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 existence of this state is inferred, just as the existence of dark matter or dark energy are inferred. The existing neuroscience establishes that the entire brain is responsible for this subjective state of awareness that summarizes the wave-like neural activity at any point in time. But there is no physical locus for this state within the brain. That leaves a resonant neural field which can only BE some EM-like state of being as the vehicle for our thoughts. Like the EM transmissions of a TV studio, the individual EM-waves comprise the composite TV program. The difference is our brain is a transceiver, meaning it both produces our composite thoughts within the unified field and receives the cumulative composite that is the REAL us. If we ever gain the technology to measure our actual thoughts (not the brain activity) this EM-like state will be validated.
Is this to say we are an advanced species of the Borg?
The existence of this state is inferred, just as the existence of dark matter or dark energy are inferred. The existing neuroscience establishes that the entire brain is responsible for this subjective state of awareness that summarizes the wave-like neural activity at any point in time. But there is no physical locus for this state within the brain. That leaves a resonant neural field which can only BE some EM-like state of being as the vehicle for our thoughts. Like the EM transmissions of a TV studio, the individual EM-waves comprise the composite TV program. The difference is our brain is a transceiver, meaning it both produces our composite thoughts within the unified field and receives the cumulative composite that is the REAL us. If we ever gain the technology to measure our actual thoughts (not the brain activity) this EM-like state will be validated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Got it. No evidence. As I thought.
No. Inference requires existing evidence of its effects, as with dark matter and dark energy. They cannot be measured directly, only by their effects on what IS measurable, just like our subjective consciousness.
Quote:
Please prove this. I am certainly no expert on neuroscience, but I have never heard anybody claim that neural activity is wave like.
There is nothing in our reality that is NOT wave-like.
Quote:
So what? Why can't the brain, in its entirety, be the source?
Because it is the summarization of the total brain activity. If it is represented in the total brain activity it could not represent the summary of the total brain activity including itself. It would be an infinite regress.
Quote:
False dichotomy. You are stating with no evidence that the brain cannot be the source of consciousness, then arbitrarily choosing a "resonant neural field" as the only other option. There can be other options.
The brain IS the source of consciousness, just NOT the locus of it within the unified field that is our reality. The infinite regress problem of representing the summary of the total brain activity is why the physical brain cannot be the locus of it.
Quote:
Have you measured these waves? Can you provide documentation? What are the characteristics of this spectrum? Please prove their existence.
When we can measure dark matter and dark energy (which comprise 95+% of our entire reality) we will be able to measure consciousness too.
Quote:
This is a claim, this is not proof. Please provide evidence.
The only evidence of it is the delayed nature of our subjective awareness which means that the REAL us exists in the unified field and precedes our experienced awareness of it within our brain.
Quote:
Ok, this is progress. You are admitting that you have not measured anything and you have no means of validation. As I mentioned earlier, this entire thought is simply a fantasy of yours.
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between unsubstantiated fantasy and scientific hypotheses extrapolated from existing evidence and knowledge. I never presented my explanations and hypotheses as currently validated, just plausible given existing knowledge.
lol,
how many times do you have to say "I don't have proof but this is what it looks like to me.".
everything else has a field, you are saying awareness does too. I get it. I don't agree, but you never force us to, never claim special knowledge, or say you that you know what god is.
Honestly, I think they are scared of the word "god". They need to write the word until it has no emotional meaning to them.
they are not interested in honest extrapolations.
The example of a living system is a great example. They will not admit the system we are in looks alive far more than it looks like not alive. it would explain many of the observations we see in people and the volume of space around us.
They are interested in smushing religion over describing how the universe works to the best of our ability.
but, as you know, it can be no other way. I am in favor of offering believers a conclusion based on what we all can measure. I think this war would go away and in the end religion fundy's would lose their grip. the fundy and milli mentals might, just might, understand their emotional distorted world views.
lol,
how many times do you have to say "I don't have proof but this is what it looks like to me.".
everything else has a field, you are saying awareness does too. I get it. I don't agree, but you never force us to, never claim special knowledge, or say you that you know what god is.
Honestly, I think they are scared of the word "god". They need to write the word until it has no emotional meaning to them.
they are not interested in honest extrapolations.
The example of a living system is a great example. They will not admit the system we are in looks alive far more than it looks like not alive. it would explain many of the observations we see in people and the volume of space around us.
They are interested in smushing religion over describing how the universe works to the best of our ability.
but, as you know, it can be no other way. I am in favor of offering believers a conclusion based on what we all can measure. I think this war would go away and in the end religion fundy's would lose their grip. the fundy and milli mentals might, just might, understand their emotional distorted world views.
I don't see why anyone would call something god unless it is self-aware. We see ourselves as individuals, so I don't see how anything that is the real "me" or in your case "you" could all be part of one being that would be sensible to label god. We'd instead be multiple, individual intelligences, or this "true self" is not actually us.
I'll give Gldnrule a break. Sometimes people do label things "God" because it's pleasing to the ear to do so. That can be confusing, but I think most people are aware that happens once in awhile. In Mystic's case though, I don't know why he's even using the word God. His views are confusing enough as it is. Why make it more so by throwing on a word that makes most people think of, if not a literal sky-daddy, at least a single self-aware being, or some source of all knowledge, or some kind of magical solution for whatever problem or question we're having? I want to know why Mystic calls what he believes in God, and what characteristics of a god it has.
The existence of this state is inferred, just as the existence of dark matter or dark energy are inferred. The existing neuroscience establishes that the entire brain is responsible for this subjective state of awareness that summarizes the wave-like neural activity at any point in time. But there is no physical locus for this state within the brain. That leaves a resonant neural field which can only BE some EM-like state of being as the vehicle for our thoughts. Like the EM transmissions of a TV studio, the individual EM-waves comprise the composite TV program. The difference is our brain is a transceiver, meaning it both produces our composite thoughts within the unified field and receives the cumulative composite that is the REAL us. If we ever gain the technology to measure our actual thoughts (not the brain activity) this EM-like state will be validated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
lol,
how many times do you have to say "I don't have proof but this is what it looks like to me.".
everything else has a field, you are saying awareness does too. I get it. I don't agree, but you never force us to, never claim special knowledge, or say you that you know what god is.
Honestly, I think they are scared of the word "god". They need to write the word until it has no emotional meaning to them.
they are not interested in honest extrapolations.
The example of a living system is a great example. They will not admit the system we are in looks alive far more than it looks like not alive. it would explain many of the observations we see in people and the volume of space around us.
They are interested in smushing religion over describing how the universe works to the best of our ability.
but, as you know, it can be no other way. I am in favor of offering believers a conclusion based on what we all can measure. I think this war would go away and in the end religion fundy's would lose their grip. the fundy and milli mentals might, just might, understand their emotional distorted world views.
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
I don't see why anyone would call something god unless it is self-aware. We see ourselves as individuals, so I don't see how anything that is the real "me" or in your case "you" could all be part of one being that would be sensible to label god. We'd instead be multiple, individual intelligences, or this "true self" is not actually us.
I think maat55 is close. "Is this to say we are an advanced species of the Borg?" Remove all the negativity and lack of individual will from the Borg meme and a collective consciousness comprised of each of us is pretty much what I experienced. Most of the meditation traditions talk of losing our individuality, but that is the opposite of what I experienced. It was more like a unity of individuals like when they do the wave at a sporting event and whatnot. United in love is probably the best metaphor.
Quote:
I'll give Gldnrule a break. Sometimes people do label things "God" because it's pleasing to the ear to do so. That can be confusing, but I think most people are aware that happens once in awhile. In Mystic's case though, I don't know why he's even using the word God. His views are confusing enough as it is. Why make it more so by throwing on a word that makes most people think of, if not a literal sky-daddy, at least a single self-aware being, or some source of all knowledge, or some kind of magical solution for whatever problem or question we're having? I want to know why Mystic calls what he believes in God, and what characteristics of a god it has.
Because its existence is what establishes our entire reality and everything in it. It is pure consciousness and it is characterized by unconditional love and acceptance in an amazing joy of life.
I don't see why anyone would call something god unless it is self-aware. We see ourselves as individuals, so I don't see how anything that is the real "me" or in your case "you" could all be part of one being that would be sensible to label god. We'd instead be multiple, individual intelligences, or this "true self" is not actually us.
I'll give Gldnrule a break. Sometimes people do label things "God" because it's pleasing to the ear to do so. That can be confusing, but I think most people are aware that happens once in awhile. In Mystic's case though, I don't know why he's even using the word God. His views are confusing enough as it is. Why make it more so by throwing on a word that makes most people think of, if not a literal sky-daddy, at least a single self-aware being, or some source of all knowledge, or some kind of magical solution for whatever problem or question we're having? I want to know why Mystic calls what he believes in God, and what characteristics of a god it has.
Assigning Reality/The Universe/All That Exists the title "God" goes way beyond "pleasing to my ear to do so".
It is based upon Reality/The Universe/All That Exists conforming definitively to "G-O-D" based upon known attributes, and thus warrants the title.
This manifests solely by and through our consciousness...without it, we would not be aware of it at all. This puts consciousness in a special class of any and all phenomena. Along with the fact that human consciousness is the only thing unconstrained (through our "imagination") by the "laws" that "govern" all the rest of Reality.
There is something to this that I perceive that puts it in a unique and supreme position relative to anything else in Reality.
Though it is difficult for me to put into words: I assign the title "God" to All That Is, and Consciousness is the pinnacle of its "Godliness", to me.
I don't see why anyone would call something god unless it is self-aware.
Well I know why SOME people who do it, do it. As represented by 3 or 4 users on this very forum.
Their reason is basically to get a very dilute and empty version of the word "god" into discourse. And then having validated the use of that word they can make complete non-sequitur leaps to claims ABOUT that "god".
But when challenged on any of those claims they can then retreat BACK to that dilute and empty definition.
So the MO is pretty fixed. The smuggle the word "god" in by merely swapping it 1:1 for another word. Like "God is love" of "God is everything". So now therefore they have basically asserted AND proved that "god" exists. Because calling something we KNOW exists "god".... we can not rebut the existence of "god".
But then they make nonsense claims like that god judges us morally after death, or god incarnated itself in human form in the person of Jesus and so on and so on. Then when you challenge belief in the existence of this god they drop back into this "Oh that is all just beliefs ABOUT god, but that god exists is proven" and they drop BACK into their dilute non-definitions of god again.
So basically the MO allows them to make entirely unsubstantiated nonsense claims about reality, but then retreat to a dilute place of safety whenever challenged on any of it. It is, of all the cop-out canards I have witnessed on this forum.... the most transparent, the most dishonest, and the most fetid I have seen. And usually the people pedaling it like to attach "atheism" based on things "atheism" is not even predicated on in the first place.
The simple fact however is that EVERY.... not most, not nearly all, but EVERY theist I have ever spoken to has absolutely NO argument, evidence, data OR reasoning to offer that substantiates the claim that our universe, or human life, was created or designed by a non-human intelligent or intentional agency. And retreating behind dilute and empty definitions of the word "god" is never going to hide that inconvenient truth under any carpets.
Well I know why SOME people who do it, do it. As represented by 3 or 4 users on this very forum.
Their reason is basically to get a very dilute and empty version of the word "god" into discourse. And then having validated the use of that word they can make complete non-sequitur leaps to claims ABOUT that "god".
But when challenged on any of those claims they can then retreat BACK to that dilute and empty definition.
So the MO is pretty fixed. The smuggle the word "god" in by merely swapping it 1:1 for another word. Like "God is love" of "God is everything". So now therefore they have basically asserted AND proved that "god" exists. Because calling something we KNOW exists "god".... we can not rebut the existence of "god".
But then they make nonsense claims like that god judges us morally after death, or god incarnated itself in human form in the person of Jesus and so on and so on. Then when you challenge belief in the existence of this god they drop back into this "Oh that is all just beliefs ABOUT god, but that god exists is proven" and they drop BACK into their dilute non-definitions of god again.
So basically the MO allows them to make entirely unsubstantiated nonsense claims about reality, but then retreat to a dilute place of safety whenever challenged on any of it. It is, of all the cop-out canards I have witnessed on this forum.... the most transparent, the most dishonest, and the most fetid I have seen. And usually the people pedaling it like to attach "atheism" based on things "atheism" is not even predicated on in the first place.
The simple fact however is that EVERY.... not most, not nearly all, but EVERY theist I have ever spoken to has absolutely NO argument, evidence, data OR reasoning to offer that substantiates the claim that our universe, or human life, was created or designed by a non-human intelligent or intentional agency. And retreating behind dilute and empty definitions of the word "god" is never going to hide that inconvenient truth under any carpets.
You label who ever you need to a "Theist" at your discretion, toss in qualifiers, then claim "dilution" to minimized a perceived effect you feel is the wrong way to go.
With our present understanding there is only dilute. Like dark matter and energy are "dilute", It doesn't mean there is no evidence, it means you have some agenda other than talking about how the universe works.
Yeah, you aint a religious atheists.
All hail 'lack of belief"
the one true living word.
lmao, I really understand how the first human must have felt sitting around the campfire.
"what the heck."
Its me, as a professional in the field of science, that thanks you.
If religious people treated their religion's claims like you treat yourz we wouldn't be in this mess.
its so bad that both side's fundy-mentals just don't care about describing what we see around us to the best of our ability. They only care about winning.
All hail 'lack of belief"
the one true living word.
quack quack.
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.
