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 atheist/materialist position is devoid of arguments because in the final analysis it is untenable. The very phenomenon that enables them to question and try to reason things out is the one that invalidates their rationale. That kind of leaves them with ad hominem.
not its not; actually. If we are talking about the standard model that is. there is nothing else to base a conclusion on. anything that does not make its way back to that in some way it is made up philosophy. at that point toss in some rainbows and unicorns fer me. They add color.
show me one thing that is not based in a field or a particle. I will take one thing mystic, just one.
The atheist/materialist position is devoid of arguments because in the final analysis it is untenable. The very phenomenon that enables them to question and try to reason things out is the one that invalidates their rationale. That kind of leaves them with ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
not its not; actually. If we are talking about the standard model that is. there is nothing else to base a conclusion on. anything that does not make its way back to that in some way it is made up philosophy. at that point toss in some rainbows and unicorns fer me. They add color.
show me one thing that is not based in a field or a particle. I will take one thing mystic, just one.
There are no such thing as particles, they are all vibratory manifestations of the unified field as is the consciousness used to try to understand them. We are only able to measure (and use in the Standard Model) those manifestations that comprise less than 5% of our reality. The remaining 95% is currently unmeasurable. The atheist/materialist position is based on 5% of reality. It seems more than presumptuous to claim the default on such flimsy evidence.
There are no such thing as particles, they are all vibratory manifestations of the unified field as is the consciousness used to try to understand them. We are only able to measure (and use in the Standard Model) those manifestations that comprise less than 5% of our reality. The remaining 95% is currently unmeasurable. The atheist/materialist position is based on 5% of reality. It seems more than presumptuous to claim the default on such flimsy evidence.
Lets just be clear here, Mystic. Any sort of unified field, even one that simply unified the standard model with gravity is currently conjecture. Consciousness as a field is even more of a conjecture, and is currently without evidence or even a valid scientific hypothesis.
The claim that we can only measure 5% of reality is also a stretch. It is from measurements that we can extrapolate the 95% number, most of that as "dark energy" and some as 'dark matter", so to claim we cannot measure the is a bit inaccurate. Perhaps you meant measure them directly, which would be more correct.
In addition, we don't actually know if there is any such thing as dark matter or dark energy. What we know is that if our current models of astrophysics, which have currently done a good job of explaining the behavior of the natural world, are correct, then there is a significant amount of energy and matter we don't yet know about. There are quite a lot of possibilities bandied about by the scientific community, including the idea that there might not be any missing matter or energy, but our understanding of gravitation might be wrong. Regardless of possibly approaches, there is to my knowledge, no working astrophysicist that is positing a "universal consciousness" field as the answer. That is a purely religious speculation on your part.
And lastly, even if there were to be unknown fields involved in "dark energy" or "dark matter', even if there were to be a consciousness field ( which, again, is totally unevidenced), why would that challenge a materialist or naturalist default? It would actually reinforce it!
So, I understand you firmly believe you are right, but maybe claiming your conjectures as fact is a bit hubristic. It would help if you distinguish from your pet theories and actual science. Because almost none of what you have said is supportable.
There are no such thing as particles, they are all vibratory manifestations of the unified field as is the consciousness used to try to understand them. We are only able to measure (and use in the Standard Model) those manifestations that comprise less than 5% of our reality. The remaining 95% is currently unmeasurable. The atheist/materialist position is based on 5% of reality. It seems more than presumptuous to claim the default on such flimsy evidence.
well, you are right of course, its frozen energy, I should have been more clear. It seems my vertigo is screwing with my brain.
The point is all we have right now is the standard model. anything you say that does not bring us back to that in some way is baseless. "Awareness" is based on this "frozen energy" This energy is probably not uniform so it exchanges something between the energy gradients. Weather it is the field waving like a bed sheet when shaken or something else.
If there is no potential difference in that energy, that we do not know about, there is no consciousness, indeed there would be nothing.
Your consciousness field is not fundamental, it is emergent. Why do you need it fundamental when everything else we experience is emergent?
i base what I claim on what we do know. Not what we don't know. Like a 100 piece puzzle and we only have 5 pieces. I do not make guess off of the pieces we do not have. only on the five.
There are no such thing as particles, they are all vibratory manifestations of the unified field as is the consciousness used to try to understand them. We are only able to measure (and use in the Standard Model) those manifestations that comprise less than 5% of our reality. The remaining 95% is currently unmeasurable. The atheist/materialist position is based on 5% of reality. It seems more than presumptuous to claim the default on such flimsy evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
well, you are right of course, its frozen energy, I should have been more clear. It seems my vertigo is screwing with my brain.
The point is all we have right now is the standard model. anything you say that does not bring us back to that in some way is baseless. "Awareness" is based on this "frozen energy" This energy is probably not uniform so it exchanges something between the energy gradients. Weather it is the field waving like a bed sheet when shaken or something else.
If there is no potential difference in that energy, that we do not know about, there is no consciousness, indeed there would be nothing.
Your consciousness field is not fundamental, it is emergent. Why do you need it fundamental when everything else we experience is emergent?
IF you are familiar with my posts, emergent is a euphemism for "we haven't got a clue" how it manifests or why, but we observe it, period. Consciousness is the only phenomenon within our reality that is not completely limited by the constraints of reality (e.g., imagination). Your view of it as emergent belies that inherent superiority to reality. It is far more logical that our constrained reality emerged from unconstrained consciousness (God).
IF you are familiar with my posts, emergent is a euphemism for "we haven't got a clue" how it manifests or why, but we observe it, period. Consciousness is the only phenomenon within our reality that is not completely limited by the constraints of reality (e.g., imagination). Your view of it as emergent belies that inherent superiority to reality. It is far more logical that our constrained reality emerged from unconstrained consciousness (God).
This would be more intuitive speculation, in my opinion, if we were the only conscious creatures that we know of.
But we aren't. A rat has consciousness, as do spiders, lizards, dolphins, birds, and chimps of course...to the extent that we can observe what consciousness looks like outside of ourselves. And the sliding scale of consciousness, and as Gaylen might say "qualia" of it, seems inextricably tied to the size and activity level of the gray matter in our heads. An advanced alarm system receiving and processing a flood of alarms constantly, if you will. The bigger our brains, the more alarms we process...as a general rule of thumb. We also know that if we interfere, impede, or even enhance certain conditions affecting the gray matter....we get wildly different behaviors. Now you can say this affects the ability to receive and send information to and from some sort of field external to us....which may contain the actual consciousness itself....but I'm not sure I see that as very tenable given the variant malignancies we can diagnose with regards to brain injuries, deformations, chemical imbalances, and gene expressions like down syndrome (for example). These ought to manifest different if the consciousness field were a tenable theory.
So while we might not understand how the alarm sensing we do constantly is then converted into actual thoughts precisely, we do know that we aren't the only ones doing it. We're just the most advanced ones doing it.
There are no such thing as particles, they are all vibratory manifestations of the unified field as is the consciousness used to try to understand them. We are only able to measure (and use in the Standard Model) those manifestations that comprise less than 5% of our reality. The remaining 95% is currently unmeasurable. The atheist/materialist position is based on 5% of reality. It seems more than presumptuous to claim the default on such flimsy evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
IF you are familiar with my posts, emergent is a euphemism for "we haven't got a clue" how it manifests or why, but we observe it, period. Consciousness is the only phenomenon within our reality that is not completely limited by the constraints of reality (e.g., imagination). Your view of it as emergent belies that inherent superiority to reality. It is far more logical that our constrained reality emerged from unconstrained consciousness (God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
This would be more intuitive speculation, in my opinion, if we were the only conscious creatures that we know of.
But we aren't. A rat has consciousness, as do spiders, lizards, dolphins, birds, and chimps of course...to the extent that we can observe what consciousness looks like outside of ourselves. And the sliding scale of consciousness, and as Gaylen might say "qualia" of it, seems inextricably tied to the size and activity level of the gray matter in our heads. An advanced alarm system receiving and processing a flood of alarms constantly, if you will. The bigger our brains, the more alarms we process...as a general rule of thumb. We also know that if we interfere, impede, or even enhance certain conditions affecting the gray matter....we get wildly different behaviors. Now you can say this affects the ability to receive and send information to and from some sort of field external to us....which may contain the actual consciousness itself....but I'm not sure I see that as very tenable given the variant malignancies we can diagnose with regards to brain injuries, deformations, chemical imbalances, and gene expressions like down syndrome (for example). These ought to manifest different if the consciousness field were a tenable theory.
So while we might not understand how the alarm sensing we do constantly is then converted into actual thoughts precisely, we do know that we aren't the only ones doing it. We're just the most advanced ones doing it.
Of course there are other forms of consciousness because our reality is established by a consciousness field. As Gaylen would try to explain, there has to be a fundamental proto-conscious basis for qualia. Since the brain is the production facility for our consciousness, of course anything that happens to it will affect what it produces. That is NOT the issue. The issue is WHERE is the locus of our consciousness once it is produced? It has to be in a neural field, not within the physical brain, because it is comprised of an "EM-type" manifestation of energy/mass. Physical matter can produce but NOT contain such manifestations.
IF you are familiar with my posts, emergent is a euphemism for "we haven't got a clue" how it manifests or why, but we observe it, period.
Sorry, M, but "emergent" phenomena and processes are in no way a concept that acts as a placeholder for ignorance about the source of a manifestation. It is simply a recognition that a thing has multiple interacting sources, or more exactly, that it requires a particular sustained environment to even give rise to it, or often, for there to be any meaning in discussing it. It is simply an observation that certain systems of actors or conditions must be present for the phenomenon to exist. In a particular case the source or nature of the phenomenon may or may not be fully understood, but that is beside the point of someone observing that a thing is "emergent".
Weather systems for example are emergent from the fact that there's an atmosphere and a diurnal cycle of hot and cold to stir the pot, to include some sort of liquid that evaporates and condenses. We happen to understand weather systems pretty well -- our weather on earth and, increasingly, on other worlds. But there is no point in talking for example about "lunar weather" where only the diurnal cycle exists, but not an atmosphere or liquid water.
Now if we didn't understand weather as we do today, we would still observe it but wouldn't have the intellectual framework to even think about it in any sort of comprehensive way, lacking as we would, understanding of convection, evaporation, condensation, or indeed a worldwide macro-view of all the forces acting on the situation. So it once seemed mystical, scary, awesome, or, ahem, divine. Now we just understand it is the product of sufficiently understood interacting forces and systems. Perhaps this is your aversion to the term; it takes away from the special pleading you and all other theists so earnestly want to deploy for your beliefs about reality and promises, sooner or later, to lead thinking persons down a path towards finding that, darn it, here's just one more thing that's far more prosaic and run of the mill and explicable than we once thought.
Emergent properties are discussed and studied in every branch of science. It's a completely legitimate and useful concept and not the cop-out you want to make it into.
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.
