Science has much better answers than "God did it" (explanation, truth)
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.
There is no scientific basis whatsoever for assuming qualia can in any way be separated from the experiencer given their undeniable subjectivity.
I don't know what you want here. I've already emphasized that qualia are not separated (or separable) from the experiencer because qualia are the constituent elements of the experiencer, and given the inherent subjectivity of qualia, they always imply an experiencer. I suppose I could try to clarify by saying again that qualia never exist without an experiencer. But I would want to add that any qualia that are not organized in a certain way are the components of a non-conscious system. Or to put it yet another way: The experiencer (i.e., the World) is, by default, unconscious (like dreamless sleep?) unless organized in certain ways.
Quote:
You posit so many unsupportable assertions in these paragraphs that it is impossible to separate them out and address them cogently in a single post. You can TRY to substantiate each . . . if you can . . . and I will address them one at a time.
Ok, let's go one at a time:
Since the existence of consciousness itself could not have been the result of a conscious choice, we only have two options: 1) consciousness is primordial or 2) consciousness emerged from unconsciousness.
Since you underlined the word "two" I guess you have another option in mind. Please let me know what that is. Or perhaps you think that #2 is not an option at all?
I prefer option #2 because 100% of our empirical evidence indicates that consciousness always emerges from unconscious systems.
I've already gone through this in considerable detail in other posts and other threads. Do you think a fertilized egg is conscious? If so, do you have any evidence for that? If the fertilized egg is not conscious, then how am I to blame for suggesting that consciousness comes to exist as the system gains complexity? Perhaps you will want to claim that God somehow injects his own consciousness into the system at some point? Do you have any evidence for that? At what point do you think God does this?
If an egg is not conscious, but a baby is conscious, then the baby has a property that the egg does not have, namely, consciousness. Why is it so bad to say that this property emerged as the physical system composing the baby's body increased in complexity?
And my central point throughout lo these many treads is that option #2 is a viable, rational option - or at least is no less rational than option #1.
If you don't think that option #2 is rational, then you need to show how my view implies a logical contradiction, or else you need to show how it conflicts with empirical data.
As I keep saying, I am not arguing against the existence of "God" if the word 'God' is defined vaguely enough.
I'm not sure why you underlined that, but I will try this: I have no argument if all you want to say is that there is a Source for everything, and you want to call this Source "God". Be my guest to call it whatever you like. Personally, I like to call it "Goddess" or "primordial qualitative chaos" or "primordial Subjectivity." Perhaps it is intrinsically conscious (option #1 above) or perhaps it is generally not conscious (option #2 above) - either way works for me, but as I said, I tend to favor option #2).
I am specifically denying the philosophical need to hypothesize the existence of a primordially conscious designer of the world.
Here I am simply specifying which concept of God I am trying to claim is not necessary. Perhaps there is a designer, but I strongly suspect that there is no designer. Chaotic systems can be inherently "creative" in the sense that patterns arise, but there is no logical requirement that there must be some conscious being outside of the system who designs the patterns. The conscious Designer is an unnecessary hypothesis.
I don't know what you want here. I've already emphasized that qualia are not separated (or separable) from the experiencer because qualia are the constituent elements of the experiencer, and given the inherent subjectivity of qualia, they always imply an experiencer. I suppose I could try to clarify by saying again that qualia never exist without an experiencer. But I would want to add that any qualia that are not organized in a certain way are the components of a non-conscious system. Or to put it yet another way: The experiencer (i.e., the World) is, by default, unconscious (like dreamless sleep?) unless organized in certain ways.
I understand your need to maintain the "no God"(the "World") perspective (academia) . . . but you are describing all the attributes of God that are not directly accessible to our intellects. It is a case of "Mother-in-law-itis" . . . having to acknowledge everything that she does . . . while trying to ignore her existence (or perhaps in your case . . . "Goddess-in-law-itis") The subjective unconscious that you refer to is the consciousness of God (inaccessible to us at this "Womb state" level of becoming) . . . which interacts with our unconscious (Embryo Soul) when we are producing our cellular versions of consciousness ("in-process" state).
Quote:
Ok, let's go one at a time:
Since the existence of consciousness itself could not have been the result of a conscious choice, we only have two options: 1) consciousness is primordial or 2) consciousness emerged from unconsciousness.
Since you underlined the word "two" I guess you have another option in mind. Please let me know what that is. Or perhaps you think that #2 is not an option at all?
I prefer option #2 because 100% of our empirical evidence indicates that consciousness always emerges from unconscious systems.
I've already gone through this in considerable detail in other posts and other threads. Do you think a fertilized egg is conscious? If so, do you have any evidence for that? If the fertilized egg is not conscious, then how am I to blame for suggesting that consciousness comes to exist as the system gains complexity? Perhaps you will want to claim that God somehow injects his own consciousness into the system at some point? Do you have any evidence for that? At what point do you think God does this?
If an egg is not conscious, but a baby is conscious, then the baby has a property that the egg does not have, namely, consciousness. Why is it so bad to say that this property emerged as the physical system composing the baby's body increased in complexity?
You will not ever "explain" anything to me using observational euphemisms for science's current ignorance . . . like "emergent." As I see it . . . reality is an ongoing God consciousness (universal field) at a level of becoming beyond our sub-light one. Our level of becoming represents the "womb state" for the propagation ("in-process state") of consciousness at the pure energy (light-squared) level of becoming (what we experience as our unconscious Soul).
I see the moment of physical birth as when the "spiritual seed" of consciousness is implanted in the infant brain. It is "born of God" (spiritually begotten, eg., inseminated) at that moment. It must germinate for many weeks before manifesting as what we recognize as human consciousness. Its development throughout its physical life determines whether it is destined for rebirth as Spirit or spiritual miscarriage. Fortunately . . . since the rebirth of Jesus as Spirit . . . I see spiritual miscarriages as a thing of our savage past.
Quote:
And my central point throughout lo these many treads is that option #2 is a viable, rational option - or at least is no less rational than option #1.
It is an optional BELIEF . . . but with so many euphemisms masquerading as scientific or philosophic "explanations" . . . its coherence and rationality is indeterminate as a scientific hypothesis. Consciousness as the universal field provides all the explanatory power lacking in your philosophical euphemisms for our scientific ignorance.
Quote:
If you don't think that option #2 is rational, then you need to show how my view implies a logical contradiction, or else you need to show how it conflicts with empirical data.
Since it only uses observations (inexplicable but named . . . like emergent, self-organizing,etc.) . . there is no substantive "explanation" to confront.
Quote:
As I keep saying, I am not arguing against the existence of "God" if the word 'God' is defined vaguely enough.
There is nothing "vague" about the Creator and Source of everything being called God.
Quote:
I'm not sure why you underlined that, but I will try this: I have no argument if all you want to say is that there is a Source for everything, and you want to call this Source "God". Be my guest to call it whatever you like. Personally, I like to call it "Goddess" or "primordial qualitative chaos" or "primordial Subjectivity." Perhaps it is intrinsically conscious (option #1 above) or perhaps it is generally not conscious (option #2 above) - either way works for me, but as I said, I tend to favor option #2).
The "vague" is derogatory as opposed to the more neutral and objective "inscrutable." If you think there is a more God-like trait than the Creator and sustainer of everything . . . I'm all ears.
Quote:
I am specifically denying the philosophical need to hypothesize the existence of a primordially conscious designer of the world.
Here I am simply specifying which concept of God I am trying to claim is not necessary. Perhaps there is a designer, but I strongly suspect that there is no designer. Chaotic systems can be inherently "creative" in the sense that patterns arise, but there is no logical requirement that there must be some conscious being outside of the system who designs the patterns. The conscious Designer is an unnecessary hypothesis.
Like Hawking . . . you assess need based on euphemistic dissembling. You impose the "outside the system" requirement using the designer paradigm to associate the ID fraud with my views. I am specifically declaring the philosophical need to hypothesize the existence of a living primordially conscious "World." Your "explanation" of "chaotic" (meaning to us) systems implies that the observation of patterns is inexplicably (to us) self-organizing and therefore self-explanatory . . . it is NOT.
Like Hawking . . . you assess need based on euphemistic dissembling. You impose the "outside the system" requirement using the designer paradigm to associate the ID fraud with my views. I am specifically declaring the philosophical need to hypothesize the existence of a living primordially conscious "World." Your "explanation" of "chaotic" (meaning to us) systems implies that the observation of patterns is inexplicably (to us) self-organizing and therefore self-explanatory . . . it is NOT.
Just a quick side-note: Our debate between primordial conscious vs. unconscious reminds me of another on-going debate in the philosophical literature, namely, the debate over the "many-worlds interpretation" (MWI) of quantum mechanics. MWI says every possible path is actualized in some actualized possible world, whereas other interpretations say they are not actualized. Your position reminds me of MWI (every possible feeling is actualized in the conscious mind of God), whereas mine follows Heisenberg, and others, who make a distinction between "reality" and "actuality." (Alternative paths are ontologically real in the sense that they must be taken into account in our physical explanations, but there is no logical reason that we have to take the "ontologically extravagant" step of saying that they are all actualized in some inaccessible world.)
Obviously it is logically possible that they could be actualized in other worlds, but we are not logically forced to say that they are actualized, unless someone can show that the distinction between "real" and "actual" is logically untenable. As I see it, the worlds that are inaccessible to us are like "differences that make no difference" so long as we can talk about possibilites as real, even though not actualized.
I am specifically declaring the philosophical need to hypothesize the existence of a living primordially conscious "World."
If you want remain logical, then you cannot plausibly assert the need for primordial consciousness unless you can show how my position leads to a logical contradiction. So long as it is logically possible for consciousness to emerge from non-consciousness, then we do not literally "need" to posit primordial consciousness. So, unless you can show a logical contradiction in my position, you need to replace the "need" with something like "my philosophical preference."
And BTW, simply using the word "euphemism" in lots of sentences does not really count as an argument for against anything. Newton's detractors could have said (and some actually did say) "the word 'gravity' is just a euphemism for 'we don't know why massive objects are attracted to each other" and, then, when Newton points to his equations that link the orbits of the moon with the flights of baseballs and the timings of tides, they could say "Those are just abstract numbers and abstract principles." Well, to a certain extent, Newton's detractors would be correct. But they would be missing the point. 'Gravity' is not just a euphemism; it is a concept that helps us to discover new relationships in the natural world - surprising connections we would otherwise have never thought of. The mathematical principles used when studying dynamical systems are like that. Just because you don't understand them, does not mean that they don't explain things that were deep mysteries a few decades ago.
The deep (and possibly fatal) weakness in my theory is not to be found in the principles of emergence and self-organization. Those are very powerful and extremely well-tested concepts. The weakness is in the concept of "intrinsic subjectivity" or the concept of something being "qualitative" and yet unconscious. But you don't even attack me at these weakest points because you already accept these ideas, based on your notion that everything that is unconscious from our perspective is conscious in God's mind. So here is a hint: Find some way to show that the concept of something being both qualitative and unconscious leads to a logical contradiction. If you can do that, then you have a bridge to the idea that all qualia must be conscious in God's mind. Until you can do that, you cannot plausibly claim that we "need" to posit primordial consciousness.
If you want remain logical, then you cannot plausibly assert the need for primordial consciousness unless you can show how my position leads to a logical contradiction. So long as it is logically possible for consciousness to emerge from non-consciousness, then we do not literally "need" to posit primordial consciousness. So, unless you can show a logical contradiction in my position, you need to replace the "need" with something like "my philosophical preference."
Emergence is a nonsense word linking nonexistence of a phenomenon to existence through entirely artificial means in an artificial rubric (mathematics) whose artificial rules are entirely constructs of our mind . . . not reality. Their utility in mimicking and helping us to predict the interactions of REAL "measurable" phenomena can in no way be used to suggest that reality actually contains and employs those same rules.
Quote:
And BTW, simply using the word "euphemism" in lots of sentences does not really count as an argument for against anything. Newton's detractors could have said (and some actually did say) "the word 'gravity' is just a euphemism for 'we don't know why massive objects are attracted to each other" and, then, when Newton points to his equations that link the orbits of the moon with the flights of baseballs and the timings of tides, they could say "Those are just abstract numbers and abstract principles." Well, to a certain extent, Newton's detractors would be correct. But they would be missing the point. 'Gravity' is not just a euphemism; it is a concept that helps us to discover new relationships in the natural world - surprising connections we would otherwise have never thought of. The mathematical principles used when studying dynamical systems are like that. Just because you don't understand them, does not mean that they don't explain things that were deep mysteries a few decades ago.
I have taught and could teach you the mathematical principles used, Gaylenwoof . . . and your Newton example is inappropriate. Newton used REAL "measurable" and existing objects in the math . . . not non-existent ones that somehow are made to appear by the artificial rules. Consciousness is not "measurable."
Quote:
The deep (and possibly fatal) weakness in my theory is not to be found in the principles of emergence and self-organization. Those are very powerful and extremely well-tested concepts. The weakness is in the concept of "intrinsic subjectivity" or the concept of something being "qualitative" and yet unconscious. But you don't even attack me at these weakest points because you already accept these ideas, based on your notion that everything that is unconscious from our perspective is conscious in God's mind. So here is a hint: Find some way to show that the concept of something being both qualitative and unconscious leads to a logical contradiction. If you can do that, then you have a bridge to the idea that all qualia must be conscious in God's mind. Until you can do that, you cannot plausibly claim that we "need" to posit primordial consciousness.
Subjectivity without a subject is self-contradictory. I have not attacked your weakness because it supports my views as you so insightfully noted . . . as do many of your views. I would rather convert you to mine . . . you are almost there.
Would you expound on this point? I've really enjoyed following this debate but I'm a bit lost on this one point.
So am I. G.woof has nicely picked up the invalidity of dismissing concepts by the trick of calling the verbal labels we attach to them 'euphemisms' and the argument that what is possible need not be postulated (indeed logically cannot ALL be postulated) as So without some supportive evidence.
" Find some way to show that the concept of something being both qualitative and unconscious leads to a logical contradiction." seems to be the name of this game, but I don't deny that it is all a bit abstruse to me.
" Find some way to show that the concept of something being both qualitative and unconscious leads to a logical contradiction." seems to be the name of this game, but I don't deny that it is all a bit abstruse to me.
I feel like I'm waiting for the second part of a cliff hanger episode! Soap operas for dorks, eh?
In a irrational world order...there is no room for science!
In a better term...Science only studies what it can see..from what it knows...and only forms facts, when the same thing can be repeated...over and over again.
Some things only happen once in time...and or...only in a cycle of time that goes beyond the one studying the theory.
As it is, Science can only make rational statements, when the equations is found to be true in all instances...knowing all things ...would have to include some opposites!...for opposites are present to some things that are stated in Biblical form!
If a big bang was the starting point of the universe....how is it, that the mass that was one...comes together in the form of Galaxies, and other space anomolies...if Space is just open nothingness....?
Science cannot answer that Question...for to know how or what caused the universe to be....cause they were not there!....and it has not ever happened again....although the Galaxies are moving to some destination....we do not know where they are Going, when they Go out of our eye sight....and or how the light bends when a great distance beyond blue shift and redshift is observable, if observable....
So we do not know how it was made, nor what it is becoming....and with these things out of our graspe....Science is weeker than Biblical accounting.
That a word of truth is spoken...and then all things came to be because of the word spoken truly....a truth to what was spoken is now before us!
Truth is always....for without truth there is nothing!
God is the Truth...and there for God is always!
Truth corrects Error...not the otherway around.
Now some will debate this...But with out the facts of where, why, and how everything came into being, or is going out of being....what truth do they have?...if they only observe what they know, or what they see to be?
That is why they use the word Theory!...and although some will hold onto that word as truth....it is not!
To add insult to the mixture of illgotten irrational thought processes some people have about mathimatical equations....If God is provable...then Science is even weeker than its feebled words of prophetic theories and facts...that take from scripture, to make their own words plausable.
Plausable words do not make truth....Just because it is plausible, does not make it possible!
But imagination and God..can work to making things happen...that generally should not happen!
Cause and effect....an action happened...TRUE...it Created a place for Life to be born in...True...and in that God (truth) made Living things known!...ALSO TRUE!
For no matter how hard they try to make life from a bang of matter....they only end up with sludge.....and they then say..."if we add this to the mix"....still sludge!..."and if we treat it to this principle "...Still Sludge...."and if we cool it and heat it to extremes"....Still Sludge....and after doing all kinds of different things to it, to try to make what they want...to try to make Life from a bang of matter....Sludge is the resulting factor!!!....Then they try other things that would not be normally present in the spreading of the matter, by adding impuretiries to make what they wanted.....and they Got amino acids to some degree!
Now if you take all that effort...to shape matter into life..and still fail at it,...it took along time, and many principles of plausable theoretic truths and principles of surmation, and trial and error...and a designer trying to do something with something to make something from nothing but matter from a big bang theory....
Ergo GOD is the designer of LIFE.....Cause Humans are designing things in that formula of a Big Bang theory...to some bent degree....not life Yet...but coming closer to a truth in that failure!
Life was designed by a higher order of things!
And science does not have the equation right...and they cannot , because they denie God!
See with out Truth/God in the mix....Nothing is true...and sludge is the resulting Factor!
Last edited by Sir Les; 01-16-2011 at 12:56 PM..
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 subjective unconscious that you refer to is the consciousness of God (inaccessible to us at this "Womb state" level of becoming) . . . which interacts with our unconscious (Embryo Soul) when we are producing our cellular versions of consciousness ("in-process" state). 
