hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

Thread: Consciousness after death

  1. #41
    Donor Rami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    London/Snuffbox
    Posts
    1,357
    Well I think we get theoretical there, in terms of quantum physics, string theory (being the leading contender for a theory of origin). That our universe started with low entropy and thus a positive arrow of time could merely be due to the position on the multiverse brane that our universe was created (if theory holds). Evolution itself is quite simple, and quite elegantly explains how such complexity comes to be.

    As for intelligence, as per my first post on this topic, I think it's a natural stage in evolution of energy-exchange mechanisms (i.e. life). I truly think that sentience can exist in any form that has the ability to store information/energy, form pathways for it to go and senses to accept external stimuli. It's certainly marvelous that it is here, but I don't think mystical in any way. If we're asking how come even small organisms started to reproduce, I think it's simply because any organism that came to be which didn't perpetuate itself died out extremely quickly (in one generation).

  2. #42

    Join Date
    June 6, 2011
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    Well I think we get theoretical there, in terms of quantum physics, string theory (being the leading contender for a theory of origin). That our universe started with low entropy and thus a positive arrow of time could merely be due to the position on the multiverse brane that our universe was created (if theory holds). Evolution itself is quite simple, and quite elegantly explains how such complexity comes to be.
    The funny thing is that most of those theories would not invalidate religion, in fact many support the illusionary nature of our universe. When i think about it seems to me that most of science is only focused on exploring the realm of effect (the universe), while religion explores the cause (consciousness). As illustrated by the quote below:

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Questions regarding why the universe behaves in such a way have been described by physicists and cosmologists as being extra-scientific (i.e., metaphysical).
    The marriage of science and religion does not mean conflict or a lowering of scientifc standards. It would be a perfect synthesis (effect&cause). I have no doubt that science on it's own will be able to fully explain the nature of the universe, but it can never explain the cause. Assuming that consciousness is effect is the cardinal error and could be solved quite easily if only science cared to even consider the possibility that it is the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    As for intelligence, as per my first post on this topic, I think it's a natural stage in evolution of energy-exchange mechanisms (i.e. life). I truly think that sentience can exist in any form that has the ability to store information/energy, form pathways for it to go and senses to accept external stimuli. It's certainly marvelous that it is here, but I don't think mystical in any way. If we're asking how come even small organisms started to reproduce, I think it's simply because any organism that came to be which didn't perpetuate itself died out extremely quickly (in one generation).
    By that logic running a computer with enough data storage should produce sentience and even consciousness at one point. A computer never knows or truly understands. It defies all we know about science afaik. The best synthesis between sciene and religion i have read so far is by Walter Russel. Books: http://scribd.com/collections/287358...Russell?page=1 I hope you can look behind the copius amounts of praising god, some really interesting stuff in there.

    Edit: The religion as a mental clutch analogy you made yesterday, i still agree that is not needed but would add that it is the same as expecting every person to discover the laws of nature again on it's own.
    Last edited by Irrelephant; November 13 2012 at 02:29:56 PM.

  3. #43
    Donor Rami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    London/Snuffbox
    Posts
    1,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    The funny thing is that most of those theories would not invalidate religion, in fact many support the illusionary nature of our universe. When i think about it seems to me that most of science is only focused on exploring the realm of effect (the universe), while religion explores the cause (consciousness). As illustrated by the quote below:

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Questions regarding why the universe behaves in such a way have been described by physicists and cosmologists as being extra-scientific (i.e., metaphysical).
    The marriage of science and religion does not mean conflict or a lowering of scientifc standards. It would be a perfect synthesis (effect&cause). I have no doubt that science on it's own will be able to fully explain the nature of the universe, but it can never explain the cause. Assuming that consciousness is effect is the cardinal error and could be solved quite easily if only science cared to even consider the possibility that it is the other way around.
    Why should it not be able to explain the cause? I think that's not giving enough credit to sentient life. And if we are part of the box and therefore can not view the box, why does that make religion 'right' all of a sudden? Just because we are not able to see for ourselves, does not mean we should start making up things to fit there. It is a convenient lie, but still a lie, as you have nothing to substantiate it. To have blind faith in something is to deny truth, and to deny truth is to deny life. If there truly is a multiverse, then it also consist of some form of energy, and right now we can't exclude that sufficiently advanced beings could take that extra step.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    By that logic running a computer with enough data storage should produce sentience and even consciousness at one point. A computer never knows or truly understands. It defies all we know about science afaik. The best synthesis between sciene and religion i have read so far is by Walter Russel. Books: http://scribd.com/collections/287358...Russell?page=1 I hope you can look behind the copius amounts of praising god, some really interesting stuff in there.

    Edit: The religion as a mental clutch analogy you made yesterday, i still agree that is not needed but would add that it is the same as expecting every person to discover the laws of nature again on it's own.
    How does it defy all science? And yes, given *sufficient* resources and processing power a computer would indeed achieve sentience. Look at the google x-labs results where an AI learned to recognise pictures without being given any rules whatsoever to begin with. Humans have the advantage that the heuristics with which our brain forms, transmits and stores thought has been refined through thousands upon thousands of years of evolution. Make no mistake though, our brains are extremely complex but on the abstract level they use a specific ruleset to handle data. We're only at the beginning of trying to create sentience ourselves. The x-labs example could be called a proto-sentience, but it is still miles from achieving self-awareness.

    The problem I have with religion is that it constantly tries to fit in the still unexplained gaps that science hasn't ventured.

    'oh you can't explain lightning, must be god' *we explain lightning*
    'oh you can't explain earthquakes, must be god!' *we explain earthquakes*
    'oh you can't explainhow things got so complex, must be god!' *darwin comes along*
    ad infinitum, ad nauseum

    Right now it's 'oh you can't create sentience, only god can!', well hang on there johnny, we're getting there. Philosophy is fine, blind faith is a horrible thing. I can fully appreciate there is a possibility that:

    a) a sentient being of immense capabilities created the universe with great care
    b) a sentient being of immense capabilities merely initiated the start of the universe (if there is one)

    If that is the case, and you term it 'god', then we can one day become god ourselves (an anathema in most religions!). We can't prove it, we can't disprove it, but probability wise there is nothing to suggest right now that is the case. Whilst it might merit some thought, it doesn't merit obsession, we are leagues away from being able to verify this. I fully understand why the fear of the unknown works as a vacuum in the minds of some and they *must* fill it with something, no matter how nonsensical it might be, but that does not make it 'ok'. It's a tolerable willfull ignorance as long as it doesn't harm others, but it continuously does. And that is my problem with religion in general.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    June 6, 2011
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    Why should it not be able to explain the cause? I think that's not giving enough credit to sentient life.
    The cause is not measurable, we cannot explain what we can not measure. Though i'm sure there would be no shortage of theories, but we can not know. That is no discredit to sentient life, sentient life is consciousness and as such has the ability to experience the cause, in a sense it is part of the cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    And if we are part of the box and therefore can not view the box, why does that make religion 'right' all of a sudden? Just because we are not able to see for ourselves, does not mean we should start making up things to fit there. It is a convenient lie, but still a lie, as you have nothing to substantiate it. To have blind faith in something is to deny truth, and to deny truth is to deny life. If there truly is a multiverse, then it also consist of some form of energy, and right now we can't exclude that sufficiently advanced beings could take that extra step.
    You are again so right in many aspects. But why do you blindy believe that science is the only answer then? At the very least religion should have the same chances as other concepts that we cannot proove. Works like from Walter Russel above lay out a picture that should not be ignored just because it has aspects of religion and even more so as it does not exclude science in any shape or form. A bit unfortunate that he chose to write it the way he did tbh. Allegedly Tesla told Russels to keep his works private for a thousand years or so until mankind is ready for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    How does it defy all science? And yes, given *sufficient* resources and processing power a computer would indeed achieve sentience. Look at the google x-labs results where an AI learned to recognise pictures without being given any rules whatsoever to begin with. Humans have the advantage that the heuristics with which our brain forms, transmits and stores thought has been refined through thousands upon thousands of years of evolution. Make no mistake though, our brains are extremely complex
    but on the abstract level they use a specific ruleset to handle data. We're only at the beginning of trying to create sentience ourselves. The x-labs example could be called a proto-sentience, but it is still miles from achieving self-awareness.
    All a computer does is thought. Instructions process data. It's instruction set might have learning capabilities on how to process and categorize data but i don't see how it could become aware of itself as it processes data. Thought can never understand or know or feel. Only consciousness can, and for it to become aware of itself it would have to be there in the first place. The x-labs stuff is certainly interesting, but still they use a premade learning algorithm as a base.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    The problem I have with religion is that it constantly tries to fit in the still unexplained gaps that science hasn't ventured.

    'oh you can't explain lightning, must be god' *we explain lightning*
    'oh you can't explain earthquakes, must be god!' *we explain earthquakes*
    'oh you can't explainhow things got so complex, must be god!' *darwin comes along*
    ad infinitum, ad nauseum

    Right now it's 'oh you can't create sentience, only god can!', well hang on there johnny, we're getting there. Philosophy is fine, blind faith is a horrible thing.
    I thought we already cleared that up, that is not religion. As i said earlier believes get you nowhere. More on that in a sec.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    I can fully appreciate there is a possibility that:

    a) a sentient being of immense capabilities created the universe with great care
    b) a sentient being of immense capabilities merely initiated the start of the universe (if there is one)

    If that is the case, and you term it 'god', then we can one day become god ourselves (an anathema in most religions!).
    If you are willing to go that far you should also come to the conclusion that this creator has to be infinite. As such the creation can never leave the creator. God is everywhere. In us. Around us. We already became co-creators in this universe when our consciousness became aware of itself. It will only get better from here when we start taking responsibiltiy as co-creators. You could say when you reach nirvana in buddhism you become indeed god.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    We can't prove it, we can't disprove it, but probability wise there is nothing to suggest right now that is the case. Whilst it might merit some thought, it doesn't merit obsession, we are leagues away from being able to verify this. I fully understand why the fear of the unknown works as a vacuum in the minds of some and they *must* fill it with something, no matter how nonsensical it might be, but that does not make it 'ok'. It's a tolerable willfull ignorance as long as it doesn't harm others, but it continuously does. And that is my problem with religion in general.
    And it is exactly the problem everyone should have with religion. It is easy to dismiss given the way history went, but again, everyone can experience and as such know for themself. In the case of christianity you have to sift through alot of bs to get to the meat, but as with every good propaganda it is based on truth. For example "seek, and ye shall find". The same message you find in buddhism. So religon tells us it is up to the invidiual to find out, an internal process so to speak. No one can do the work for you. Without that initial step of actively seeking everything else is just believe.

    So if you want to seek, what would science do? Observe! Accept that you do not know, believe nothing but your own observations. It does not mean that you have to give up your job and social life. You do not need to become obsessive. Just become aware of your thoughts and your actions and the results will come on his own. Balance is the name of the game. It truly is a natural evolving process that does not need anything supernatural. Techniques as provided by buddhism are there to speed up the process and get you out of that misery of doubt by enabling you to experience the truth for yourself. I assure you that it is reproducable for everyone. Don't believe me, find out on your own.

  5. #45
    Donor Rami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    London/Snuffbox
    Posts
    1,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    You are again so right in many aspects. But why do you blindy believe that science is the only answer then? At the very least religion should have the same chances as other concepts that we cannot proove. Works like from Walter Russel above lay out a picture that should not be ignored just because it has aspects of religion and even more so as it does not exclude science in any shape or form. A bit unfortunate that he chose to write it the way he did tbh. Allegedly Tesla told Russels to keep his works private for a thousand years or so until mankind is ready for it.
    I do not blindly believe science is the only question. The origin of our universe is an unknown to scientists, and they *propose* methods which *may* have caused it. As they are not sure of these theories, and can not provide the necessary evidence, science ever adapts these theories as new information is gained. Religion sees this gap too, and simply fills it with 'truth', irrevocably, without any base to stand on.

    That is a huge difference, science is you standing before a closed room and trying to learn what is inside by putting your ear to the door and peeking through the keyhole. Religion is a burly squat man who tells you what is inside and expects you to believe it, and you are not deemed worthy to find out for yourself (although I recognise that you see 'religion' as a form of self exploration which is far more valid and I have no issue with).

    To focus on your form concept of religion, it bears far more relation to science than the normally accepted form of religion. That is, science aims to understand the world in such a way that it can explained and proven to any sentient being. Religion as a form of self-perception is something that can never be explained to another human, but may perhaps yield results of its own. I'm more than happy to support both, but science isn't as self-centered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    All a computer does is thought. Instructions process data. It's instruction set might have learning capabilities on how to process and categorize data but i don't see how it could become aware of itself as it processes data. Thought can never understand or know or feel. Only consciousness can, and for it to become aware of itself it would have to be there in the first place. The x-labs stuff is certainly interesting, but still they use a premade learning algorithm as a base.
    Well, the first few machines that can pass the turing tests are here, and that was traditionally a test for consciousness. That being said, your view is sort of denying evolution. We evolved from very primitive organisms, which were by no definition sentient or conscious (and I mean single celled organisms etc). Consciousness was achieved much later, and sentience was probably not achieved more than 100k years ago (or maybe much earlier, not a paleontologist). I'm not implying your standard intel PC with 4 GB of RAM and an SSD will ever achieve sentience but a machine certainly can.

    We are an organic machine, one of brilliant complexity that took millions of years to come to fruition. You could say that even now there are severe limitations to the human machine. Take our inability to control muscle mass on a more refined level, or fight-or-flee instincts which we don't need anymore for their original intents. All that doesn't remove us from the fact that we are just as much a machine as a computer is, we are carbon based organics and current computers are mostly silicon based (though that is evolving rapidly). It doesn't demean us to look at it like that either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    If you are willing to go that far you should also come to the conclusion that this creator has to be infinite. As such the creation can never leave the creator. God is everywhere. In us. Around us. We already became co-creators in this universe when our consciousness became aware of itself. It will only get better from here when we start taking responsibiltiy as co-creators. You could say when you reach nirvana in buddhism you become indeed god.
    Well I'll disagree on the point of not being able to exceed the being, if it exists, that set our universe in motion. I don't see any hard limit like that at the moment, and this being would certainly not need to be infinite in power. There is still a finite amount of energy in our universe which is, if the multiverse theory is correct, a trifling speck of energy compared to the larger whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    And it is exactly the problem everyone should have with religion. It is easy to dismiss given the way history went, but again, everyone can experience and as such know for themself. In the case of christianity you have to sift through alot of bs to get to the meat, but as with every good propaganda it is based on truth. For example "seek, and ye shall find". The same message you find in buddhism. So religon tells us it is up to the invidiual to find out, an internal process so to speak. No one can do the work for you. Without that initial step of actively seeking everything else is just believe.

    So if you want to seek, what would science do? Observe! Accept that you do not know, believe nothing but your own observations. It does not mean that you have to give up your job and social life. You do not need to become obsessive. Just become aware of your thoughts and your actions and the results will come on his own. Balance is the name of the game. It truly is a natural evolving process that does not need anything supernatural. Techniques as provided by buddhism are there to speed up the process and get you out of that misery of doubt by enabling you to experience the truth for yourself. I assure you that it is reproducable for everyone. Don't believe me, find out on your own.
    I think we agree on this, but probably from different view points.

    ps: I'm quite enjoying this, and if I seem antagonistic it's only the conviction of my thoughts showing and not an attempt to demean you

  6. #46
    Pacefalm's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    The cause is not measurable, we cannot explain what we can not measure. Though i'm sure there would be no shortage of theories, but we can not know. That is no discredit to sentient life, sentient life is consciousness and as such has the ability to experience the cause, in a sense it is part of the cause.
    But theories is all we have, we cannot truly 'know' anything with 100% certainty, because doing so would invalidate the scientific method. The scientific method depends on being able to question your answers, and being 100% sure of something does not fit in that. Even mathematical proofs are only undeniable within a certain fixed set of axioms. Also we (read: science) can explain a lot of things we cannot measure, and have seldom been unable to explain things that we CAN measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    You are again so right in many aspects. But why do you blindy believe that science is the only answer then? At the very least religion should have the same chances as other concepts that we cannot proove. Works like from Walter Russel above lay out a picture that should not be ignored just because it has aspects of religion and even more so as it does not exclude science in any shape or form. A bit unfortunate that he chose to write it the way he did tbh. Allegedly Tesla told Russels to keep his works private for a thousand years or so until mankind is ready for it.
    This might be the main difference between us. I blindly believe that science is the only answer, exactly because I know that it takes a lot of evidence and support for a theory to become accepted, and if someone proves it wrong it will get rectified. This does not happen with religion, which is very subjective by nature. Although in both cases you are not able to 'prove' a certain viewpoint, science (to me at least) has more credibility simply because everyone is able to study up on it and say "wait, this is bullshit right here" and it will have to go back to the drawing board. When something about religion gets called out as being nonsense, suddenly it becomes "well it was probably meant metaphorically!" or similar excuses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    All a computer does is thought. Instructions process data. It's instruction set might have learning capabilities on how to process and categorize data but i don't see how it could become aware of itself as it processes data. Thought can never understand or know or feel. Only consciousness can, and for it to become aware of itself it would have to be there in the first place. The x-labs stuff is certainly interesting, but still they use a premade learning algorithm as a base.
    The question of wether a computer can become sentient/intelligent/conscious is a very philosophical one, as the question is directly tied to the definition of 'sentience'/'intelligence'/'consciousness'. What is intelligence? If it is 'being able to calculate 5^4' then a computer is intelligent and a dolphin is not. But what would the definition have to be, for it to exclude computers and include dolphins (generally considered intelligent creatures)? Being able to 'feel', is that necessary for intelligence? It is a very fundamental question, and very subjective, so the answer is not the same for everyone.

    Do you call an ant intelligent? Most people would not. They say "the ant is just following a small set of instructions and you can accurately predict his movements just by looking at his surroundings", like the ghosts in a game of pac-man, they would not be called intelligent. Then we move up, is a goldfish intelligent? A mouse? A dog? At which point does it become "intelligence" and at which point is it just "following a fixed set of rules"? Imagine if there is an alien race, billions of times smarter and faster than us, looking down at earth. When they look at humans, do they see "intelligence"? Or are we like ants to them, following just a fixed set of rules (although a much larger set than ants')?

    A rising viewpoint at the moment, is that 'sentience'/'intelligence'/'consciousness' are not inherent properties of a being, but rather that they are purely descriptive terms. That is, a dolphin is not by itself intelligent, but it becomes intelligent because people call it intelligent. The same can be said about computers. So in this viewpoint, is a computer intelligent? It does not depend on the computer. It is intelligent only if we call it that.

    There is no clear answer to this, but I definitely believe that at some point in the near future, there will be computers that we call intelligent. Maybe a bit further into the future we can call computers sentient or conscious. I don't know when, but I have no doubt that these moments will come.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    I can fully appreciate there is a possibility that:

    a) a sentient being of immense capabilities created the universe with great care
    b) a sentient being of immense capabilities merely initiated the start of the universe (if there is one)

    If that is the case, and you term it 'god', then we can one day become god ourselves (an anathema in most religions!).
    If you are willing to go that far you should also come to the conclusion that this creator has to be infinite. As such the creation can never leave the creator. God is everywhere. In us. Around us. We already became co-creators in this universe when our consciousness became aware of itself. It will only get better from here when we start taking responsibiltiy as co-creators. You could say when you reach nirvana in buddhism you become indeed god.
    But just because there is a possibility, does not mean that it has to be true!
    Disregarding the question of consciousness (see above), there are some leaps in logic here that I don't quite follow. Why does a creator have to be infinite, just to create the universe? The universe itself is not infinite, in fact we can make a rough estimate of the total energy in the universe. It is something we can calculate.
    Next, why does the creation have to stay with the creator (or vice versa)? IF such a being exists and created the universe, why can't it just go someplace else? I don't see why it has to stick around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    And it is exactly the problem everyone should have with religion. It is easy to dismiss given the way history went, but again, everyone can experience and as such know for themself. In the case of christianity you have to sift through alot of bs to get to the meat, but as with every good propaganda it is based on truth. For example "seek, and ye shall find". The same message you find in buddhism. So religon tells us it is up to the invidiual to find out, an internal process so to speak. No one can do the work for you. Without that initial step of actively seeking everything else is just believe.

    So if you want to seek, what would science do? Observe! Accept that you do not know, believe nothing but your own observations. It does not mean that you have to give up your job and social life. You do not need to become obsessive. Just become aware of your thoughts and your actions and the results will come on his own. Balance is the name of the game. It truly is a natural evolving process that does not need anything supernatural. Techniques as provided by buddhism are there to speed up the process and get you out of that misery of doubt by enabling you to experience the truth for yourself. I assure you that it is reproducable for everyone. Don't believe me, find out on your own.
    The basis that everyone is able to experience and reproduce the truth is very close to what science aims to achieve, and is worthy of some praise. However, the difference is that this case is still a very subjective matter, and what one person experiences can be different from what the other experiences. Buddhism may not rely on 'blind faith' as much as christianity or some other religions, but faith does play a part in it. For example, in a meditative state you say you find 'the truth'. Why is that the truth? Because Buddhism says you can find the truth by meditation. Someone who never heard of Buddhism and who meditates, might experience the exact same thing as a Buddhistic person experiences, but come to a different conclusion. They might simply call it a state of mind, or a dream, or anything. In that sense there is still a some blind faith attached even if happens subconsciously.

    Edit: Rami beat me by a little over a minute.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I'm doing my best. Well. Not really.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    June 6, 2011
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    I do not blindly believe science is the only question. The origin of our universe is an unknown to scientists, and they *propose* methods which *may* have caused it. As they are not sure of these theories, and can not provide the necessary evidence, science ever adapts these theories as new information is gained. Religion sees this gap too, and simply fills it with 'truth', irrevocably, without any base to stand on.

    That is a huge difference, science is you standing before a closed room and trying to learn what is inside by putting your ear to the door and peeking through the keyhole. Religion is a burly squat man who tells you what is inside and expects you to believe it, and you are not deemed worthy to find out for yourself (although I recognise that you see 'religion' as a form of self exploration which is far more valid and I have no issue with).

    To focus on your form concept of religion, it bears far more relation to science than the normally accepted form of religion. That is, science aims to understand the world in such a way that it can explained and proven to any sentient being. Religion as a form of self-perception is something that can never be explained to another human, but may perhaps yield results of its own. I'm more than happy to support both, but science isn't as self-centered.
    Let me shorten that even further. I do not blindly believe is the only question. Was really just to make a point to keep an open mind. It may seem that religion simply fills gaps with some imagined and convenient truths, but if you look at the origin of religion it comes down to individuals that found higher awareness through different ways. They are much the same as those genious few scientists we had in history that pushed the boundaries on how we percieve this universe. The thing they all had in common was that they seeked and asked the right questions. Science wants to figure out the truth of our surroundings, religion wants to figure out the nature of our self. The dilemma religion has is that the realization what the self is can only be achieved by the self. The body of evidence can only be experience gained through observation. Science enables the general public to relax and let others do the work to figure things out so we all can profit from new information concerning the universe we live in. You don't have this luxury with religion. Everyone needs to do his part to reap the fruits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    That being said, your view is sort of denying evolution. We evolved from very primitive organisms, which were by no definition sentient or conscious (and I mean single celled organisms etc). Consciousness was achieved much later, and sentience was probably not achieved more than 100k years ago (or maybe much earlier, not a paleontologist). I'm not implying your standard intel PC with 4 GB of RAM and an SSD will ever achieve sentience but a machine certainly can.
    For a more complete view along those lines i recommend reading Russell, he goes very much into details on such topics. It does not invalidate evolution as science observed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    We are an organic machine, one of brilliant complexity that took millions of years to come to fruition. You could say that even now there are severe limitations to the human machine. Take our inability to control muscle mass on a more refined level, or fight-or-flee instincts which we don't need anymore for their original intents. All that doesn't remove us from the fact that we are just as much a machine as a computer is, we are carbon based organics and current computers are mostly silicon based (though that is evolving rapidly). It doesn't demean us to look at it like that either.
    We can only hear 1% of the accoustic, or see 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, limited senses indeed. Our bodies are machines no doubt, the question is who/what is it that watches the machine from inside? This is where our views part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    If you are willing to go that far you should also come to the conclusion that this creator has to be infinite. As such the creation can never leave the creator. God is everywhere. In us. Around us. We already became co-creators in this universe when our consciousness became aware of itself. It will only get better from here when we start taking responsibiltiy as co-creators. You could say when you reach nirvana in buddhism you become indeed god.
    Well I'll disagree on the point of not being able to exceed the being, if it exists, that set our universe in motion. I don't see any hard limit like that at the moment, and this being would certainly not need to be infinite in power. There is still a finite amount of energy in our universe which is, if the multiverse theory is correct, a trifling speck of energy compared to the larger whole.
    The problem with a finite creator is that the next logical question is how that creator came to be. You can run this chain as long as you like. As long as the infinite is not assumed it will always come back to the classic chicken-egg paradox. Energy can become matter, but how can energy, or whatever it is you assume to be first, pop out of nothing? It's interesting to note that physical science does not deal with the nothing at all. Everything is assumed to have properties. To me that implies infinity. The multiverse theory goes very well with religion, a self balanced hologram realizing an infinite amount of possibilities. Consciousness is the creator and by multitude the explorer.

    By that logic it is ofcourse not possible to surpass the creator, nor is there a point to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    ps: I'm quite enjoying this, and if I seem antagonistic it's only the conviction of my thoughts showing and not an attempt to demean you
    I have turned some stones i haven't touched in a long time, so for a second imagine myself being your avatar, tipping his hat in your direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    But theories is all we have, we cannot truly 'know' anything with 100% certainty, because doing so would invalidate the scientific method. The scientific method depends on being able to question your answers, and being 100% sure of something does not fit in that. Even mathematical proofs are only undeniable within a certain fixed set of axioms. Also we (read: science) can explain a lot of things we cannot measure, and have seldom been unable to explain things that we CAN measure.
    If you want to get past the doubts of a theory you have to apply said theory to practice and see if it holds true. Same goes for religion. You deny yourself the knowledge if you are content with believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Next, why does the creation have to stay with the creator (or vice versa)? IF such a being exists and created the universe, why can't it just go someplace else? I don't see why it has to stick around.
    Try to imagine infinity. How can at any point something exist outside of infinity. The creation would always be inside. As such it is not unlike a dream or hologram. Fun fact: the word buddha means "he woke up".

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Buddhism may not rely on 'blind faith' as much as christianity or some other religions, but faith does play a part in it. For example, in a meditative state you say you find 'the truth'. Why is that the truth? Because Buddhism says you can find the truth by meditation. Someone who never heard of Buddhism and who meditates, might experience the exact same thing as a Buddhistic person experiences, but come to a different conclusion. They might simply call it a state of mind, or a dream, or anything. In that sense there is still a some blind faith attached even if happens subconsciously.
    There is no faith in observing. Meditation is about raising awareness through observation. If you manage to let go of what you believe the truth is or what you are, and just observe, the truth will emerge on its own. You will see for yourself, you will feel for yourself. There will be no doubt.

  8. #48
    SAI Peregrinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Try to imagine infinity. How can at any point something exist outside of infinity. The creation would always be inside. As such it is not unlike a dream or hologram. Fun fact: the word buddha means "he woke up".
    Let's imagine infinity. It's fun. It also shows you haven't thought very deeply about infinity, but most people never do since it's a hard subject.
    Let's begin with a simple infinity: the natural numbers. {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}. There are infinitely many of them. By your reasoning no number can exist outside of this infinity; we can always create a one to one mapping of other infinities onto the natural numbers. Let's try some!

    How about the even numbers? Pretty easy: {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, ...) -> {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}. Sure, the evens grow faster than the natural numbers, but the 1:1 mapping is the same size, There are exactly as many even numbers as there are even + odd numbers.

    How about the integers (natural numbers and negative numbers)? That's not difficult either. {0, -1, 1, -2, 2, -3, 3, ...} -> {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...}. There are exactly as many integers as there are natural numbers.

    What about the reals (decimal numbers)? Turns out it's impossible. There are more reals than integers. The infinity of the real numbers is larger than the infinity of the integers, so things exist outside an infinity.
    Proof:
    Construct a list of infinite decimal numbers, eg:
    1: 0.001215654...
    2: 0.168798951...
    3: 0.184646772...
    4: 0.000000001...
    5: 0.101010101...
    6: 0.165499548...
    etc
    .
    Now, add one to the first decimal place of the first number, wrapping around from 9 to 0 if needed. Do the same for the second place in the second number, the third place of the third, etc. EG:
    1: 0.101215654...
    2: 0.178798951...
    3: 0.185646772...
    4: 0.000100001...
    5: 0.101020101...
    6: 0.165490548...

    From the new list, take the first digit of the first number, the second digit of the second number, etc, and form them into a new number. This number does not occur in the first list, even if that list is infinitely long and all entries are infinitely long. It is different from each and every number in the first list, and thus cannot be present in that list.
    1: 0.001215654...
    2: 0.168798951...
    3: 0.184646772...
    4: 0.000000001...
    5: 0.101010101...
    6: 0.165499548...
    7: 0.175120...

    You can repeat this as many times as you like, and you will NEVER be unable to add a new number that isn't on the list. There are more real numbers than there are integers. There are infinitely many real numbers between any two integers, indeed between any two real numbers. This sort of infinity is bigger than the infinity of the integers. In fact, there are infinitely many sorts of bigger and bigger infinities, each larger than the last. Thus, it's very, very easy to imagine things outside any given infinity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Buddhism may not rely on 'blind faith' as much as christianity or some other religions, but faith does play a part in it. For example, in a meditative state you say you find 'the truth'. Why is that the truth? Because Buddhism says you can find the truth by meditation. Someone who never heard of Buddhism and who meditates, might experience the exact same thing as a Buddhistic person experiences, but come to a different conclusion. They might simply call it a state of mind, or a dream, or anything. In that sense there is still a some blind faith attached even if happens subconsciously.
    There is no faith in observing. Meditation is about raising awareness through observation. If you manage to let go of what you believe the truth is or what you are, and just observe, the truth will emerge on its own. You will see for yourself, you will feel for yourself. There will be no doubt.
    There is no faith in true things. Faith is wasted on reality. If I stop believing that my chair exists it will still be there for me to sit in. The world does not change based on what you believe. Faith matters for constructs of the mind. If I believe in enacting a pattern of thought that pattern will exist so long as I am enacting it. When I cease to have faith and thus stop enacting it the pattern ceases to exist. If I have faith in the Goddess she exists, if I stop she ceases to be. Gods, Goddesses, and other constructs of the imagination require faith to exist. They change based on what you believe. These things, the imaginary things, are what make up religions. They're often useful, or fun, or amusing, and just because they're not real doesn't mean you can't find truth in them, just that the truth will not always apply to the real world.

    Science makes a model of the real world. Buddhism makes a model of the mental world. There are other models of the mental world, and even if they contradict Buddhism they can also be true. Whereas models that contradict the observations of the real world cannot be true. Faith is fun, since everything is true and false and meaningless and meaningful.

    Mu.

  9. #49
    Donor Rami's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    London/Snuffbox
    Posts
    1,357
    The problem with a finite creator is that the next logical question is how that creator came to be. You can run this chain as long as you like.
    Yep, there lurks infinite regression, and is commonly used to show the error in the design viewpoint. So the only possible options are that either there is no creator, or said creator comes from a finite chain at the beginning of which is pure and simple evolution. There is no infinity in the physical world :3

  10. #50
    Hatepeace Lovewar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,318
    I'm on the same side of the fence as Existentialists when it comes to this sort of thing, albeit rather reluctantly. I'd love for there to be some sort of proof for dualisim as the concept of death and loss of conciousness is the most terrifying thought and one I basically just bury deep in me and it only really surfaces when some one I know dies. Was hoping for some thing really interesting here when the article mentioned 'proof', but I was sorely let down, to call that in any sort of way a scientifc study is an insult to the scientific method. Sorry OP, I appreciate this is SrsBuisness and don't in any way want to offend you with my opinion of this, but it's a bad article and wreaks of Pseudo science.

    That being said the thread has sparked my interest in the subject once again, does any one have any interesting material on this, I'm specifically after a documentary or article whereby the approaches to answer the question of the source of consciousness is hard science? I'm at work currently, so can't really do any googling because most sites are blocked, I'll have a look myself when I get home though and post here if I find any thing.
    You're like a fluffy gerbil sat on a naked woman's crotch, you might think you're looking cool, but everybody else thinks you're a cunt.
    aka Maasu.

  11. #51
    SAI Peregrinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,701
    [QUOTE=Hatepeace Lovewar;670460I'd love for there to be some sort of proof for dualisim as the concept of death and loss of conciousness is the most terrifying thought and one I basically just bury deep in me and it only really surfaces when some one I know dies.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting. I find the idea of eternal life to be one of the most terrifying thoughts. To me Hell would be running out of things to learn and do, being bored. Eternal life in a finite system will eventually result in an eternity of Hell.

  12. #52
    Pacefalm's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,361
    I would argue that eternal Hell is better than nothingness
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I'm doing my best. Well. Not really.

  13. #53
    Diicc Tater's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,169
    Gervais posted a tweet some time ago.... "What the afterlife is like? Remember all the years before you were born...just like that"

    I don't really care if there is something after this life since I'll find out in the end anyway.
    Fear of death (as a concept) is fear of the inevitable.
    (fear of painful and/or violent death I can understand)


    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    The problem with a finite creator is that the next logical question is how that creator came to be. You can run this chain as long as you like.
    Yep, there lurks infinite regression, and is commonly used to show the error in the design viewpoint. So the only possible options are that either there is no creator, or said creator comes from a finite chain at the beginning of which is pure and simple evolution. There is no infinity in the physical world :3
    Turtles all the way down

  14. #54

    Join Date
    June 6, 2011
    Posts
    550
    Necrotime! Had to abandon forums as work left me with no time for walls of text last couple of months, and now that i finally got myself some holidays the manflu got me good. :<

    Interesting tho to come back to this thread after such a long time, when i intially posted this i thought the description of the doctors experience coupled with that fact that he, by our medical science, should not be able to experience anything at all
    could spark some interesting discussion. Some negreps and laughter were kinda expected :neverchange: and there are some very good posts later on, tho it all comes down to that experience can not be proven and as such the doctors experience is irrelevant. Not much room for debate there, but i just wanted to reply to some of the posts made after my abrupt departure.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAI Peregrinus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Try to imagine infinity. How can at any point something exist outside of infinity. The creation would always be inside. As such it is not unlike a dream or hologram. Fun fact: the word buddha means "he woke up".
    Let's imagine infinity. It's fun. It also shows you haven't thought very deeply about infinity, but most people never do since it's a hard subject.

    <snipped maths>

    Thus, it's very, very easy to imagine things outside any given infinity.
    We are talking two different things here, given infinity and absolute infinity, or duality and oneness. I thought the context implied that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAI Peregrinus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Buddhism may not rely on 'blind faith' as much as christianity or some other religions, but faith does play a part in it. For example, in a meditative state you say you find 'the truth'. Why is that the truth? Because Buddhism says you can find the truth by meditation. Someone who never heard of Buddhism and who meditates, might experience the exact same thing as a Buddhistic person experiences, but come to a different conclusion. They might simply call it a state of mind, or a dream, or anything. In that sense there is still a some blind faith attached even if happens subconsciously.
    There is no faith in observing. Meditation is about raising awareness through observation. If you manage to let go of what you believe the truth is or what you are, and just observe, the truth will emerge on its own. You will see for yourself, you will feel for yourself. There will be no doubt.
    There is no faith in true things. Faith is wasted on reality. If I stop believing that my chair exists it will still be there for me to sit in. The world does not change based on what you believe. Faith matters for constructs of the mind. If I believe in enacting a pattern of thought that pattern will exist so long as I am enacting it. When I cease to have faith and thus stop enacting it the pattern ceases to exist. If I have faith in the Goddess she exists, if I stop she ceases to be. Gods, Goddesses, and other constructs of the imagination require faith to exist. They change based on what you believe. These things, the imaginary things, are what make up religions. They're often useful, or fun, or amusing, and just because they're not real doesn't mean you can't find truth in them, just that the truth will not always apply to the real world.

    Science makes a model of the real world. Buddhism makes a model of the mental world. There are other models of the mental world, and even if they contradict Buddhism they can also be true. Whereas models that contradict the observations of the real world cannot be true. Faith is fun, since everything is true and false and meaningless and meaningful.
    Mu.
    That is such a mix of right and wrong. I would agree that faith is believe in a model. Buddhism gives you indeed a model of the metaphysical and techniques to apply it. If all you do is believe that this is true it may give you comfort but in the end you will be none the wiser. As in science you need to apply the model to 'reality' and see if it holds true. Only then can faith turn into knowing. As i pointed out earlier in this thread, the believe that only what is measurable by external means is real is being faithful just as every other religious people on the other side of the spectrum. At this point in our evolution we cannot exist without some form of faith. The scientific mind should regard everything not disproven as a possibility, everything else is blind faith imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rami View Post
    The problem with a finite creator is that the next logical question is how that creator came to be. You can run this chain as long as you like.
    Yep, there lurks infinite regression, and is commonly used to show the error in the design viewpoint. So the only possible options are that either there is no creator, or said creator comes from a finite chain at the beginning of which is pure and simple evolution. There is no infinity in the physical world :3
    The third possibility would be an infinite creator who always was there and will always be there. That infinite intelligence religion calls god simply created the laws for a self balancing system in which to experience an infinite amount of possibilities. Man is god fallen, fallen by choice. Doesn't it make you wonder when a brilliant scientific mind like Einstein says that where there is law there is a law giver? Or in other words, there is a god.

    Interesting article on what nothing is, or if nothing is even possible: http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ts-debate?lite
    A finite universe would require some form of nothing to be in, im not even sure how that would work out. A universe floating in nothing? By what laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatepeace Lovewar View Post
    That being said the thread has sparked my interest in the subject once again, does any one have any interesting material on this, I'm specifically after a documentary or article whereby the approaches to answer the question of the source of consciousness is hard science? I'm at work currently, so can't really do any googling because most sites are blocked, I'll have a look myself when I get home though and post here if I find any thing.
    I can't imagine there will be ever scientific proove on that. I can only suggest to read up on all kinds from all sources on this type of subject. Then pick a poison and start applying it. Observe. Conclude. Each of us has to walk the walk to find out as the truth on this matter can only be experienced.

    Some food (of the more unusual kind) for thought:

    http://scribd.com/collections/2873582/Walter-Russell - Tesla allegedly said to this guy to lock up his books for a thousand years until mankind is ready for them
    http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=13 - yes, channeled communication by some higher intelligence, quite interesting models laid out tho
    http://incunabula.org/greyloge-occult-review-archives/ - ignore the alien soap opera stuff and go for the old texts, some gems and leads to be found there amongst the mud

    For actual practise i have found nothing better then meditation, it is the slowest method of them all but also the most reliable and riskfree one. Our main problem in understanding our selfs is a lack of awareness, training is necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAI Peregrinus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatepeace Lovewar View Post
    I'd love for there to be some sort of proof for dualisim as the concept of death and loss of conciousness is the most terrifying thought and one I basically just bury deep in me and it only really surfaces when some one I know dies.
    Interesting. I find the idea of eternal life to be one of the most terrifying thoughts. To me Hell would be running out of things to learn and do, being bored. Eternal life in a finite system will eventually result in an eternity of Hell.
    Not if eternal life is veiling itself in finite matter for a limited amount of time, starting with a near blank each time to keep the experience fresh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diicc Tater View Post
    I don't really care if there is something after this life since I'll find out in the end anyway.
    Fear of death (as a concept) is fear of the inevitable.
    (fear of painful and/or violent death I can understand)
    Fear of death is fear of nonexistence and to our minds existence is all you truly have in this world. It is a very core fear in all of us. But i agree that one should not be overly concerned with such questions, the moment is all that matters.

  15. #55
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,403
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  16. #56
    Pacefalm's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    We are talking two different things here, given infinity and absolute infinity, or duality and oneness. I thought the context implied that.
    Well, the word "infinity" has a specific scientifically accepted meaning. I would not assume that by context alone people are able to determine what you mean by "infinity". If you want another example that should more closely resemble your original post, imagine a wall of infinite length. While the wall is infinitely big, it is possible to be on either side of the wall. Hence the fact that the wall is infinite does not imply that the wall is everywhere nor that there could be nothing outside of the wall.
    The same goes for creation as well. It is not very hard to imagine things that exist outside of an infinity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    That is such a mix of right and wrong. I would agree that faith is believe in a model. Buddhism gives you indeed a model of the metaphysical and techniques to apply it. If all you do is believe that this is true it may give you comfort but in the end you will be none the wiser. As in science you need to apply the model to 'reality' and see if it holds true. Only then can faith turn into knowing. As i pointed out earlier in this thread, the believe that only what is measurable by external means is real is being faithful just as every other religious people on the other side of the spectrum. At this point in our evolution we cannot exist without some form of faith. The scientific mind should regard everything not disproven as a possibility, everything else is blind faith imo.
    You contradict yourself here. You say that if your model of reality holds true, you can turn faith into knowing (read: logical positivism). But then you claim the scientific mind should regard everything not disproven as a possibility (read: Popper). If you believe the second statement to be true, then you can never _really_ know anything, as opposed to the first statement.

    I think we as a species can easily exist without any faith at all. Especially in science there is no need for any belief or faith if you follow an instrumentalistic world view (incidentally, I do ).
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    The third possibility would be an infinite creator who always was there and will always be there. That infinite intelligence religion calls god simply created the laws for a self balancing system in which to experience an infinite amount of possibilities. Man is god fallen, fallen by choice. Doesn't it make you wonder when a brilliant scientific mind like Einstein says that where there is law there is a law giver? Or in other words, there is a god.
    That is a possibility, but the question becomes: "Why would you even call that a God at all?". A universe with physical laws could just as well exist without a being of infinite intelligence (incidentally, how would you determine if something had infinite intelligence?). If the creator did nothing but set the laws of the universe and let the rest unwind on its own, how would you distinguish this universe from an identical one where the laws of physics just came into being during the Big Bang? In this situation, would not Occam's Razor tell us that the second scenario is the preferred one?
    Also, just because someone has a brilliant mind does not make everything they say the truth. For instance: a lot of brilliant people have disagreed over a lot of things (this being no exception).

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    http://scribd.com/collections/2873582/Walter-Russell - Tesla allegedly said to this guy to lock up his books for a thousand years until mankind is ready for them
    Tesla was a showman first and an inventor second. There is a reason people invent conspiracy theories about him. A brilliant mind, but people very often give him way too much credit (unfortunately so, I think his actual achievements stand well enough on their own without needing fiction to be added). Also, again the same argument holds as with Einstein.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Fear of death is fear of nonexistence and to our minds existence is all you truly have in this world. It is a very core fear in all of us. But i agree that one should not be overly concerned with such questions, the moment is all that matters.
    I totally agree

    For further reading I recommend http://huijiaibphilosophy.wikispaces...Science%27.pdf
    It is a good book and should provide some other points of view on reality, objective truth, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I'm doing my best. Well. Not really.

  17. #57
    walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Fancomicidolkostümier- ungsspielgruppenzusammenkunft
    Posts
    6,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    The third possibility would be an infinite creator who always was there and will always be there. That infinite intelligence religion calls god simply created the laws for a self balancing system in which to experience an infinite amount of possibilities. Man is god fallen, fallen by choice. Doesn't it make you wonder when a brilliant scientific mind like Einstein says that where there is law there is a law giver? Or in other words, there is a god.
    That is a possibility, but the question becomes: "Why would you even call that a God at all?". A universe with physical laws could just as well exist without a being of infinite intelligence (incidentally, how would you determine if something had infinite intelligence?). If the creator did nothing but set the laws of the universe and let the rest unwind on its own, how would you distinguish this universe from an identical one where the laws of physics just came into being during the Big Bang? In this situation, would not Occam's Razor tell us that the second scenario is the preferred one?
    My problem with a creator is simply: who created the creator (repeat ad infinitum).
      Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by RazoR View Post
    But islamism IS a product of class warfare. Rich white countries come into developing brown dictatorships, wreck the leadership, infrastructure and economy and then act all surprised that religious fanaticism is on the rise.
    Also:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenta View Post
    walrus isnt a bad poster.
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    also i like walrus.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmaNutin View Post
    Yer a hoot

  18. #58
    Tarminic's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,998
    The problem I have with the conflict between religion and science is that they, by definition, have exclusive fields of inquiry.

    Science attempts to explain the natural world - what we can observe, quantify, and measure.

    Religion attempts to explain the super-natural. By definition, science has no opinion on it, because by its nature it can't be observed or quantified.

    The conflict arises when, due to the advancement of technology or understanding, what was previously supernatural becomes natural, and that previously-supernatural explanation is part of religious doctrine.

    Status of Babby: 100% Formed

  19. #59

    Join Date
    June 6, 2011
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Hence the fact that the wall is infinite does not imply that the wall is everywhere nor that there could be nothing outside of the wall.
    The same goes for creation as well. It is not very hard to imagine things that exist outside of an infinity.
    It is the same given or defined infinity as the math example, and while it is indeed very easy to imagine things outside of that, it is impossible to do so for absolute infinity. There is no wall, no numbers. Only oneness. Infinity. For many this seems terrifying as it invalidates duality and our minds are of a dual nature. Me and all the rest. Oneness is a great paradox to our minds as everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Duality is oneness divided infinitly, duality can not exist without oneness and the creation of something out of nothing defies our scientific models of this world. As linked in my last post we are not even sure if nothing exists. Going by Occam's that makes the infinite creator model the more plausible one to me.

    When religion speaks of this infinity it says god, or 'our father'. We are humans, we like naming shit. By letting go of the concept of duality one can gradually experience this oneness as everyone and everthing is part of this oneness. Everything is interconnected. It can not fully be expressed in words which is why religion fails so often so hard. One has to experience it for himself. I found the description of that black void in the doctors description very interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    You contradict yourself here. You say that if your model of reality holds true, you can turn faith into knowing (read: logical positivism). But then you claim the scientific mind should regard everything not disproven as a possibility (read: Popper). If you believe the second statement to be true, then you can never _really_ know anything, as opposed to the first statement.

    I think we as a species can easily exist without any faith at all. Especially in science there is no need for any belief or faith if you follow an instrumentalistic world view (incidentally, I do ).
    As an example, we flew with incomplete calculations based on Newton to the moon. It did the job, but once the scale got bigger and smaller on both ends of our scientifc models these calculations did not work anymore. So yes, i would say before the absolute truth is known there will always be some sort of faith involved and even needed. We know and we do not know has always been the mindset that enables progress. We do not know of the nature of what we percieve as our self. Are we a random electric current produced by bionic machines that by random chance evolved out of nothing? Or is there some truth behind stories of certain people that say to have experienced otherwise? Whichever side one chooses, if he declares that the absolute truth without disprooving the other side he is following his faith blindly. Blind faith hurts progress as one denies himself opportunities for learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    That is a possibility, but the question becomes: "Why would you even call that a God at all?". A universe with physical laws could just as well exist without a being of infinite intelligence (incidentally, how would you determine if something had infinite intelligence?). If the creator did nothing but set the laws of the universe and let the rest unwind on its own, how would you distinguish this universe from an identical one where the laws of physics just came into being during the Big Bang? In this situation, would not Occam's Razor tell us that the second scenario is the preferred one?
    Because you end up in infinite regression of 'what was before that?', unless you say the universe popped out of nothing at some point. The infinite creator model solves that problem and does not deny science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Also, just because someone has a brilliant mind does not make everything they say the truth. For instance: a lot of brilliant people have disagreed over a lot of things (this being no exception).
    That is a given, being human and all. Still those brilliant minds spend more time thinking about those questions then most of us. Worthy of digesting and pondering imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarminic View Post
    The problem I have with the conflict between religion and science is that they, by definition, have exclusive fields of inquiry.

    Science attempts to explain the natural world - what we can observe, quantify, and measure.

    Religion attempts to explain the super-natural. By definition, science has no opinion on it, because by its nature it can't be observed or quantified.

    The conflict arises when, due to the advancement of technology or understanding, what was previously supernatural becomes natural, and that previously-supernatural explanation is part of religious doctrine.
    Historically correct, but it does not need to be that way. At it's true core religion is the science of the self or the source. All the other crap surrounding it is like the bad scientists who fake reports for cash or position. Unfortunatly religion is a much better playground for crooks as proof can not be given. Only models along with methods to experience that model. In many of the old religions that knowledge is wrapped in allegories which makes it even easier for misinterpretation and abuse. While that seems like a bad idea it also has it's benefits as the meaning of those allegories changes as the perception of the reader does.

  20. #60
    Pacefalm's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    Hence the fact that the wall is infinite does not imply that the wall is everywhere nor that there could be nothing outside of the wall.
    The same goes for creation as well. It is not very hard to imagine things that exist outside of an infinity.
    It is the same given or defined infinity as the math example, and while it is indeed very easy to imagine things outside of that, it is impossible to do so for absolute infinity. There is no wall, no numbers. Only oneness. Infinity. For many this seems terrifying as it invalidates duality and our minds are of a dual nature. Me and all the rest. Oneness is a great paradox to our minds as everything is nothing and nothing is everything. Duality is oneness divided infinitly, duality can not exist without oneness and the creation of something out of nothing defies our scientific models of this world. As linked in my last post we are not even sure if nothing exists. Going by Occam's that makes the infinite creator model the more plausible one to me.

    When religion speaks of this infinity it says god, or 'our father'. We are humans, we like naming shit. By letting go of the concept of duality one can gradually experience this oneness as everyone and everthing is part of this oneness. Everything is interconnected. It can not fully be expressed in words which is why religion fails so often so hard. One has to experience it for himself. I found the description of that black void in the doctors description very interesting.
    I must admit that indeed I do not understand what you mean. By duality, do you mean perhaps Descartes duality of the mind? It is something I do not think to be valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    You contradict yourself here. You say that if your model of reality holds true, you can turn faith into knowing (read: logical positivism). But then you claim the scientific mind should regard everything not disproven as a possibility (read: Popper). If you believe the second statement to be true, then you can never _really_ know anything, as opposed to the first statement.

    I think we as a species can easily exist without any faith at all. Especially in science there is no need for any belief or faith if you follow an instrumentalistic world view (incidentally, I do ).
    As an example, we flew with incomplete calculations based on Newton to the moon. It did the job, but once the scale got bigger and smaller on both ends of our scientifc models these calculations did not work anymore. So yes, i would say before the absolute truth is known there will always be some sort of faith involved and even needed. We know and we do not know has always been the mindset that enables progress. We do not know of the nature of what we percieve as our self. Are we a random electric current produced by bionic machines that by random chance evolved out of nothing? Or is there some truth behind stories of certain people that say to have experienced otherwise? Whichever side one chooses, if he declares that the absolute truth without disprooving the other side he is following his faith blindly. Blind faith hurts progress as one denies himself opportunities for learning.
    You can still be without faith. The trick is never to claim to have absolute truth. There are basically 2 things that I base my philosophy on:
    1: absolute truth is impossible but also unnecessary to have. Just follow the hypotheses that have proven to be useful, without claiming that it is objective truth.
    2: Occam's Razor. If more that one explanation is available, assume the one that requires the least assumptions to be the correct one.
    Hence it is logical to follow Newton's laws (which have proven useful) for most situations. Are they 'correct'? No. But for daily household situations it does not matter that time dilates or energy is quantized. Then we go further, we can follow relativity or quantum mechanics in situations where they are applicable. Are they 'correct'? Are quantum mechanics/general relativity complete and consistent and are they the absolute truth? Again, it does not matter! So long as it correctly predicts the outcome of a situation, it is useful to have around. And so it is with everything.
    This way you do not need any faith at all. I don't have to 'believe' in quantum mechanics, relativity, imaginary numbers or whatever. I use them simply because they have proven useful in the past. At the same time, Occam's Razor prevents me from falling into superstitions. For example, if I walk under a ladder and see a black cat then get into a horrible accident, based on the first rule alone this experience might teach me to avoid doing those things in the future. However, this requires the assumption that walking under the ladder and seeing the cat somehow related to the accident. Another explanation would be that it was pure chance, and that explanation requires no other assumptions.

    Based on this, I do not think that it is rational to believe in a creator or god. One explanation is that the Universe operates by a given set of rules and laws which are specific to the Universe we live in. Another explanation is that the Universe operates by a given set of rules and laws, and there is an infinitely powerful being that we cannot see or measure, but it is everywhere, and if we meditate or pray really hard the neurons in our brains (but not animals' brains) can somehow connect to it, and it created these laws and makes sure those laws are upheld. I think that the first scenario requires fewer assumptions.

    As a pet peeve of mine: evolution is not "random chance" at all! Not trying to go off on a tangent, but I had to mention it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Irrelephant View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacefalm View Post
    That is a possibility, but the question becomes: "Why would you even call that a God at all?". A universe with physical laws could just as well exist without a being of infinite intelligence (incidentally, how would you determine if something had infinite intelligence?). If the creator did nothing but set the laws of the universe and let the rest unwind on its own, how would you distinguish this universe from an identical one where the laws of physics just came into being during the Big Bang? In this situation, would not Occam's Razor tell us that the second scenario is the preferred one?
    Because you end up in infinite regression of 'what was before that?', unless you say the universe popped out of nothing at some point. The infinite creator model solves that problem and does not deny science
    But do you not see that the infinite creator model does not solve the infinite regression problem at all? To the contrary, it is one of the best known examples of a case where infinite regression is a problem! "Who created the infinite creator?" is just as valid a question as "What existed before the Big Bang?". Science admits it has no answer for now, but religion says "it just happened this way and do not question it".
    Quote Originally Posted by QuackBot View Post
    I'm doing my best. Well. Not really.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •