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 recent posted discussion between Dawkins and Archbish. Williams had Cantium referring to the unanswered questions about consciousness as grist to his mill of making some sort of case for God, so maybe Mystic's theories are gaining wider currency!
The basic of the discussion is really whether there is any valid reason to suppose (let alone believe) that human consciousness is not particular to the individual human bean (let alone being a developing facility inherent in the genetic make -up) but is part of a collective consciousness which itself could be part of a cosmos - wide thinking entity. That is two rather speculative steps without even trying to make the leap to anything which we might be willing to see labelled 'God' without complaining to the advertising authority.
These two articles seemed to me to present the two sides in the debate.
"This question is the famous `mind-body problem'. Though it has a long and sordid history in both philosophy and science, I think, in broad outline at least, it has a rather simple solution. Here it is: Conscious states are caused by lower level neurobiological processes in the brain and are themselves higher level features of the brain. The key notions here are those of cause and feature. As far as we know anything about how the world works, variable rates of neuron firings in different neuronal architectures cause all the enormous variety of our conscious life. All the stimuli we receive from the external world are converted by the nervous system into one medium, namely, variable rates of neuron firings at synapses."
."....all cultures of which we have record believed that human perception extends beyond the reach of the senses. This belief might be dismissed as superstition but for the fact that modern research has established its validity beyond reasonable doubt to anyone whose reasoning has not clotted into hardened skepticism. To reiterate a single example – the evidence supporting foreknowledge – psi researchers Charles Honorton and Diane Ferrari examined 309 precognition experiments carried out by sixty-two investigators involving 50,000 participants in more than two million trials. Thirty percent of these studies were significant in showing that people can describe future events, when only five percent would be expected to demonstrate such results by chance. The odds that these results were not due to chance was greater than 10 to the twentieth power to one."
Even if these result are as significant as presented, the cause of it is still open to question. Can we really assume that being able to see the future is any less brain activity than being able to see a distant scene? After all, light rays permeate the universe, but that doesn't make the universe one big eyeball.
The article here (aside from the appeal to tradition and swipe at skepticism) is pretty typical of the case for consciousness beyond the individual brain in that it relies heavily on the questions that science hasn't yet answered while really not being able to produce many answers itself. Far from Mystic's plonking claim of factuality " consciousness is a field phenomenon ".
You still don't get it, Arequipa. Brain activity is essential to PRODUCE consciousness but it is NOT the consciousness produced. The brain activity is coalesced into a composite awareness that is our consciousness. The composite "summarizes" the "variable rates of neuron firings at synapses" that comprise it across the entire brain based on those that are resonant in the neural field. (The physical brain activity cannot summarize itself without corrupting the brain states to be summarized.)
Quote:
I first thought that Mystic's theory linked human consciousness with the physical actions of matter and so they are, but that is not to say that this forms a cosmic consciousness field (Aka God) any more than crystals can be regarded as organic because they grow. There are links (as viruses demonstrate) but there are important differences too.
However Mystic now seems to prefer dark matter as a cosmic - wide consciousness field. I can't see why that should be any more likely than the processes that power atoms, but perhaps the sheer mystery of this as yet unproven substance makes it more convincing as 'God' than a bunch of molecules.
You misunderstand, Arequipa. Dark energy and dark matter comprise over 95% of our reality and we can detect their effects but cannot measure either directly because they appear not to be baryonic. Their effects constitute the physical evidence for the existence of the non-material (non-baryonic) parts of our reality that are so frequently claimed to not exist! I have not changed my view of the universal field as the consciousness of God . . . but simply point to the dark energy/matter as evidence that it is not unreasonable since our consciousness is similarly unmeasurable directly . . . only through its effects. The simple unavoidable conundrum for materialists is that consciousness exists and that means that it must be a fundamental property of our reality. If that is the case . . . then our reality is conscious. How is a conscious reality NOT God?
Quote:
P.s I decided not to post links to the debate about the Honorton/Ferrari studies. The point is that, even if precognition was proven, 'What' (to use Mystic's term) 'is it?' Universal field alias 'God' is only one possible explanation.
It is the result of the fact that our consciousness as it manifests at our physical (sub-light) level of existence as matter is a delayed version of our actual consciousness which exists at the light-squared level of existence as energy. Our consciousness must form the composite as energy during "quantum time" before we experience time with our "instantaneous" and continuous awareness at the sub-light level of existence. This is why we are consciously aware of things before the physical brain even registers the stimuli. Bottom line: We are living in a time-delayed existence. Some of us sporadically access the information before it is actualized here. Here is some light reading for you.
The various respondents have already clearly stated the lack of logic principles and lack of definition of the terms used, to which I like to add ‘proof’. A discussion becomes meaningless if we attach different meanings to key terms.
With regard to taking consciousness as proof of the existence of God I would comment that giving a phenomenon a name is not equivalent to understanding it, it only allows us to communicate to each other that we experience similar phenomena. Therefore something as poorly understood as consciousness cannot be used to prove the existence of something infinitely less understood (i.e. God).
Otherwise, I would like to take a different approach to the statements made.
Any man-made system we know in physical reality is created by somebody outside the system. Systems cannot be created from inside (which would be from nothing). The creator also typically manifests only part of himself (through his creativity) in the system (e.g. its workings, rules, limits, etc). The system cannot know the creator although it could surmise what the purpose was for its being, which is not the same as proof that there is a creator. May be it existed forever (another dead end for our limited intellectual powers).
A system may experience outside influences, but not being able to understanding anything about the outside, this could have many reasons and does not prove anything either.
If we apply ‘as below so above’, we can only conclude that we certainly cannot comprehend God. We can only accept the reality of God. Such a belief comes from experiencing that our beliefs work for us i.e. they result in peace, happiness, and purpose, but we can only verify that for ourselves. In that sense it may be valid, but it is only and indication or sign but not proof in the conventional sense.
If we accept that the spiritual dimension exists (a world outside of our system of physical reality, which incidentally ought to be a lot easier to get proof of than proof of God) then anything is possible. If we indeed progress to a spiritual dimension (of which we would be already presently be a part), then we would have a different scenario altogether. That would be like having a communication line from the inside of the system to its creator (the spiritual world and whatever is its creator).
Maybe the creator does not want to interfere too much and rather lets us play our games and get experience using our power of free will and making choices.
Well said and appreciated. If a calculator is accepted for inspiration, the individual being... is sold on figures. Purchased ,bought and sold transactions ,robotics. A drop of oil in a car, has nothing to do with the cause in whole comparison, self awareness.. which created the car
Last edited by stargazzer; 03-06-2012 at 11:31 AM..
You still don't get it, Arequipa. Brain activity is essential to PRODUCE consciousness but it is NOT the consciousness produced. The brain activity is coalesced into a composite awareness that is our consciousness. The composite "summarizes" the "variable rates of neuron firings at synapses" that comprise it across the entire brain based on those that are resonant in the neural field. (The physical brain activity cannot summarize itself without corrupting the brain states to be summarized.)
I know the idea. But that does not mean that what is produced is demonstrably not a product of the brain but is provably this universal field consciousness you postulate. It might be but is not known as you appear to claim.
Quote:
You misunderstand, Arequipa. Dark energy and dark matter comprise over 95% of our reality and we can detect their effects but cannot measure either directly because they appear not to be baryonic. Their effects constitute the physical evidence for the existence of the non-material (non-baryonic) parts of our reality that are so frequently claimed to not exist! I have not changed my view of the universal field as the consciousness of God . . . but simply point to the dark energy/matter as evidence that it is not unreasonable since our consciousness is similarly unmeasurable directly . . . only through its effects. The simple unavoidable conundrum for materialists is that consciousness exists and that means that it must be a fundamental property of our reality. If that is the case . . . then our reality is conscious. How is a conscious reality NOT God?
Dark matter is of course not demonstrated, only postulated on good circumstantial evidence. If and when it is, then we can perhaps say whether it is this universal consciousness of yours. Not now. It is still just a hypothesis of yours. We come back to the same place again and again. you assume far too much as proven which isn't.
Quote:
It is the result of the fact that our consciousness as it manifests at our physical (sub-light) level of existence as matter is a delayed version of our actual consciousness which exists at the light-squared level of existence as energy. Our consciousness must form the composite as energy during "quantum time" before we experience time with our "instantaneous" and continuous awareness at the sub-light level of existence. This is why we are consciously aware of things before the physical brain even registers the stimuli. Bottom line: We are living in a time-delayed existence. Some of us sporadically access the information before it is actualized here. Here is some light reading for you.
"Page not found" That's pretty light.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-06-2012 at 12:50 PM..
I know the idea. But that does not mean that what is produced is demonstrably not a product of the brain but is provably this universal field consciousness you postulate. It might be but is not known as you appear to claim.
Dark matter is of course not demonstrated, only postulated on good circumstantial evidence. If and when it is, then we can perhaps say whether it is this universal consciousness of yours. Not now. It is still just a hypothesis of yours. We come back to the same place again and again. you assume far too much as proven which isn't.
"Page not found" That's pretty light.
heres whats amazing...they are comparing the 53% erotic result, with the other tests which consistently show 49%
Now...here is the million dollar question, while we know 53% is ONLY significant in repeated tests compared to other example tests with non erotic showing a reliable 49%...
How
are they getting the consistently reliable 49% ? IOW the 49 is a prop...theres no way.
: 49% even in 1000 would be very very lean, in other words hit 49% heads or tails on 1000 flips and thats not going to happen all the time, no way. So question number 1) how did they get the consistency with 49% and elude to suggest the 53% is showing a marked difference ...because
53% out of 1000 flips is par for the course and not that frequent because its all over the place IOW its not that big of a deal...no way.
So....without the 49% which for the life of me I cannot see how that happened consistently without some kind of monkey business...the 53% appears non interesting...which it is.
Therefore , because the 49% is being hailed as it is for comparison and highly improbable, I'm calling a loaded dice on this one Mystic....plus this guys also got quite a following of skeptics right in his own backyard. 49% consistently to show the 53....no way..I'm not buying this for a minute
where did they get the 49 consistently and not only that they are using the 49 to say hey, look at this 53....what a joke. I remember going through this before, same link. The number generator is even worse nonsense.
Edit...I want to make definitely sure theres no confusion here....they are saying the 49 result is more in keeping with probability as its test does not have the erotic choice...its another set of pictures..I'm saying BS you cannot get 49% consistently with those numbers.....they use those numbers to make the 53% look like a large difference...when in fact 53% is no big deal out of 1000 never mind 100.
Last edited by stargazzer; 03-07-2012 at 12:14 AM..
Brain activity is essential to PRODUCE consciousness but it is NOT the consciousness produced.
When we burn fuel we get heat and light released which we call "fire". The Fire is not the fuel but the release of energy from the fuel. Conciousness, whatever it is, is just emergent from energy being released in certain patterns.
I doubt it will turn out to be anything more than that, nor have I seen anything from you to support the claims it is anything more than that. I certainly have seen nothing to support any claim that consciousness is in any way linked to "dark matter" as you so happily claim often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
simply point to the dark energy/matter as evidence that it is not unreasonable since our consciousness is similarly unmeasurable directly
This is a back pedal. In previous posts you actually claimed consciousness and dark matter were connected, if not even synonymous. Now you are back pedaling to say you were just comparing to the two to show how non material things exist.
Even then however you are "begging the question" by pointing to an attribute one thing has and then declaring by fiat that another thing has that attribute too.
"Dark Matter" is essentially just a place holder term for things we have not observed anywhere except in mathematics. We do not know what it is. Or what it ISNT. We just know that if SOME of our current mathematical models of the universe are correct then they imply the existence of something that accounts for what we observe. More than that we do not know and it is certainly not warrant to start declaring that it explains or is even related to consciousness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
consciousness exists and that means that it must be a fundamental property of our reality. If that is the case . . . then our reality is conscious.
A total non-sequitur I am afraid. It makes as much sense as saying "Fish fingers exist... therefore fish fingers are a property of reality.... therefore reality is fish fingers".
Just because consciousness is an emergent property of arranging energy and matter in a particular way in the wet stuff in our heads... this in no way means the universe itself is conscious.
Your entire position therefore, and the basis of pretty much everything you have written on these fora, is constructed on a foundation of a declared by fiat non-sequitur.... defended by little more than invective against those who point this out.
Thank you. This is all interesting material. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere, there have been doubts raised about Honorton and Ferrari's results and also about Bem and his methods. I am aware that some will not like the way the research is going and may be looking around for objections, but the nature of science is that its claims are tested and checked until validated and until then, have to remain in the pending tray.
If and when the result are validated then we can try to find out what's doing it. That is yet another area of speculation which requires validation.
Thank you. This is all interesting material. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere, there have been doubts raised about Honorton and Ferrari's results and also about Bem and his methods. I am aware that some will not like the way the research is going and may be looking around for objections, but the nature of science is that its claims are tested and checked until validated and until then, have to remain in the pending tray.
If and when the result are validated then we can try to find out what's doing it. That is yet another area of speculation which requires validation.
We have no disagreement Arequipa . . . of course this is not settled science. My views are hypotheses . . . but they are scientifically and philosophically supported . . . NOT some wild ass guesses or claims with NO evidence of any kind whatsoever (as the supremely ignorant and arrogant on your side of the aisle repeatedly assert). Tooth fairies and unicorns and the like are NOT equivalent dismissals. The arrogantly ignorant and obtuse are just boring (You are not among them, Arq).
My views are hypotheses . . . but they are scientifically and philosophically supported . . . NOT some wild ass guesses or claims with NO evidence of any kind
I am afraid this is not so as the "science support" you think you have is entirely made up by you. For example in another thread you claimed that energy is mass that has been accelerated to a speed not only great than the speed of light, but a the speed of light squared which is a truely massive number.
You make this claim in a universe where everything we know says that you can not even accelerate mass TO the speed of light, let alone over it, and very much let alone THAT much over it.
So no your fantasies.... which are not hypothesis.... are not supported in any way by science at this time. Except the science you have literally made up. To use your own words above, your claim about energy IS a wild ass guess with NO evidence of any kind.
One of the more interesting proofs of God is emotions. Emotion itself can even be denied, skeptics can claim that no such thing exist. One person may consider a simple smile as proof of an emotion, while yet another may claim its simply proof of facial muscles moving in conjunction. Joy may be considered an emotion, yet those with no joy can claim its non-existant; and to them that may be true. Peace can be an emotion, yet many can deny it, simply because they have none themselves. And this on and off personal pattern can continue with laughter, pity, jealously, the whole rainbow coalition of emotions; there may be some who experience them all, because they all can conjunct.
There are things that can magnify emotions: love, saddness, exctra.. In my view, the " God Experience" is defintely one of those things. And that experience can cut into them all; build you up or beat you down- like nothingelse in your life ever has. And this deep magnification brings with it a realness to you. It may not mean anything to others; but its " Your dog that died"; Its your heart that was broken; Its your miracle that was experienced; Its your prayer that was answered; Its your life that was saved.
And there may be physical explinations to explain them all; But are you just a physical creature? Or is there an emotional side to you as well that has just as many spiritual explinations, as there are physical ones?
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.
That's pretty light.
