What the hell is Mystic talking about when he mentions consciousness as God? (gospels, believing)
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.
I do not have any problem whatsoever with people holding other views from mine, Tzaph, but your professed tolerance does not seem to extend to those who have views based on BOTH personal experiences AND science. THAT is intolerant! You seem to want to demand the "separate magisterium" nonsense so you can pretend there is no scientific commonality to our Reality making your esoteric and anyone else's largely implausible beliefs perfectly acceptable.
Why is it important that science agrees with you? Spirituality is not measurable nor observable. It TRANSCENDS it.
Except Mystic's position is that consciousness 'exists in a single quantum state in the spacetime field itself', and claims this is based on actual science. The evidence for that can be discussed in the science section without discussing religion.
To expand on this, Mystic's position is an extrapolation of Hameroff and Penrose's OR hypothesis (unless Penrose has another idea), an obscure idea not found in most (if any) science text book, and criticized by people who actually know what they are talking about.
Ignorant people can pretend Mystic's evidence is so strong, but experts such as (from Wikipedia) Koch and Hepp concluded that "`The empirical demonstration of slowly decoherent and controllable quantum bits in neurons connected by electrical or chemical synapses, or the discovery of an efficient quantum algorithm for computations performed by the brain, would do much to bring these speculations from the ‘far-out’ to the mere ‘very unlikely’.''
Mystic's hypothesis needs evidence, and that can be discussed in the science section.
Matters pertaining to God are not allowed to be discussed in the Science forum. The forum rules in that forum plainly state that.
That is true. They would be appropriate to This forum. It is the attempt to rewrite science to fit the God -hypothesis that was stopped, initially because of the interminable debates about the validity of evolution -theory, but it seems to have picked up some other efforts to reinvent science to fit a god -claim, too.
I'm loving the thread, by the way. I have laughed out loud several times getting to this page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Except Mystic's position is that consciousness 'exists in a single quantum state in the spacetime field itself', and claims this is based on actual science. The evidence for that can be discussed in the science section without discussing religion.
Well noted. The scientific claims that back up the theistic belief that Mystic professes (indeed, it seems that was the starting -point and the science - and logic - was fiddled to fit it) are (Like Chophra's Quantum - Woo stuff) valid subjects for discussion in the science forums.
I presume that Mystic arguing his science -claims on the science forum could give a link so that we could follow how well he is making his case successfully to people who know about it, and then get back to us when he has done so. Instead, he prefers to post sciencey jargon intended to bamboozle and impress people here who do not -as he often says - know anything about it.
People who however can look up things like the Minkowsky light -cone and see how Mystic totally buggered it in hopes to create a gap for a god outside of time or space.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-18-2021 at 07:42 AM..
I do not have any problem whatsoever with people holding other views from mine, but your professed tolerance does not seem to extend to those who have views based on BOTH personal experiences AND science. THAT is intolerant! You seem to want to demand the "separate magisterium" nonsense so you can pretend there is no scientific commonality to our Reality making your esoteric and anyone else's largely implausible beliefs perfectly acceptable.
what you can't wrap your head around, what you can't wrap your ego around
is that holy texts, and paths of religion and spirituality, are more advanced than the "science" of the moment,
in terms of recognizing, describing, navigating, and utilizing that which science is only beginning to even consider.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-18-2021 at 07:42 AM..
Anybody that knows jack squat about what he is talking about knows exactly what a science person would say about his conscious field. But his belief is about spirituality. Thats why its avoided here.
This is also about some people claiming he has little evidence or weak evidence. The data he is uses can be found in most science textbooks. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I have no idea why people have to go to the extremes of saying he has no "strength of evidence". His evidence is so so strong that its "plausible" far more than a deity like the biblegod is plausible.
Also, the other main part of mystics belief demonstrates the notion that some people don't care about evidence or strength of evidence. They are not here to talk about rational beliefs and how they inter relate to each other. They are here to muddy the waters so people can't discuss any ideas to sort out what is more plausible or less plausible.
P.s I know about the 'sliding scale of plausibility'. But the 'binary' logic is that one either finds the claim believable and thus believes it and is a theist or they find it pretty plausible but not convincing and don't believe it. They are non -believers in such a case.
There is a narrow possible 'undecided' position (agnosticism as a Belief position, the analogy of the edge of the coin, you may recall), but it has to be narrow. Belief or not, as has been observed, is not a 'choice'.
I heard the term tossed at me "Your enabling". They said I am enabling "believing" in things by talking the way I do. I am enabling people to free think through a belief by using logic, data, and commonsense. And they frown on that.
The big red flag showing just how "plausible" mystic's claim is when they claim talking about that type of god doesn't get us anywhere.
I would love for them to explain just where that is.
I have explained it before. 'Plausible' (assuming for sake of argument that Mystic's fiddling of science to fit his Beliefs were such) does not add up to 'believable'. Which is presumably what you think too, or you wouldn't claim to be an atheist.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-18-2021 at 07:44 AM..
I have explained it before. 'Plausible' (assuming for sake of argument that Mystic's fiddling of science to fit his Beliefs were such) does not add up to 'believable'. Which is presumably what you think too, or you wouldn't claim to be an atheist.
I have explained to you before that based on mystic's strength of evidence that his position is plausible. Just based on the science and engineering data anyway. I do not agree with his conclusion about an aware field. But awareness resulting in the interactions of fields matches exactly what we see.
You have what you want "believable" to mean, CB has wants he wants believable to mean, bapt has what he wants to be believable. That's all fine and good, but I "believe" usually using science data, reason, and commonsense allows for more rational belief that can self correct over time.
The biggest difference between us ids that I do not care how irrational theist respond and misuse data. I am not changing the more reliable truth to meet that need. I also don't answer to atheism nor do I take its definition literally.
You need to show me some real evidence for me to say "awareness as a result of fields" is wrong. I mean outside of just saying "I don't believe it" like some theist just say "I believe in a deity."
What is important is that we align beliefs to reality as best we can. Just making up whatever we want is just not all that rational.
what is not rational, is if someone has different experiences, views, and understanding than you do, to go to the knee jerk place of claiming that they are "making up whatever they want."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-18-2021 at 07:53 AM..
I have explained to you before that based on mystic's strength of evidence that his position is plausible. Just based on the science and engineering data anyway. I do not agree with his conclusion about an aware field. But awareness resulting in the interactions of fields matches exactly what we see.You have what you want "believable" to mean, CB has wants he wants believable to mean, bapt has what he wants to be believable. That's all fine and good, but I "believe" usually using science data, reason, and commonsense allows for more rational belief that can self correct over time.The biggest difference between us ids that I do not care how irrational theist respond and misuse data. I am not changing the more reliable truth to meet that need. I also don't answer to atheism nor do I take its definition literally. You need to show me some real evidence for me to say "awareness as a result of fields" is wrong. I mean outside of just saying "I don't believe it" like some theist just say "I believe in a deity."
science is not the basis for a path of religion and spirituality.
science is not the reason for belief.
Mstic acknowledges that.
his experience (not the science) is the basis for his belief in God.
I have explained to you before that based on mystic's strength of evidence that his position is plausible. Just based on the science and engineering data anyway. I do not agree with his conclusion about an aware field. But awareness resulting in the interactions of fields matches exactly what we see.
You have what you want "believable" to mean, CB has wants he wants believable to mean, bapt has what he wants to be believable. That's all fine and good, but I "believe" usually using science data, reason, and commonsense allows for more rational belief that can self correct over time.
The biggest difference between us ids that I do not care how irrational theist respond and misuse data. I am not changing the more reliable truth to meet that need. I also don't answer to atheism nor do I take its definition literally.
You need to show me some real evidence for me to say "awareness as a result of fields" is wrong. I mean outside of just saying "I don't believe it" like some theist just say "I believe in a deity."
I know I should not get sucked into this, but I want to clarify for others, if not yourself.
A conscious universe as a god -claim belongs here. I have not seen convincing evidence for this, so I remain unconvinced, non -believing and atheist.
Anyone who is convinced by a claim for a conscious universe as a science claim has also to make a case for it - as just saying 'I find it plausible' validates nothing - and had better debate it on the science forum, or get Mystic to do so. Until the case is made there, the scientific basis for plausibility is unproven Here.
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.