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.
" Science has always existed. --- before the scientific method..."
well then you mean the Science of focusing one's feeling of Faith upon the Concept. In a sense All is concept, possibly Concept creating everything which Is. However, I tend to believe for the ordinary consciousness of Life, the meaning of people evolving and containing each other's Conscience, scientific method is the way we tolerate one another for the infinite capacities of misunderstood feelings. We reject the scientific method but it was always there.
You cannot have experience without a conscious experiencer.
We keep going around and around on this. I would just give up, except that I know that a lot of people would agree with you, so I would like to get to the bare bones of exactly why we disagree here.
As we both know by now, I roughly agree with the concept of a primordial experiencer, although I claim that the "default state" (or "ontological ground state") of the "experiencer" is unconscious. If I were to put this into theistic terms, I would say that God's "ontological ground state" is deep, dreamless sleep (aka, unconsciousness). And just as each of us is a being who can "wake up" from a dreamless sleep, so too is God. We don't consciously "plan to wake up;" we do not consciously "choose to wake up;" we simply wake up. I see no reason to posit the existence of some God entity who "wakes us up." And if we can spontaneously wake up without purposefully being awakened by some external conscious entity, then I do not see why this same principle cannot apply to God. Why can't God spontaneously "wake up" from a dreamless sleep? If this is right, then we do not need the concept of a primordial conscious God; all we need is a primordial unconscious God, which is one way to characterize what I call the "primordial qualitative chaos" or the "intrinsic subjectivity of Being."
So, just to review: I am not really denying the notion of a primordial experiencer (the real, but non-actualized, potential-for-conscious-experience that is intrinsic to the fundamental nature of reality). All I am denying is that we are logically forced to accept the existence of a primordial conscious experiencer who created the world in accordance with some conscious purpose. It is plausible to suggest that, "the world woke up" once physical systems attained a certain type of patterned complexity. This would suggest that there is no reason or purpose for the world, as such, but it does not rule out the possibility that reason/purpose go hand-in-hand with the awakening.
BTW: You could, in a sense, say that consciousness is primordial, if you "start the clock" so to speak, from the "first" moment of consciousness. This might make sense to do because it is probably the case that time, as we experience it, did not even exist until the "first" moment of consciousness. This idea actually fits extremely well with the various interpretations of quantum mechanics supported by Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, and others who emphasize that you cannot, even in principle, separate the observer from the observed.
Now, it is interesting to note that my proposal does require a certain sort of irrationality at the very roots of existence. No ultimate plan; no ultimate purpose; just a deep existential absurdity. But our inability to, even in principle, ultimately understand WHY existence exists does not necessarily mean that we cannot devise a plausible mathematical model of HOW order, consciousness, and intelligence came into being. Or to put it another way: We probably can't explain why God woke up, but we might be able to explain how it happened, given the initial conditions that I have indicated. And that, I think, is all that anyone can reasonably ask of science, or any form of rational philosophy.
I'm not saying that science, or more on point scientific inquiry, hasn't existed before the formal advent of the titled 'scientific method'. I'm saying the same or similar methodology was probably employed. Even referring to something as "simply knowledge" is off the mark. A knowledgeable person, or better said an expert really if we want to speak of true knowledge and not just playing with our naval fuzz, doesn't simply know stuff. Experts don't just observe and apply willy nilly interpretation. There is rigorous inquiry, application, and discussion for expertise in any arena. And it doesn't deviate that far from the scientific method, which is simply a sound approach to understanding what we observe (much of the time, not all of the time I guess).
This is right. Humans have been applying thought to problems from long since. What 'science' is is what it has become: a tried and tested method of testing discoveries and setting in place checks to ensure that we are not getting false results.
Quote:
From my pov, it seems like you want the scientific method to be this out of the world methodology when it's really not. It's pretty straight forward and easy to understand, at least in my line of work. You observe something. You hypothesize as to the how's and/or why's. You set out to explain it via experiment (or whatever). You test, test again, and validate your findings. You present/discuss with colleagues that are knowledgeable. You then take their advice and see if it applies. You go back to them and a consensus is reached. That's pretty much it. But, if I observe something in the lab and can't repeat it, it doesn't fly. The observation has to be shared with anybody for it to fall under the umbrella of science (then, now, and in the future).
Yes. It may burn the cultists and delusion - mongers that their claims don't stack up and of course, if so, science must be wrong.
Less disprovable is the argument that any unvalidated answer is better than no answer at all.
There was a thread on the strawman Sphagetti monster. Of course, they missed the point as the FSM is supposed to be a spoof god - a strawman to show up the fallacy of theist claims. The point is that there is no more evidence for the spaghetti monster than for any other deity, popular or unpopular, current or obsolete.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-19-2011 at 09:30 AM..
No. Gldbrck uses trolling methods out of sheer amusement and it doesn't hurt that it gives an easy advantage.
But I comment mainly because he (or she? I could have sworn he claimed to be a she at one time) made a good point. Though of course it escapes the rather superficial reasoning of the poster:
"There's others...like: Based on Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest, the ultra-prevalence of Theism is indicative of it being a trait of the "Most Mentally Fit" humans."
This is a valid point, that it may well be the case that the 'divine instinct' has evolved because it gives a survival advantage. Don't we see in sport how many athletes swear that their faith helped them to achieve better results? Isn't there a reason why belief that 'God is on your side' gives an advantage?
It doesn't mean for a moment that gods are real, but it does mean that natural selection is a good mechanism for god - belief to have evolved.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-19-2011 at 09:32 AM..
The examples expressed by GR and TR above prove one thing. (#675 & 676)
Way back when there was a lot of ignorance, in both science and religion.
The difference is that science has corrected it's mistakes, acknowledged it was wrong, correcting concepts that were wrong, and we now know that the earth is not flat, and that blood letting is not beneficial.
On the other hand religion is still defending the 2000+ year old ignorance and hasn't learned or corrected anything.
We keep going around and around on this. I would just give up, except that I know that a lot of people would agree with you, so I would like to get to the bare bones of exactly why we disagree here.
As we both know by now, I roughly agree with the concept of a primordial experiencer, although I claim that the "default state" (or "ontological ground state") of the "experiencer" is unconscious. If I were to put this into theistic terms, I would say that God's "ontological ground state" is deep, dreamless sleep (aka, unconsciousness). And just as each of us is a being who can "wake up" from a dreamless sleep, so too is God. We don't consciously "plan to wake up;" we do not consciously "choose to wake up;" we simply wake up. I see no reason to posit the existence of some God entity who "wakes us up." And if we can spontaneously wake up without purposefully being awakened by some external conscious entity, then I do not see why this same principle cannot apply to God. Why can't God spontaneously "wake up" from a dreamless sleep? If this is right, then we do not need the concept of a primordial conscious God; all we need is a primordial unconscious God, which is one way to characterize what I call the "primordial qualitative chaos" or the "intrinsic subjectivity of Being."
So, just to review: I am not really denying the notion of a primordial experiencer (the real, but non-actualized, potential-for-conscious-experience that is intrinsic to the fundamental nature of reality). All I am denying is that we are logically forced to accept the existence of a primordial conscious experiencer who created the world in accordance with some conscious purpose. It is plausible to suggest that, "the world woke up" once physical systems attained a certain type of patterned complexity. This would suggest that there is no reason or purpose for the world, as such, but it does not rule out the possibility that reason/purpose go hand-in-hand with the awakening.
BTW: You could, in a sense, say that consciousness is primordial, if you "start the clock" so to speak, from the "first" moment of consciousness. This might make sense to do because it is probably the case that time, as we experience it, did not even exist until the "first" moment of consciousness. This idea actually fits extremely well with the various interpretations of quantum mechanics supported by Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, and others who emphasize that you cannot, even in principle, separate the observer from the observed.
Now, it is interesting to note that my proposal does require a certain sort of irrationality at the very roots of existence. No ultimate plan; no ultimate purpose; just a deep existential absurdity. But our inability to, even in principle, ultimately understand WHY existence exists does not necessarily mean that we cannot devise a plausible mathematical model of HOW order, consciousness, and intelligence came into being. Or to put it another way: We probably can't explain why God woke up, but we might be able to explain how it happened, given the initial conditions that I have indicated. And that, I think, is all that anyone can reasonably ask of science, or any form of rational philosophy.
Obviously I am out of my depth here but I am trying to understand.
The factors which pop into my head, and maybe you can clarify them are:
Is this 'god' we are talking about 'for sake of argument' or a given the nature and function of which is being discussed. I note that you accept the idea of a 'primordial experiencer', which sounds awfully godlike, but that depends on the experience, I suppose.
Is there any particular reason why we should make any assumptions about the origins of the universe? Not least why there should be a why if we have no idea what and how? Bear in mind that the universe we are in may be the only one and there may be no other universes, (whether or not it began with an expansion event and whether this reality of ours is just a holograph projected from beyond the edge) or it may be just one of many similar or totally different universes, and that just in this dimension?
Finally, could you clarify this idea of 'consciousnes'. I got bogged down as it moved from talking about ours (intelligence) to biological (reactions) and beyond to what I am not sure but it seems remote from anything I'd even begin to associate with anything I'd label 'god', not because the cosmos isn't big or wonderful, it is. So are mountains and glaciers, but I don't think I can communicate with them so I don't see the term 'consciousness' applying to them any more than 'god' to the cosmos.
Somehow there seemed to be a change of meanings of both terms along the way and it seemed to be a rhetorical trick rather than a philosophical argument. Mystic didn't like that and maybe it's just something I'm misunderstanding. Perhaps you can explain.
Mind, I note that you are at the similar stage I got to, of going round in circles.
The examples expressed by GR and TR above prove one thing. (#675 & 676)
Way back when there was a lot of ignorance, in both science and religion.
The difference is that science has corrected it's mistakes, acknowledged it was wrong, correcting concepts that were wrong, and we now know that the earth is not flat, and that blood letting is not beneficial.
On the other hand religion is still defending the 2000+ year old ignorance and hasn't learned or corrected anything.
HA! Just shows how little you know about religion!
They have "corrected" a lot. Especially Denominational Christianity.
It used to be the "fire and brimstone for you if you don't follow the rules" sermons.
Over time...as man became more intellectually sophisticated...and found the "OR ELSE, HELL" concept to be unappealing and started to turn away...so they "CORRECTED" to a "Jesus loves you...if you'll just love Him" technique.
This got the cash flowing again.
So, see? They "learned and corrected" the most important thing--How to keep people forking over their cash!!
Just like the scientists fudged the "Global Warming" data...to keep that "cash cow" producing for them...when they knew the "Poor Spotted Owl" type plea was a teat that was starting to dry up on them.
Heeeeeey...look at that....Science and Religion are a lot alike in some ways.
We keep going around and around on this. I would just give up, except that I know that a lot of people would agree with you, so I would like to get to the bare bones of exactly why we disagree here.
I resist a rigorous refutation because I enjoy the discussion . . . but more importantly . . . you are reaching those who automatically tune me out. You are able to alert them to the real issues that they did not even realize existed in their "Imperical"*** (see creative definition in another thread) philosophical ignorance. (Besides this is neither the time nor place for such rigorous explication.)
Quote:
As we both know by now, I roughly agree with the concept of a primordial experiencer, although I claim that the "default state" (or "ontological ground state") of the "experiencer" is unconscious.
This is a function of the sensory limitations of this level of becoming and the Catch22 of consciousness. As long as we retain the link to the sensory system as our active focus . . . we cannot access the unconscious to experience its "awareness." This is why deep meditation (under sober conscious control) is essential. Unfortunately the built-in bias against "subjective" experience renders the effort scientifically moot except for the experiencer himself (Catch 22).
Quote:
If I were to put this into theistic terms, I would say that God's "ontological ground state" is deep, dreamless sleep (aka, unconsciousness). And just as each of us is a being who can "wake up" from a dreamless sleep, so too is God. We don't consciously "plan to wake up;" we do not consciously "choose to wake up;" we simply wake up. I see no reason to posit the existence of some God entity who "wakes us up."
This seems to be part of the automatic association of the many Biblegod or other God beliefs about "control" . . . which have more to do with what humans require a God to be than any intrinsic requirement for God (the World experiencer).
Quote:
And if we can spontaneously wake up without purposefully being awakened by some external conscious entity, then I do not see why this same principle cannot apply to God. Why can't God spontaneously "wake up" from a dreamless sleep? If this is right, then we do not need the concept of a primordial conscious God; all we need is a primordial unconscious God, which is one way to characterize what I call the "primordial qualitative chaos" or the "intrinsic subjectivity of Being."
As long as you retain the irrational position that unconscious is unaware . . . which none of the information we have would support . . . you will continue to pursue the academically approved ground state to enable completion of your degree (if you are seeking a Doctorate). Our real awareness exists at a higher level of being than our in-process state of consciousness. The evidence is clear and mounting that we do not need the stimuli to register in the brain's sensory system for our "unconscious" to be "aware" of its content . . . nor does it even need to precede the awareness in our timeline (Darryl Bem's most recent work).
Quote:
So, just to review: I am not really denying the notion of a primordial experiencer (the real, but non-actualized, potential-for-conscious-experience that is intrinsic to the fundamental nature of reality). All I am denying is that we are logically forced to accept the existence of a primordial conscious experiencer who created the world in accordance with some conscious purpose. It is plausible to suggest that, "the world woke up" once physical systems attained a certain type of patterned complexity. This would suggest that there is no reason or purpose for the world, as such, but it does not rule out the possibility that reason/purpose go hand-in-hand with the awakening.
I admire the verbal hijinks you are capable of, Gaylenwoof . . . the fact that some aspects of consciousness are inaccessible to us (unconscious) in our in-process consciousness is not sufficient to attribute unawareness to the substrate. The evidence we do have would suggest the exact opposite.
Quote:
BTW: You could, in a sense, say that consciousness is primordial, if you "start the clock" so to speak, from the "first" moment of consciousness. This might make sense to do because it is probably the case that time, as we experience it, did not even exist until the "first" moment of consciousness. This idea actually fits extremely well with the various interpretations of quantum mechanics supported by Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, and others who emphasize that you cannot, even in principle, separate the observer from the observed.
Time as we experience it is entirely the result of our "lagged state" at the sub-light level of becoming as our in-process consciousness is created at the pure energy level of becoming (light-squared). The sequential nature of this creation is what produces time and all our confusion. As Plato said: " the soul is dragged by the body into the region of the changeable and wanders and is confused."
Quote:
Now, it is interesting to note that my proposal does require a certain sort of irrationality at the very roots of existence.
Duh!
Quote:
No ultimate plan; no ultimate purpose; just a deep existential absurdity. But our inability to, even in principle, ultimately understand WHY existence exists does not necessarily mean that we cannot devise a plausible mathematical model of HOW order, consciousness, and intelligence came into being. Or to put it another way: We probably can't explain why God woke up, but we might be able to explain how it happened, given the initial conditions that I have indicated. And that, I think, is all that anyone can reasonably ask of science, or any form of rational philosophy.
I believe we can ask more . . . far more, Gaylenwoof. Mathematics is useful . . . but not determinative.
*** Imperical: "Imperious conclusions based on flawed or faulty understanding of empirical results."
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-19-2011 at 12:06 PM..
To take your last point first:It isn't but is a mixture of semantic details and rather poor logic.
That's a relief. I'm not really interested in being just logical so that I continue not being so is good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You are saying a lot more than you know. And you are rather reducing science to a man in a white coat fiddling with a test - tube.
Not really. The woman living with chimps, the man exploring volcanoes, the astronaut, the submarine explorer, the peanut farmer, and so forth can also be science. Science is the study of nature wherever that takes one. From the highest mountain to the deepest ocean to outer-space to one's front yard.
I just don't see how that takes one to questions about justice, reality, ultimate truth, transcendence, or other concepts that aren't really natural phenomenon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I am talking about the application of the scientific method and logic too. Science, once it understands the basis of where our ideas on society and morality come from (and you cannot say from your position of not knowing that it can't be understood by science), then that is the basis for the application of logical reasoning which is what we have been doing all the time - except where the sheer rather brutal instinct is upheld by religious authority. Whatever the inadequacies of science, it has to be better than that - since the doctrine of God given morality has been pretty much demolished here on the boards.
No it hasn't. You overreach yourself here. At best all you, plural, have done is pick at some Bible moments. Even then you haven't demolished any values at all. At most you've said certain historical events didn't actually occur as recorded so one doesn't have to believe what comes from them.
And that's your choice, but it doesn't demolish the values or that they come from God. I grant that the way your mind works it does, but for how a vast number of people think it doesn't do anything like that.
Humility, self-sacrifice, loving one's enemy, loving God, etc can certainly still be values from God even if you are somehow right about everything. You want people to abandon things in the hopes that maybe a logical study of human behavior can create some better values. And I think there's no reason for anyone to do that unless they share your faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
As to getting lost books It occurred to me last night that the principle of indeterminacy is evidence that there is a world where WWI never happened, Elgar never lost his faith and he actually wrote his 3rd religious oratorio. Who is to say that it is impossible to dip into the other universe and return with the lost work? Some of what you deem impossible may become possible.
I'm thinking you're half-joking here. Still a good deal of what you're saying is based in a never-never land where science and logic can do things that I'm not even sure science and logic claim they can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Point taken. But don't theists often say 'believe or not?'. If one doesn't believe, then one disbelieves. There seems no middle ground.
Well perhaps, but theists vary and I'm not trying to represent them all. I think a person can simply be undecided on any number of issues. I guess in a way that's a disbelief, but I don't quite see it that way.
If a person told me some new hypothesis would unify all of physics I might say "maybe." This doesn't mean I'm saying it won't, but it also doesn't mean I think it will. It means I'm not sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Perhaps the problem is that you confuse disbelief with the state of knowing that something isn't so. If it isn't given a decent amount of reason to believe something one should logically not believe.
Disbelief generally implies you don't believe it. If we get technical than yes "don't believe" could be a spectrum that includes "don't have an opinion either way" but generally I think "disbelief" means you doubt it. You're not saying you know it's not true, but you personally don't think it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
And faith based on inadequate evidence is worse than inadequate.
Why? And at what point is evidence "adequate" and who gets to decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
In a way, yes. I can see the way forward clearly, but I could be wrong. In fact science has said a lot of this but it hasn't come together as a whole rational investigation of love, hate and the rest because each is doing its own bit and I am looking to the future. The point is not whether I turn out to be a prophet or not but that science (if and when it does do this) has every right to try and irrelevant protests that it will never have all the answers are actually more blinkered than my speculations that it could find more than you'd think, and any suggestions that it shouldn't even be allowed to try are totally unacceptable.
It can try whatever it wishes. I think trying to put it into these cosmic or moral issues is quite possibly just creating a religion of equations, but in a way religion suits you. You're possibly a more devout person than I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Since good and bad are also purely products of our own evolved brain, that seems totally appropriate.
Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I should say again that the science can, through investigation, find out the biological reasons why we do these things and why we think in that way and I don't doubt that survival is the driving force. Seems obvious. If so, understanding this clears away a lot of irrational clutter about good and bad and thus morality, law and the rest will be approached purely on a logical basis, if the scientific method can't assist.
And that's downright terrifying. How do you debate a morality that has the iron will of science and logic behind it. Did you ever read "Notes from Underground" by Dostoyefsky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I know it probably appalls you to think that good and bad is a matter of human convenience rather than some invisible judge handing the dictat down to us, but really that myth hasn't done too well and I reckon we've been trying to do it pragmatically and logically for a long time now and the god - given moral compass idea has just confused the issue.
Actually I think in Catholicism morality has a great deal to do with our nature as understand by reason. However if that's all it is, there is no revelation at all, then yes it purely being an artificial creation of people is appalling.
It's the basic flaw I find in most rational atheism. You need people to be the source of everything. But you also know enough to know people are just evolved apes and that most of them will not be logical in the way you desire. So it's ultimately a faith of a scientific elite. And a very flawed one at that, one that's failed far worse than almost any religion in history. Eugenics, race-based genocide, involuntary human experimentation, chemical weapons, totalitarianism, etc. That's on the Enlightenment and after values, not mine.
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.
It occurred to me last night that the principle of indeterminacy is evidence that there is a world where WWI never happened, Elgar never lost his faith and he actually wrote his 3rd religious oratorio. Who is to say that it is impossible to dip into the other universe and return with the lost work? Some of what you deem impossible may become possible.
