brain state that produces it.
The simpler explanation, as I've said many times, is that the brain has a feedback loop that is self-observing. This even is a possible explanation for the observed apparent delay between deciding and being aware of the decision. Your rigid conceptualization is not the only possible explanation for self awareness.
Even computers can observe their own state. That's been going on since at least the 1960's when multiprocessing operating systems were commercialized. They used to be called interrupt vectors or simply interrupts. These days they are called threads, microthreads and/or fibers.
Forgive me for laboring this point but I have been thinking in these terms since I wrote RST 28H assembler instructions on a Z80 microprocessor running the LSDOS operating system back in the 8 bit computing days. The state of any processing system can be divided. The total executing state of the mainline system does not have to consume 100% of resources. Some resources can be devoted exclusively to state monitoring and reporting and actions can be taken based on the observed state, to feed back into and modify the mainline system. The mainline system can even make requests of the state monitoring API.
If an unremarkable workhorse coder like me could do that in the 1980s then surely the human brain can do it. It may well be (and probably is) structured differently by organic brains compared to digital computers but the basic principle is quite simple and unmysterious and does not require the existence of a "neural field" that you are so fond of.
Now ... is it possible there is a universal consciousness field of some sort? Sure, although I see nothing to make it likely. Do we NEED that field to explain what we've observed so far? Not that I can see. Where does that leave me? With a direction to investigate that is more rather than less likely to produce fruit. Where does that leave you? With a direction to investigate that is favorable to your particular theory of consciousness.
To each their own ...
That's better than my post. I missed the idea that the theory was referencing self -awareness as evidence. i thought it was talking about the idea of 'Mind' as an entity separate from the brain and its workings.
I asked for one example of information transfer that does not involve "something". Then I asked you "how science removes the universe being "smart".
yeah, it could have been that I was confused about your post. On one hand I was thinking "that's what I said". one the other hand i was like, now wait a min, this aint right.
well, its hard to confuse me, because how do you confuse the confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Concepts before labels again it seems. The preferred default seems to be determinism by implication of a combination of non random but unplanned events. That isn't provable any more than a plan behind every one of those events is disprovable, but it isn't necessary for the explanation of our actions and choices to propose them. The principle of parsimony applies here.
So, using the approved methods of assessing data, determinism seems the preferred default. .
It's not a "default". there are no defaults. There is only "stories that match observations" and how plausible or not they are. And 50/50 is just fine. If we are being honest that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Where does that leave Free Will? we have choices and after all I suppose we would prefer that our choices have some basis other than emotional coin -flipping. Thus, like everything else in the universe, free will is actually an illusion, but it is very convenient for us to go along with the illusion in our daily life, as we do in all other things.
start at the standard model first. It's all we have. where it leaves "free will" is meaningless to me. It's like where does it leave the hand crank to start the car after we made starters. The hand crank wasn't wrong, just we know more now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
After all, nobody is ever going to refuse to sit on a chair on the grounds that the atoms comprise it are made of nothing, as near as makes no difference.
this view has changed a bit. But let's keep it at the old way for now. "Nothing" is really just a word play. To talk about the notions that speak to illusions. There is something there and they are called gauge bosons. utterly meaningless to most people. but not to me. when are looking for 'what's going on" we need to begin to look further than we know. I love mort's word "hunching". well, now we have to "hunch" with gauge bosons and how they work.
philosophers say "irrelevant", yeah, I bet they are to most of them. And I am ok with that until they push philosophy off as a descriptor of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Where this relates to topic is that the defaults of physics and science and indeed rational thought, seems to have merit and the 'just supposes' do not, except as interesting and often useful hypotheses.
Thus, in evolution, abiogenesis is actually the preferred default where we have no proof one way or the other.
A natural cause is the preferred default in cosmic origins, even if no Cause we can think of seems very probable.
"just suppose", on a short leash, is the root of new science and "better" engineering. period. this is not open to debate based on agenda's. People that don't understand what is going on really need to keep their hands off of this. It's a fragile concept that breaks easily. That's when self understanding comes in to play.
"abiogenesis" really points to notions hierarchy of structure. "abiogenesis" IS NOT A DESCRITOR of what is going on. It means life emerged form little pieces adding up to bigger pieces. These larger "pieces" have more complexity and thus "more complex" traits. A little clarification is needed, but I don't feel like teaching it. So again words used convey misunderstanding when not used in proper context. Or to mislead others to an agenda's end instead of what is. It has nothing to do with if there is or there is not a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Failing a sound scientific case for an ordered and created universe, a naturally -occurring one is the preferred default, where we have little proof about its origins.
The message for atheists is: if reason and evidence counts for anything, you have got on the right side.
I am ok with militant. Some religious people **** me off many times. I am not ok with militant and the misuse of science as a weapon against other people. Not if we are not being honest that is. And being as truthful as we can to let them decide for themselves.
Its starts with people being smart enough to know when they are sounding stupid. At least for me its easy ... I am always stupid
Just in case you miss it at the top:
I asked for one example of information transfer that does not involve "something".
Then I asked you "how science removes the universe being "smart". meaning, "how can we describe events that appear to be "chosen" but may not actually be"
What about the ENTIRE brain state is what is to be referenced do you NOT understand???
What about that being an issue do you not understand - in something like an iterative process. You seem really hung up on the idea that self observation in consciousness would change what is being observed. But aside from making it clear you have that issue - you have not grounded or explained the actual issue. You just declare it to be an issue and leave it there hanging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The key word is postulate, old_cold. You are addressing my CONCLUSIONS . . . not the underlying scientific rationale that leads me to them
And yet when I asked clearly and directly for you to give that rationale - you pretended I did not ask at all - and spouted again this "That my conclusions not my rationale" mantra of yours. It seems even when someone directly asks you for your basis - you have to pretend that they have shown no interest in your basis. That is what makes your "based on absolutely nothing scientific" ideas incorrect.
I asked for one example of information transfer that does not involve "something". Then I asked you "how science removes the universe being "smart".
yeah, it could have been that I was confused about your post. On one hand I was thinking "that's what I said". one the other hand i was like, now wait a min, this aint right.
well, its hard to confuse me, because how do you confuse the confused.
It's not a "default". there are no defaults. There is only "stories that match observations" and how plausible or not they are. And 50/50 is just fine. If we are being honest that is.
start at the standard model first. It's all we have. where it leaves "free will" is meaningless to me. It's like where does it leave the hand crank to start the car after we made starters. The hand crank wasn't wrong, just we know more now.
this view has changed a bit. But let's keep it at the old way for now. "Nothing" is really just a word play. To talk about the notions that speak to illusions. There is something there and they are called gauge bosons. utterly meaningless to most people. but not to me. when are looking for 'what's going on" we need to begin to look further than we know. I love mort's word "hunching". well, now we have to "hunch" with gauge bosons and how they work.
philosophers say "irrelevant", yeah, I bet they are to most of them. And I am ok with that until they push philosophy off as a descriptor of reality.
"just suppose", on a short leash, is the root of new science and "better" engineering. period. this is not open to debate based on agenda's. People that don't understand what is going on really need to keep their hands off of this. It's a fragile concept that breaks easily. That's when self understanding comes in to play.
"abiogenesis" really points to notions hierarchy of structure. "abiogenesis" IS NOT A DESCRITOR of what is going on. It means life emerged form little pieces adding up to bigger pieces. These larger "pieces" have more complexity and thus "more complex" traits. A little clarification is needed, but I don't feel like teaching it. So again words used convey misunderstanding when not used in proper context. Or to mislead others to an agenda's end instead of what is. It has nothing to do with if there is or there is not a god.
I am ok with militant. Some religious people **** me off many times. I am not ok with militant and the misuse of science as a weapon against other people. Not if we are not being honest that is. And being as truthful as we can to let them decide for themselves.
Its starts with people being smart enough to know when they are sounding stupid. At least for me its easy ... I am always stupid
Just in case you miss it at the top:
I asked for one example of information transfer that does not involve "something".
Then I asked you "how science removes the universe being "smart". meaning, "how can we describe events that appear to be "chosen" but may not actually be"
I don't thinks there's much disagreement about what, but some dickering about labels. matter really being 'nothing' is true in a broadly conventional way and confusion only comes into it when we start arguing about what 'nothing' really is in woo physics and quantum terms, and also just how much of it there is in the average atom and what the particles themselves are made of, which looks like nothing with the ability to hold relative positions and do stuff.
Same with 'default'. The term is generally understood as the best theory that fits all the facts, or all the facts that we know. It is a human logical convention, based on the principle of parsimony, but is not only a necessary one, since without it, we could not do science, but is based on reality.
Defaults (or preferred theories) are pretty obviously based on what has the best evidence. That's why the materialist default is the right one as what we know supports it. I know we have quantum and black holes, but like relativity, that doesn't alter the fact that Newton still works and quantum doesn't alter the fact that Einstein still works.
The discussion with Mystic phd about the validity of the materialist default only convinced me that there was no case to answer. The counter (including the Hard Question) seemed to be based on gaps in the evidence.
It's rather like evolution. It is so heavily supported by evidence that the attempts to find tough questions are really futile, because they are no more than questions that require answers. They do not overturn the 'default' of evolution theory as they fondly hope, and the unanswered questions about cosmic origins, the origins of life, the origins of consciousness, the workings of human consciousness, explanation of NDE's and OOB's and what causes them, all fail to upset the rational and physical materialist defaults because they are nothing but unanswered questions and indeed supply no answers or explanations themselves, but claim the 'gap' for whatever argument they are making as evidence in itself.
This is fundamentally wrong as unexplaineds are merely unexplained. If one claims that they are explained by saying 'God' (and that is pretty much It) one is contradicting by saying that the unexplained is explained.
I'm pretty much quoting Qualiasoups video on critical thinking ("Open -mindedness") which ought to be required reading for anyone getting into these sorts of discussions.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-16-2015 at 04:37 AM..
I'm pretty much quoting Qualiasoup's video on critical thinking ("Open -mindedness") which ought to be required reading for anyone getting into these sorts of discussions.
This seems a duplicate post, so let's take the opportunity to post the vid, which touches on this idea of preferred defaults, gaps for gods (or ghosts, or any supernatural stuff) and the often -encountered suggestion that those who prefer the 'default' theories are closed minded. They (we) are not. we merely say 'this has the best evidence. Where is the evidence for yours?' This is so often a belief -claim with no substance other than the unexplained gaps presented as the reason why the 'defaults' (materialism, monism, abiogenesis, evolution, the mystical/religions experiences, OOB's and NDE's and the ecstatic effect of prayer are products of the mind, not 'Something Else' and of course Cosmic origins.
Maybe there’s an explanation beyond religion and atheist theory. The problem with current beliefs is that they are not observable in nature. Life is not created by supernatural gods or inorganic objects. We need a theory that follows the laws of nature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Please leave comments and questions that perpetuate knowledge and understanding.[/color]
Yes, that's good. It covers a lot of the common accusations, questions and misconceptions, about supposed atheist refusal to consider other claims. They ask for evidence and there is more or less none. It mentions the need to stop honouring stubborn inflexibility and belief in unsupported claims as incontrovertible truth as somehow admirable. It touches on the argument from evil as a counter to the 'God made the species' claim, and is exactly the point that Stephen Fry was making, if one has the mental flexibility to see past the immediate 'pearly Gates' scenario to the point being made. It touches on the inadequacy of the gaps for God argument and the one that is hardest for the theist to get their heads around: why 'We don't know' is a better and more honest answer than 'Goddunnit'.
A new message? I didn't know there had been an old one.
According to the OP, The theist explanation of everything and the atheist 'Something from nothing' idea are 'not observable in nature' (which is a fair enough point) and a new 'message' is needed. Capo pointed out that this is fact nothing new and is a half -way deism.
In fact, since it is directed to atheists rather than to theists, it seems a way of sliding 'God' under the laboratory door.
It is quite an old ploy - if not a message - to wangle 'God' into being accepted as a valid premise by any method possible, even the one of calling 'everything' "God" and then subtl;y shifting the meaning so we suddenly find that we are not talking about 'nature - reality' but about some sort of cosmic consciousness that has a Plan for us.
If we go along with this argument we will soon see that the Plan will be found in the pages of the Bible and we realize that the 'New message' is just the old con of the 'leap of faith'.
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.
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.
The preferred default seems to be determinism by implication of a combination of non random but unplanned events. That isn't provable any more than a plan behind every one of those events is disprovable, but it isn't necessary for the explanation of our actions and choices to propose them. The principle of parsimony applies here.
