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.
Watch the third link and THEN revisit MY rationale and interpretation, Cruithne (which differs from his). While the time and space we experience and measure are a function of the formation of our consciousness in "quantum time," the REAL "quantum time" does still exist. Whitehead's "creative advance of nature" is a function of the cosmic consciousness of our LIVING universe (God) that establishes ALL conscious Reality.
Not sure why I'd watch a view that's different from yours to see your point
I'll just focus on your point.
Specifically this bit:
'(God) that establishes ALL conscious Reality' (since I don't follow the rest of what you wrote).
We don't know what consciousness is exactly so we cant make any definitive statements about it other than it arises within the brains sentient beings. For all we know it might be present outside of sentient beings, though that seems very unlikely since there's no evidence for that. But something about the way complex brains are built gives rise to conscious thought. That's pretty much all we know.
You can say it's God but once again that's just your perspective that's different from my perspective, which isn't really all that different, other than, what you call God, I call nature.
"Talking past one another" is what this forum is all about! Not sure you are doing any better or any different, but if you are, thanks, because this is pretty much the same talking I've been doing for awhile now.
Good time for me to sign off too, because the talking past one another does tend to get a little tedious, and at that point it's best to just sign off I think. Meant to avoid this thread altogether anyway...
Until maybe tomorrow. Cheers!
Yes, What I was trying to say is fundamentally, it seems like everyone agrees more than they disagree here (you have you really want to see it).
Right I haven't watched the third link but I get the gist.
It doesn't change though what I said.
I acknowledge that everything we do physically interacts with everything around us and influences everything. That's the nature of things. We are all built from the same stuff that the universe is built from.
We perceive things differently. If I look at a picture of a black and blue dress that you are seeing as a gold and white dress that doesn't mean that we are looking at two different realities. We are looking at the same reality, but our eyes interact with it differently.
All of our interactions are part and parcel of 'reality'.
What I'm saying is, actually we are all in agreement I think. 'Our reality' IS 'reality'.
Your perception might be different from my perception. Your interaction may produce different effects from my interaction. But it's all part of the same reality because it is all built from the same stuff and all behaves according to the same natural laws.
Full disclosure: i have not read the previous posts. This just caught my eye and I agree. Particularly the two bolded, that is about the essence of it. The question then is why do we not feel that way? If the tree and I are made of the same essential stuff, then why do i not feel like a tree? If the wave and the ocean are of the same stuff, why dont we call the wave just ocean? Is there any way to experience the oneness?
Not sure why I'd watch a view that's different from yours to see your point
I'll just focus on your point.
Specifically this bit:
'(God) that establishes ALL conscious Reality' (since I don't follow the rest of what you wrote).
We don't know what consciousness is exactly so we cant make any definitive statements about it other than it arises within the brains sentient beings. For all we know it might be present outside of sentient beings, though that seems very unlikely since there's no evidence for that. But something about the way complex brains are built gives rise to conscious thought. That's pretty much all we know.
You can say it's God but once again that's just your perspective that's different from my perspective, which isn't really all that different, other than, what you call God, I call nature.
True, except that I see it all as "alive" whereas you probably only see the biosphere as alive. What you refer to as molecular activity, I see as life processes even in the inanimate. In my view, brains are not so much the "source" of consciousness. They provide access to the living cosmic consciousness AND reproduce it. That is the meaning of my "transceiver" analogy.
The representations of Reality that our consciousness provides are simply the icons on the user interface ("screen") of the transceiver. The icons represent an actual Reality but they themselves are NOT the Reality. They make it possible for us to interact successfully with Reality much as the icons on a computer screen enable us to interact with the "electronic reality" within the computer. The "electronic reality" in the computer would be incomprehensible to us without the user interface, much as our actual Reality would be without the representations in the brain.
Not sure what the argument is here to be honest. Seems to me you are all talking past one another.
The Universe cares not what humans consider to be subjective or objective. It exists regardless.
'Our reality' equates to 'reality'. The Universe exists regardless of whether humans exist or not.
Both 'objective' AND 'subjective' are both human constructs obviously because without a sentient mind, you would have neither.
Objective means that something exists independent of, or external to the mind, uninfluenced by feelings or opinions, but it still requires a mind to conceive of the concept.
It's really an argument about semantics rather than anything spiritual or theological.
yup, way back when it all started with trans, he asked for proof of mystics beliefs.
He got proof. Not 100% but enough to say say "ok, maybe."
Then they started talking about semantics and baggage with the word god. "Why not stop calling it god" was brought up a few times. Trans made it clear that he had to fight the word god because of religion and atheism.
Once it became clear thinking that at least parts of the universe are probably alive and the data couldn't really be denied out of hand without starting to look foolish, and the anti-religion-ist felt it wasn't helping their cause, many restrictions were put in place.
Some atheist can't let the notion that a person can believe in some thing more and be atheist go. Something about team (statement of belief about god) unity. I never understood it. . Or at least, what I see, they feel it hurts atheism and hurts the fight against religion.
I don't agree with mystic's conclusion. I don't fight about it because it is at least based on a list of observations. Atheism doesn't have to fight every belief tooth and nail for social change.
True, except that I see it all as "alive" whereas you probably only see the biosphere as alive. What you refer to as molecular activity, I see as life processes even in the inanimate. In my view, brains are not so much the "source" of consciousness. They provide access to the living cosmic consciousness AND reproduce it. That is the meaning of my "transceiver" analogy.
The representations of Reality that our consciousness provides are simply the icons on the user interface ("screen") of the transceiver. The icons represent an actual Reality but they themselves are NOT the Reality. They make it possible for us to interact successfully with Reality much as the icons on a computer screen enable us to interact with the "electronic reality" within the computer. The "electronic reality" in the computer would be incomprehensible to us without the user interface, much as our actual Reality would be without the representations in the brain.
I think your view is like watching water heat up in a pot. Its just that we don't see the pot or heat source .
You see a "heat field". I see something causing the heat. And some anti-religious atheist types deny talking about any heat source beacue godheat religion is so bad.
Bad's analogy, (mine really) of dark matter fits very nicely. That's why some atheist have to avoid it.
You say its "a field" causing it. Like they thought WIMPS or black holes.
I say, i don't know, but it is some thing (such a easy claim they had to stop it)
The anti-god atheist here have to deny that the events are even happening for the good of anti-bark matter unity.
agenda's are the disconnects phet. Its just that some us try and remove ourselves from the agenda to get a better handle on our place in the universe. "stop that big bad boogey" just isn't the arbiter of reality.
Full disclosure: i have not read the previous posts. This just caught my eye and I agree. Particularly the two bolded, that is about the essence of it. The question then is why do we not feel that way? If the tree and I are made of the same essential stuff, then why do i not feel like a tree? If the wave and the ocean are of the same stuff, why dont we call the wave just ocean? Is there any way to experience the oneness?
The way?
I'd say the way is to experience whatever we can and not think too much more about it. This is what enhances the experience in many ways, with the trees and the surf. Nature and all around us that can fill our senses. Perhaps another way to say there is plenty enough wonderfulness to experience without there necessarily being anything more to it.
I'd have to think again about what my goals are here. Sometimes I think they are different depending on the day, my mood and whatever comments I encounter in this forum as I cruise through. Not to be confused with agendas and all that sort of thing that tends to be a little more premeditated.
I'd have to think again about what my goals are here. Sometimes I think they are different depending on the day, my mood and whatever comments I encounter in this forum as I cruise through. Not to be confused with agendas and all that sort of thing that tends to be a little more premeditated.
What are your goals?
To not simply allow the religious majority to use that majority as a bully pulpit that seeks to control others in a society, at least not without putting up an argument. To say, 'Stop right there. There are other viewpoints by other people that are just as important as yours'.
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.
