Customer Discussions > Religion forum

"We do not know what God is. God...transcends being."


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 276-300 of 734 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 11:30:52 AM PDT
I talk science, you talk, I'm not sure what.

Reminds me of Goethe's research on patterns in plants. He made a lot of drawings, did a lot of tracings, categorized the patterns, philosophized about them, thought he was doing science.......but he wasn't. He gained no significant insight into the significance and source of patterns in plants.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 11:40:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2012 11:47:49 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To arpard fazakas:

<<I talk science, you talk, I'm not sure what.>>

Apparently you don't talk science as much as you think you are :)

From Wiki:
Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. The temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing; events happen, then are located further and further in the past. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields of study without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. A simple definition states that "time is what clocks measure".

Notice the last sentence there: "time is what clocks measure"? Whatever clocks measure, we call that measure "time", by itself there is no "time", it simply does not exist, just like nothing really exists without someone (or something) to measure it... a sentiment with which you explicitly agreed when you posted this: "The real world is what we can sense and measure. Nothing else exists, or if it does it may as well not exist because it's entirely undetectable."
:)))

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 11:56:25 AM PDT
arpard fazakas,

Of course, the Great Mind is a figment of our imagination: It is a metaphor. Most of our meanings are grounded in metaphors. Even our causal (both casual and causal) explanations are grounded in metaphors.

The Great Mind is a metaphor for the notion that there is a dimensionless and conscious energy from which all reality has evolved. This is sheer speculation at this time, but it does address some currently unsolved issues. Initially, this energy evolves as random activity. But as more and more components came into being, interplay between the components gains increasingly more influence over further developments. There is no single executive control. It is a self-managing system.

We speculate that consciousness is grounded in this dimensionless energy. We do have limited (that is, subjective) access to a sample of consciousness - our own. Edelman's selectionist theory of how brains work proposes that the thalamocortical system builds nested hierarchies of experiential categories. That is how the content in our minds is organized. So now we extend this notion to the dimensionless conscious energy, which we speculate does exist, and propose that all of consciousness contains nested hierarchies of experiential categories.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 11:59:57 AM PDT
arpard fazakas,

Here's a little more.

OMG, we are speculating about untestable notions! It cannot be proven to be true! True. But then there is no absolute truth either. We can only develop more useful approximations.

But speculations do offer pragmatic (that is, useful) truths. It helps us form meaningful notions about how humans relate to each other and to all of reality that provide some guidance to our thoughts and actions in society.

This is not like Creationism. Creationism proposes an alternative to established science. The Great Mind concept is building on science; specifically Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection which he also calls neural Darwinism.

But, you say, scientists don't do that kind of nonsense. Well, IFF offered the holographic model proposed by Karl Pribram for the brain and by David Bohm for physical reality in the middle of the last century. Pribram was a neurosurgeon and forerunner in neuroscience and Bohm was a theoretical physicist. You have reduced science to simply turning the crank on the data machine. That is what the little people do. The theoretical scientists try to make sense of all that data. That is a different game entirely.

The History channel has a segment on Einstein's early life. It opens by asking why Einstein was working as a patent clerk after finishing his graduate work. The answer: His faculty considered him a goof-off. And then it described his thoughts as he rode the train home after work from the center of Bern. He would imagine the changing relationship between his pocket watch and the clock in the tower in Bern as his train travelled faster and faster. That was goofing off. Obviously, he couldn't test that notion. Doing early thought experiments was goofing off.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:04:38 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To Paul Whitmore:

<<Edelman's selectionist theory of how brains work proposes that the thalamocortical system builds nested hierarchies of experiential categories. That is how the content in our minds is organized. So now we extend this notion to the dimensionless conscious energy, which we speculate does exist, and propose that all of consciousness contains nested hierarchies of experiential categories>>

That is a very neat way of describing the "As above, so is below" principle of many esoteric traditions.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:06:28 PM PDT
I don't understand how energy could be either dimensionless or conscious.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:08:56 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To arpard fazakas:

<<I don't understand how energy could be either dimensionless or conscious.>>

I say it is a reason enough to say that it doesn't exist! Agree?
:)))

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:11:17 PM PDT
No argument that speculation and thought experiments are an important part of doing science. But in order for the speculation and thought experiments to become science, they have to result in specific testable (falsifiable) hypotheses. Otherwise it remains interesting but useless speculation.

So yes Einstein engaged in speculation and in thought experiments. But the ones that led to progress were ones which involved specific quantifiable, mathematically based hypotheses susceptible to testing. So for example special relativity: he imagined 2 observers moving at constant velocity with respect to each other, each with 4-dimensional coordinate systems produced by well-defined procedures including synchronization of clocks by a well-defined procedure, then he calculated how the measurements of time and length would compare between the two, and came up with relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction. That's the difference between useless speculation and science.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:17:24 PM PDT
arpard fazakas,

I don't either. But to say that a state existed from which the four dimensions of reality evolved requires that the first state be dimensionless. Otherwise, you have to explain where the first state came from. And it has to be conscious unless you can explain how the property of consciousness evolved from matter -- not assume that it evolved from matter, but explain how it could.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:21:33 PM PDT
Not energy per se, just the purported "dimensionless, conscious" kind.

Energy can be defined as the ability to do work. Work is force times distance. Force is mass times acceleration. Accleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. Velocity is the rate of change of distance with time. So in order to measure energy, we need a coordinate system in which we can measure length by means of rulers, and time by means of clocks. We also need scales to measure weights. We have at least two dimensions (time and length), plus mass.

Another definition of energy (kinetic) is 1/2 mass times velocity squared. So here again we need clocks to measure time, rulers to measure distance, and scales to measure mass. At least two dimensions (time and distance) plus mass.

Please tell me how to define energy in the absence of dimensions? If you can't define it, then I say it doesn't exist.

As far as energy being "conscious", well, that's just silly. It's like saying energy is polka-dotted, or tall.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:30:31 PM PDT
As far as I know, no one is saying that there was ever a time in which there weren't 4 dimensions. (10 dimensions if you believe string theory). And no, I don't agree that energy has to be conscious in order for consciousness to have evolved from matter. Consciousness can be said to exist in a very basic form with the first living organism that could sense anything about its environment and react. Why people make consciousness into some mysterious extra-dimensional entity I have no idea. Consciousness is something we only see in living organisms with sensory apparatus and behavioral repertoires. In fact, you can only define it using those things.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:32:29 PM PDT
arpard fazakas,

So how would you characterize the first state from which everything else evolved? This may not be an issue for you and that is fine. For others, it is an issue, but not yet an issue for science.

Gendlin cites Einstein's claim that he "knew" his theory of relativity in his mid teens, but it took him years to work it out in specifics. Gendlin cites it as an example of how "focusing" works. Your view of science shuts the theoretical scientist down before he even gets started.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:39:26 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To arpard fazakas:

Note how you keep using this is defined as that and that is defined as such and such squared... well, who does the defining??? That's the problem with describing a system from within that system, the description is by necessity circular and self-referential.
Anyway, if you want definition of dimensionless look up "singularity".
You base your worldview on an assumption that consciousness is a product of matter, I think it is a fundamental part of reality. This isn't some travesty on my (or many others) part, after all we used to think that a "wave" was a product of motion of matter, turns out "wave" is a fundamental property of physical reality at the particles level. In fact is it a wave or a particle depends on how and what we want to measure, by itself it is both. Same principle with energy/consciousness, just two ways of "measuring" or experiencing the same reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:45:06 PM PDT
The earliest state we can say anything meaningful about is when the Universe was about 10^-44 seconds old, and 10^-35 meters in diameter. These are called Planck units, and there is good reason to believe that time and length don't come in any smaller units. (BTW, these are EXTREMELY small quantities). At this time the Universe was like it is now, a 4-dimensional spacetime pervaded by "stuff" (energy then, energy and matter now), only much denser and hotter.

I would argue that the theory of relativity is all about the specifics, so until Einstein had the specifics worked out, he didn't have the theory.

I already agreed with you that speculation and thought experiments are often the starting point for science. Did you not read what I said?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:46:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2012 12:57:29 PM PDT
Successful scientists do the defining! That's part of what makes science successful: it deals with well-defined things.

Nobody believes that there actually is such a thing as a singularity, a point of infinite energy and temperature. That's just an unphysical result you get when you push the equations of general relativity too far, and indicates that at some point they cease to properly describe the physical reality, and new physics is needed.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:56:05 PM PDT
IFeelFree says:
af: How do you "wake up" from physical reality?

IFF: The experience of *me* as a separate self, somehow contained within this fleshy body, ceases. No boundaries, no personal identity, no hope, no control, nothing to defend or protect, just bliss.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 12:58:52 PM PDT
just an illusion. you were still nothing more than your physical body.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 1:03:38 PM PDT
There is no energy/consciousness duality analogous to wave/particle duality. The closest one comes to a duality with energy is energy/mass, where E = mc^2, or energy/time, where energy and time share the same uncertainty relationship as momentum and position.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 1:08:59 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To arpard fazakas:

<<As far as I know, no one is saying that there was ever a time in which there weren't 4 dimensions. (10 dimensions if you believe string theory).>>

No one except everyone who subscribes to the Big Bang theory that is.

<<Consciousness can be said to exist in a very basic form with the first living organism that could sense anything about its environment and react.>>

But exact same thing can be said of the reality itself! It can be said to exist in a very basic form with the first living organism that could sense anything about its environment and react.

<<Why people make consciousness into some mysterious extra-dimensional entity I have no idea.>>

Who exactly, within participants of this discussion, besides you, made consciousness into "some mysterious extra-dimensional entity"?

<<Consciousness is something we only see in living organisms with sensory apparatus and behavioral repertoires.>>

Again, the same thing can be said about reality. Reality is something only living organisms with sensory apparatus and behavioral repertoires can experience.

See how everything is just a matter of perspective?
:)

Posted on Apr 27, 2012 1:11:40 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
Consciousness arises when Spirit and Matter connect. That contact creates the Soul. So, yes, we do see consciousness in "living organisms", but matter is not only found in the sense of the dense physical plane. Matter is found in more and more subtle gradations, and consciousness is inherent on those planes just as it is on these lower ones.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 1:19:45 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To arpard fazakas:

<<Successful scientists do the defining!>>

CONSCIOUS AGENTS do, we just happen to call some of those agents "scientists".

<<Nobody believes that there actually is such a thing as a singularity, a point of infinite energy and temperature.>>

Right. Nobody except (from Wiki): "According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity."

<<That's just an unphysical result you get when you push the equations of general relativity too far, and indicates that at some point they cease to properly describe the physical reality, and new physics is needed.>>

Thank the nonexistent God! Finally. To account for singularity you need new physics, but to account for consciousness we don't??? Why? Because you know that current physics does not account for singularity and you agree it doesn't, but when I tell you that current science does not account for consciousness either... somehow that's pure blasphemy? Well, ignorance is a bliss, I guess.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 1:20:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 27, 2012 1:22:26 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To arpard fazakas:

<<There is no energy/consciousness duality analogous to wave/particle duality.>>

Sure there is, you just don't know it.

P.S. In all fairness you are right, there isn't, everything is One, all separations into energy/consciousness, mind/body, subjective/objective are illusory... but you don't know that either :)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 1:45:34 PM PDT
You're wrong about the Big Bang theory. Not knowing what was present prior to a certain time is not the same as saying there weren't 4 (or 10) dimensions>.

Reality existed long before there were any living organisms to sense it. That's the crux of my argument. Physical reality exists independent of any observer, even a very primitive one.

I am not making consciousness into some mysterios extra-dimensional entity. I was using loose terminology to describe the mystical way some posters are referring to consciousness. In my opinion consciousness is a specific property of living organisms requiring sensory apparatus and a behavioral repertoire.

Scientific investigations have indicated there was a physical reality present for about 9 billion years before earth came into existence, and since the only life forms we know of are on earth for the last about 3 billion years, this suggests that there was a physical reality devoid of life forms for at least 10.5 billion years before life first arose. Indeed, given the fact that the only life we know of requires atoms heavier than hydrogen, helium, and lithium, and that these heavier atoms were not formed during the Big Bang but required at least one generation of stars to form, it is likely that life did not arise in the Universe until at least a few billion years after the Big Bang.

I do not agree that all perspectives are equally valid.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 1:46:37 PM PDT
This conversation is getting more and more pointless. Let's adjourn until some other time.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 27, 2012 2:29:18 PM PDT
Leoncefalo says:
Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields of study without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. A simple definition states that "time is what clocks measure".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Before we had clocks,(of any kind) we had sundials, and before that a stick in the ground, but before any of these, we had the earth rotating around the sun(not scientifically known by the ancients) and so they told 'time' by the earth's rotation, the seasons, phases of the moon.
The ancients had very sophisticated ways of marking time and, in case you forgot, we are in the Mayan year 2012- the end of a 5,000 year Mayan cycle. We did not invent 'time'- we just invented more elegant machines to measure it. So that when someone tells you it is capable of measuring a billionth of a billionth of a second????? Some Clock!!!!

Leoncefalo
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  734
Initial post:  Apr 17, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 8, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions