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.
Thank you for this. We have explained this simple concept to Mystic so many times, one must ask why he does not understand this.
Because it does NOT apply to the ontology of what DOES EXIST which is entirely presumptive. That you are so conditioned to your presumptions about it as (whatever terms you prefer), you cannot free yourselves from that conditioning to address the actual issue of ontology. I was stuck there too prior to my encounter in deep meditation when the conditioning was stripped away. It would seem that absent any such encounter the conditioning is too strong.
again, great point. But we are actually applying it to a claim.
mystics says "spacetime, interacting via the mechanisms shown in QED, are responsible for us being here".
ok, what evidence do you have that I would lack belief in that statement? Science would look at that claim and say something past "I don't believe you" because that understanding is in textbooks as we speak.
Well, from what I can tell in short readings, Mystic goes way beyond your statement above and extends it to
claiming the universe has a consciousness that Mystic can communicate with in meditation and that the universe is actually a theistic entity we should call God and quit denying . And that's the rub, making a Supreme Theistic Something out of the natural universe. No one argues the universe created us. Some debate whether the universe is a conscious entity equating to a supreme theistic being.
Because it does NOT apply to the ontology of what DOES EXIST which is entirely presumptive. That you are so conditioned to your presumptions about it as (whatever terms you prefer), you cannot free yourselves from that conditioning to address the actual issue of ontology. I was stuck there too prior to my encounter in deep meditation when the conditioning was stripped away. It would seem that absent any such encounter the conditioning is too strong.
On what basis do you claim the norms of rational and logical thought should not apply to the concept of God? I'm not attempting to be rude and join the entrenched battle here , but simply stating this doesn't exempt the concept of God from the rules of all other objects of thought. You cannot merely carve out an exemption to the norms of logic for the subject of God and simply declare it to be so " because I say so" just because you need this exemption for your stance.
On what logical basis should the concept of God be treated with different rules than any other concept of the unknown and unprovable?
Every advance in scientific knowledge occurs on the fringe of what is currently known. That is done by theorizing and hypothesizing about how the currently unknown phenomena could possibly be incorporated into the existing science. That is what my Synthesis does, but like all such efforts, it remains unverified until science has the ability to validate it with measurements. You are asking the wrong questions when you ask for it to be verified. You should be challenging the legitimate science that my Synthesis uses to make the connections.
You simply want to deny my conclusions because you don't like them or accept them or do not know enough to challenge the logic or reasoning behind their extrapolation. You claim to be science literate but show no sign of it in your posts or non-refutations and assertions. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge what Arach suggests - Okay, that seems plausible and reasonably supported and described and it could be true, but I still won't call it God because I define myself as an atheist.
When such advances are verified by science, we can all recognize the advance as such. Maybe even benefit from the new knowledge. It's when theory and hypothesis are proposed to be valid before such validation is verified that opens that door to everything from probable to improbable. Not sure anyone is quite as convinced your theories and hypothesis are probable rather than improbable, but you have made it clear that really doesn't matter to you, and that's fair.
Just important to recognize that many others past and present have their similarly extrapolated theories and hypothesis that you too find improbable. In that realm of unverified fringe theory and hypothesis, it's a very wide open field for those who like to venture there.
Personally, I enjoy considering ideas beyond what is known, but I don't promote them as anything but exactly that, until science does in fact determine by way of scientific method what we should accept as the most probable if not true.
Nothing stopping you from having your fun in the meantime however. Enjoy!
Because it does NOT apply to the ontology of what DOES EXIST which is entirely presumptive. That you are so conditioned to your presumptions about it as (whatever terms you prefer), you cannot free yourselves from that conditioning to address the actual issue of ontology. I was stuck there too prior to my encounter in deep meditation when the conditioning was stripped away. It would seem that absent any such encounter the conditioning is too strong.
So we must address the issue of ontology even though according to you we can not address the issue of ontology, and addressing the issue of ontology based on what we know is NOT addressing the ontology, and verified scientific conclusions is equally as valid as unverified extrapolations?
Mystic claim is addressing the notion that we are part of a hierarchy of structure. A poster used the term "reality stack". That claim is more true than false. The stack is increasing in complexity and we are just a middle rung of it.
Thats it really. Why fight it so hard. Its clearly more true that false.
Clearly for some. Not so for others.
Just as God, oneness and life after death is clear for some. Not so for others...
I have just explained this in the post you quoted. Why would I challenge the science when the problem is with your conclusion? I do not challenge the valid science when creationists misuse it, I challenge the misuse. It really is a simple concept, yet your amazing intellect apparently can not understand this.
Quatsch, I reject (not deny) your claims precisely because they are not verified (as you admit) and go against the evidence we do have.
The bold is an assertion NOT established by any scientific or logical reasoning that makes my extrapolations implausible. Why do you skip that step and rely on your bald assertions?
Quote:
Take it to the science section and I will have you spanked, and stood in a corner after writing 100 times on the writing board 'I must not lie about my intellectual superiors'.
Ignoring the deliberate trigger, I am a retired Emeritus Professor and my teaching days are in the past. I recommend actually trying to do some original thinking about what has been presented in my Synthesis from the beginning. The reasoning is there to fit the existing science into if you keep from blocking it by your God-o-phobia and attacking the simplifying analogies that are ONLY supposed to establish context handles for grasping what are considerably more complex phenomena.
Quote:
Because while your hypothesis may be true, but until it has verifiable evidence, it can not be 'reasonably supported'. It is one or the other.
Why you and your compatriots continue to pretend I have ever demanded my conclusions be accepted as scientific fact is beyond me. I have only stressed that my Synthesis is supported and based on existing and legitimate science. My reasoning is there, but you make no effort to employ it. The other stumbling block is your perverse refusal to acknowledge that your atheism is as much a BELIEF as my theism, not a conclusive scientific fact.
Thank you for engaging. Your reticence is eminently justified. There is cause for pause, but your analogy of the combustion engine is flawed. The products of the combustion remain differentiated as the radiative phenomena of heat, light, fumes, etc. Our consciousness forms in quantum time in a quantum state prior to our awareness of anything. But unlike the flames of a fire, the "flames of consciousness" that are transformed by the brain into radiative phenomena (quanta) do not remain differentiated.
The individual synaptic firings coalesce into a composite resonant consciousness field (perfect resonance achieves infinite amplification) that CONDENSES the individual firings into an undifferentiated (and unmeasurable) permanent single quantum state (BEC?) that resides in the spacetime field itself, not in the physical matter of our brain. This is not as worthy of pause as you might think because we have actual scientific evidence that BEC's can indeed be maintained in the vacuum of space.
It is the permanent consciousness resident in the spacetime field itself that does all the "thinking, planning, and reasoning." We experience it as our Self only as a delayed playback of the recorded memories of the quantum formation of our actual conscious awareness. The brain remains connected to the permanent BEC by the continued production of consciousness created by the combination of the emotive center of the reptilian brain and our actual consciousness in space through the transceiver of the brain. The fact that these extrapolations remain unverified does not in any way detract from the legitimate science the extrapolations are based on.
If I am understanding you correctly, and if true, then even after we die, our "flames of consciousness" continue to engage, interact and maybe even influence those who remain alive after we're dead. If this is true, how long would our "flames of consciousness" continue on? Forever? And if this is true, how many "flames of consciousness" are currently flaming out there? From all humans, animals, since we began?
There is hardly anything you write that I can say is not worthy of pause, but I think you believe what you do much more than most others do. So for you there is no cause for pause, while for others it is very hard to get on your bus while some of these open questions remain open, and/or the truth about any of this is actually validated by science.
You and Arach speak two completely different languages, Tzaph. You appear to be using English but from totally different worlds.
Is that English?
Thanks, because I was beginning to wonder. Starting to sound more like Chinese to me...
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.
