"Do you have evidence?"
Oh yeah, obviously. I think you're circling the drain at this point. You can't show anywhere where Einstein said it, but surely, obviously, it's what he meant.... Dude.
Except he never actually said it.
Obviously. Hey, I get it. Science has proven itself the most reliable way of getting answers. So money's on science to figure this one out too. Except that assumes science is the applicable tool. Which is making an assumption about what the answer's going to be. The lack of answers coming, the wide range of speculation across the scientific community, should make it clear. Oh well, keep holding out for that "definitive answer". Perhaps we just haven't dug deep enough yet."Oh yeah, obviously. I think you're circling the drain at this point. You can't show anywhere where Einstein said it, but surely, obviously, it's what he meant.... Dude."
Dude, it's obvious. why would he have to say it? If energy creates mass and matter and gravity, it's the source of gravity mass and mater. Duh!
"We have been all wrong! What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been lowered as to be perceptible to the senses."
"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content."
Annalen der Physik 18, 639-641 (1905).
Notice, he's not saying mass is a measure of matter?
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E = mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa." --- published in the Annalen der Physik (27 September 1905
This was proven by experiment by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932,
Just recently the nay sayers were again foiled by the fact that scientists created matter from two photons. Something many thought impossible.
There is another famous formula that says energy = the plank constant times frequency.
Energy exists without mass or matter as a wave. Mass and matter don't exist without energy.
So again, duh! It's the underlying cause of every physical thing.
Einstein never said energy is created by anything. Why? Because it can't be created or destroyed according to thermodynamics. A fundamental well proven theory.
What more do you need to see that energy is the source, and Einstein knew it all too well?
He didn't have to spell it out. It's obvious from the evidence.
The consequences of QM tell us there's nothing but energy, and I've recently come to understand that physics teachers at the university level tell their students exactly that. At least here in Canada they do. I was elated to hear it.
So if that''s what everything is, as I've always maintained, then what's the source of everything? Energy. Dude... you flushed yourself yet?"Oh well, keep holding out for that "definitive answer". Perhaps we just haven't dug deep enough yet."
Undoubtedly we haven't dug near deep enough yet. I'm willing to wait, even if I die before the results are actually in. I know you are way too impatient to wait, so believe what makes you feel good instead.You keep saying that, ignoring entirely that I've said multiple times that this has nothing to do with what makes me feel good.
So you think there's more depth to dig? The quantum level isn't the lowest depth? We need to go further. There you think we'll finally find the answer? You believe you'll ultimately be right and the answer will undoubtedly come from scientific inquiry eventually?
It's not impatience. It's simply following the logic.Logical? Hardly. You think you already know, so there's no point digging at all. But you don't know and can't know.
We haven't scratched the surface yet. No need to try to make it look like we have to dig deep because we've come to a stand still, that rubbish. You continue being sure you know, and I'll continue waiting, knowing you don't.Well, what we do see, the lack of answers, the wildly speculated causes by you and others, baseless and with no evidence whatsoever, is an expected result of what I'm saying being right. A mystery that persists since ancient Greece. Still perplexes the world's greatest minds to this day. Yes, it's logical. I've laid out the logic for you, whether you choose to accept it or not. That's on you.
Haven't scratched the surface yet? Of what? I thought it was energy?
I mean, honestly, what could it really be? What unplumbed depth holds the elusive answer? Energy becoming matter and energy becoming consciousness are two very different things. And even if energy is capable of such things, that, in my mind, would prove to be the single best piece of evidence that a god, or deliberate creator of some kind, exists. Energy exists just as it did at the beginning. No more, no less. What behavior it's capable of now it's been capable of since the inception of the universe. No accumulative evolution where energy became what it is.
You want to know what's supernatural? Energy. It was already there. Since before BB. It's from the other side. And just by it's own nature, in accordance with the rules that exist in this environment, it becomes "everything". At least what's material. It doesn't only become matter, but energy still plays a hugely intimate role along side matter as well. It's part of the equation, always. If you want to understand this natural world, you must understand energy.
I understand why you'd consider energy as the answer. But even if I believed as you do, I couldn't get on board with it. It's just too far fetched. Energy, from the beginning, becomes both the material world and the conscious mind that observes it? But this happened with no creator? It wasn't intentional? It just happened like that?
Honestly, I can't reconcile the intelligence you clearly have with this belief you hold. For you to be as informed as you are, to know as much as you do, and still hold that belief. I don't get it.And a super daddy in the sky is not far fetched?
The lack of answers and hundreds of theories is normal. When theories actually represent reality we get factual answers. In the mean time people build models and evolve them as evidence emerges.
Models are based on facts, but aren't fact themselves until they accurately explain the facts and can predict more facts.
But in the mean time experiments are done and more facts/data is found.
QM works to make predictions about the quantum world, It's a good model/tool. But there are dozens of competing interpretations of what it all means. Yet no interpretation is required or used when doing the math.
Unlike good models, opinions and interpretations are not worth much . The facts are the facts. The interpretations of those facts are secondary, and often wrong.
But by trying and failing most of the time, we usually end up with more knowledge.
Have you heard of the jelly bean experiments? Fill a bowl with jelly beans and get a few hundred people guessing how many there are. Very few if any get really close, And some are ridiculously off. But the more people you can get the better. Turns out if you average the answers, it always comes very close to the real number. That too is part of chaos theory.
Don't be so impatient. Of course, you think you can afford to be, as you believe you know the answer.
And yes, energy's nature is my candidate, How exactly it all works, I can't say either. I have suspicions, of course, We'll see.Yes, I know and understand how models work. If you'll recall I built one myself. A model based on facts that has provided factual answers.
Again, I'm not being impatient. Simply logical. There's no need to wait. I've got the answers I need.Exactly as I said. But in fact you don't. But that's faith.
Oh no, I do. The results of science in every category where my model applies consistently fits what's predicted. And the actual model of early Genesis proves accurate in the same way. Every prediction made off of it proves accurate. Just as you said ...
"When theories actually represent reality we get factual answers. In the mean time people build models and evolve them as evidence emerges.
Models are based on facts, but aren't fact themselves until they accurately explain the facts and can predict more facts."
Exactly right.
As to your model, check this one out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSRj0zr7tSk
Similar to yours in places but several thousand years earlier than your Adam.That's nearly an hour. I'll have to watch that at some point later. But just based on what you said there's a problem. Genesis gives us a timeline through it's lineage in Gen5 and 10 and elsewhere where we can determine exact spans of time like the flood happening 1656 years after Adam was created, or that Abraham was born almost 2000 years after Adam. Being that Abraham's father was from Ur, a Sumerian city, and that Abraham interacted with Egypt, and specifically a pharaoh, then Adam could not have existed any earlier than roughly 6000 BC since those two cultures didn't really exist prior to 4000 BC. Sumer did, since about 5500 BC, and Ur wasn't really much of a city until roughly 4000 BC or a little after.
Wrong. Massive flooding did happen, not world wide, but the ocean gained almost 40 feet after the ice age 12000 years ago. That's the most likely time frame for the flood story. In fact for several flood stories. Nothing like that was happening in your time frame.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with the model they put forth. But the flood part is common knowledge.
I'm just saying, watch this documentary. It shows several civilizations existed with far superior technology to any other in 10000 bce.
I know you will disagree because if true, it blows your 5000 year old Adam out of the water.
Check it out.No, I'm intimately familiar with every culture. I spent years trying to break my hypothesis. I was sure that as soon as I shared it with someone they were going to torpedo it with something. I wanted to find what it was. Plus, I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe that if true someone else hadn't already run across this. I thought there was no way I could have found something so profound. I was sure it was false. In that process I really got to know a lot about every culture and their level of advancement. Where they were, when they existed, what exactly they did.
The flood spoken about in the bible is not the rising waters after the ice age. Both the Sumerians and Genesis speak of this same flood, and both specifically say the Sumerian city of Uruk was formed not long after. Uruk formed around 3800 BC. Archeologist Arthur Whooley during his digs back in the '20's when that portion of modern day Iraq was more open to that kind of thing, found a silt deposit that literally separated artifacts from the Ur period and artifacts from the Uruk period. The Uruk period started right after this flood. This is the flood the bible and the Sumerian King's List are talking about. In the city of Ur it would seem this flood played a role in ending the Ur culture.
No, this model is very intricate. There is a thick layer of factual information that supports a very detailed and specific timeline and series of events. It's all intertwined between archaeological data, data gathered from those cultures that lived in that age, and what's documented in Genesis. I am certain about this flood and this timeline. And I am certain about the progression of cultures when and where. And I would seriously pay money if someone could give me something that would blow this out of the water. I don't want it dismissed out of hand. I want it dissected and dismantled.
I'll watch the video, but I have some legitimate doubts.Well, then you also won't like the finds in Brazil that turn out to be the same people who are Aborigines in Australia, Only from 40,000 years ago. Long before native Americans arrived. Probably all but wiped out by the new arrivals.
I don't share your view at all, of course.
The Jews stole their story and adapted it from the Sumerians, and it could be telling a story of 10000 to 12000 years ago or more.Oh yeah, I know. The world was fully populated by about 20000 BC. It's the spread of free will that's most interesting. And the people of North and South America had a very similar progression that led first to the Olmecs, then the Aztecs and Mayans. But I'm very familiar as well with the populating of the planet, which those you speak of are a part of.
"The Jews stole their story and adapted it from the Sumerians, and it could be telling a story of 10000 to 12000 years ago or more."
There's some good reasons to think the Jewish version is not "stolen", but I won't even get into that. But both cultures are from the same region. Both of their pasts share a lot of commonality for a reason. But I seriously doubt, considering writing wasn't invented until roughly 4000 BC, that these were stories from 10 and 12 thousand years ago. To think human cultures could continuously maintain stories through hundreds and thousands of generations purely orally without the benefit of writing is a bit of a stretch.Not at all. Cultures had oral traditions they passed on. Probably from the advent of language 75000 years ago. Of course, if the culture dies without a written word the stories die or have become part of another cultures stories. We always thought the Jews originated the flood story, until we found the much earlier Sumerian version which actually makes more sense in many ways than the Jewish or Babylonian version.
But you're right, the Jews may have stolen it from the Babylonians being they only wrote down their bible in Babylonian captivity around 400 bce.Again, I assure you the biblical stories aren't stolen. Let me give you an example. In the Sumerian version, the Sumerian version of Noah built an ark that's described as square. Somehow, if you're right, desert dwelling all their existence Israelites/Jewish people adapted this ark by writing a very detailed description of a very much sea worthy vessel, where the Sumerian square version would not have been. That's just one example. There are many.
No, the Sumerians were the population in the background of the early pre-flood portions of Genesis. That city that Cain builds in Genesis 4, that's Eridu. The first Sumerian city. When in Genesis 6 it says, "When human beings began to increase in number on the earth", it's not talking about because Adam/Eve were the first humans and churning out ridiculous numbers of kids. It's talking about the city that Cain established and all the humans who came to live there.
So yes, the stories in early Genesis (Adam/Eve, the flood, Babel), the Sumerians wrote about these too because they were involved. It was both of their histories. This too is consistent with the model, and fits much better given the content of each version of the story. One's a kind of inside look at what's happening (Genesis), the other is an outside looking in kind of thing."Again, I assure you the biblical stories aren't stolen. Let me give you an example. In the Sumerian version, the Sumerian version of Noah built an ark that's described as square. Somehow, if you're right, desert dwelling all their existence Israelites/Jewish people adapted this ark by writing a very detailed description of a very much sea worthy vessel, where the Sumerian square version would not have been. That's just one example. There are many."
The square boats actually existed. They were tied together and carried animals and all kinds of trade goods. Sumerian merchants used that configuration and it worked.
The Jewish version was built and would have come apart from the stress being way too big to be just made of wood with no metal braising.
Sorry, but the Jewish ark would sink shortly after being launched.
Sumerian story came first, Babylonian adaption came next, seeing as they conquered the Sumerians, and the Jewish one came last.
.Well seeing as the Jewish version is the only one that can be matched up against 2000 years of actual history, for it to be copied from other versions that do not contain the information that allows for the building of this timeline it's demonstrable which is true.
Only you would say that. It's obvious the Hebrews adapted stories that were around longer than they were. Sumerians were the first western culture. Hebrews were nomadic tribes, still hunting and gathering.
They ran in to the Sumerians eventually and some integrated, like in the Abraham myth. But they didn't have writing skills much less reading skills.
It wasn't until much later that their religion formed. Probably no earlier than 1200 bce. It isn't till 900 bce that Moses arises as part of a book (part of Deuteronomy) mysteriously found by priests in king David's temple, remarkably just when king David was trying to unify the twelve tribes under one religion. And under one history.
Notice it's Judaism, not Israeli-ism. The religion is that of the tribe of Judah. One tribe out of twelve.
Moses probably never existed, or may have have been a figure in one of at least 4 exodus's from Egypt. But his fame only grew after that find. Before that, no record of Moses. Funny eh?
The stories of the region became the stories of the Jews, adapted to the one god model. That's obvious.The stories of the region were the history of the Jewish people. That's why it's part of the story. They lived in that part of the world. The same events the Sumerians spoke of were the same events the Israelites spoke of.
But no matter what you say you still have the issue of the Genesis stories matching up to 2000 years of history, down to the number of centuries between each event. And not only do those events and that timeline match up archaeologically, but you've also got the impact of those events which can also be seen in the historical record. This is not something the Jewish people could just make up.I said stole. But made up too. Yes I and many scholars say exactly that, and with good reason. Some of which I outlined in the previous post.
Well most scholars don't have the information I have and would have to strongly reconsider if they did. What you're claiming is all but impossible if my model is true. They could not have "stole" or "made up" a story that lines up with 2000 years of history accurately if the source text did not have the relevant information as well. Which they do not.
But I can't see your model being true. Sorry. What special information do you have no one else has seen? That's an extraordinary claim. What's your extraordinary evidence?
Most of the hubs I've published on this site are about it. Feel free to read about it there. I have no special information. Everyone has access to the information. It's the specific connections made.
Right. Which is why I asked you to watch that documentary. It's all in how you make connections. The way you make them is different than how I make them. You see what you see and I see what I see. History is tricky. Historians all have alliances and agendas.
We've been over how ancient people behaved and can't agree.As for how ancient people behaved, I recommend you read 'The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor
"They could not have "stole" or "made up" a story that lines up with 2000 years of history accurately"
But it doesn't, and of that I'm certain.So, you haven't read it, you don't even know what the model is, any of its specifics, I've directly told you that it's consistent with evidence.... so you assume I'm lying and that it doesn't accurately line up with history based on .... ? But you're certain. Huh. Yet in every other case you're all about evidence and gathering data and going off of that to determine what's true and what isn't. Yet in this case....
From what you have claimed here, yes. I'm certain you are wrong. What would you like me to read?
Start with my hub called "Genesis: Our Modern Human Origin Story". I'm pretty sure there's a rule against linking to your hubs in these forums, so sorry for that.
Gravity, mass, matter? You're suggesting these are the fundamental building blocks of consciousness? You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Yes, ultimately matter is caused by, or is, energy. But that's material. What have we been talking about here? This whole time? There's something other than the material. Other than energy/mass/matter. Something undetectable by the means employed to detect energy/mass/matter.
"So if that''s what everything is, as I've always maintained, then what's the source of everything? Energy. Dude... you flushed yourself yet?"
How many different ways can I say it. That's not everything. That's everything material. But not everything. Just think about it. What are the chances really that everything that exists is material? That that's it? That we humans, we evolved apes, have literally found "everything"?Prove there is something supernatural or stop saying it as if its fact. No, energy is not material, so if all you want to prove is that something immaterial exists you're too late.
Simple logic proves it. Simple logic says something happened before the big bang. Something 'caused' the singularity that was in place to start things off. Anything beyond that is, by definition, supernatural.
Then, of course, there's the mind. You've seen it yourself. Even that article you sent. There's no explanation for it. We can see the material of the brain and what it's doing. Yet there's no explanation. It exists, we both know it exists, yet it can't be proven by the very same standards you insist I adhere to. Prove the mind exists. Prove it's material, or the product of the material, or energy. If you can't does that mean it doesn't exist? Of course not.
As I've said a million times, there's no way to prove the supernatural and demanding that someone do is just plain illogical and says to everyone involved that you just don't understand. I know you're intelligent, so why you insist on ignoring this and playing ignorant is beyond me.If you can't prove it you can't say it's fact.
As for BB
Penrose and Hawking equations, based on Relativity , postulated the Big Bang as the beginning of time and space. This then led to consequence that no one could talk about "before" the big bang.
But Penrose has since changed his mind because of the state of the universe at the big bang. We all know that entropy increases with time. I look in the mirror in the morning and this becomes too obvious.
But if it increases with time, it decreases as you move back toward the Big Bang. In fact there should be almost no entropy at all at the beginning Meaning there was no equilibrium, high energy. But experiment show that in fact the universe started with high equilibrium and radiation, meaning high entropy.
The other problem is that gravity didn’t exist in that state, and there has never been a good explanation as to why. Mass didn’t exist from a fraction of a second, and mass creates gravity. Penrose then postulated that it could be explained by the state of the “singularity” before the big bang.
Because the universe is expanding, eventually all energy and matter will be so far apart that there will be no more interactions, the universe will get colder and colder, black wholes will radiate away to nothing, mass will disappear, gravity will disappear, and all that will be left is energy in absolute equilibrium.
Strangely, that's the exact state that brought about the Big Bang.
So Penrose postulates that when this happens, due to almost absolute zero conditions, energy condenses, forms a Bose/ Einstein condensate, and thus starts the process again.
He talks about it as a squashed infinity followed by a stretched out Big bang, as opposed to a singularyt/point.
In any event, if he’s right, it means that yes: there was a Big Bang, but it wasn’t the beginning of the universe, and probably there wasn’t a beginning.
Further he says we can see evidence of the previous incarnation of the universe in the cosmological background radiation.
His tests and observations showed there is such evidence. And what he’s looking for is evidence of colliding black holes. Till now other physicists denied the evidence. But recently a team of scientists from Poland led by Christoph Meissner of Cern , found that Penrose was right, and found good evidence of these signals from the previous universe.
Big Bang theory is no where near complete. And a lot of experiments and reaseach has to be done to prove Conformal Cyclic Cosmology right or wrong.
But that's not the only serious contender anymore. Two newish theories have been gaining respectability: Quantum loop gravity, and Three dimensional time. Both postulate a continuous universe with, again, non infinitely condensed point singularities, maintaining some space and time, forming from the physics of a previous cycle.
So the jury is still out about whether we can definitively say there was no time or space before the BB and whether it was a one time event or part of a natural cycle.
We'll see.Yes, you're right, it's not entirely accurate to say "before". But time in some form had to exist for the singularity to change states and begin to inflate. Change doesn't happen without time.
Yes, there's all kinds of speculation about what came before BB. It's something we can never really know, but that doesn't keep people from trying to figure it out.
"If you can't prove it you can't say it's fact."
I'd say the existence of the mind is a fact, but you can't prove that.The only thing you can't yet prove is how it works. That it exists is as self evident as road outside your house, or lack of.
Oh, well if that's the standard we're using to determine what exists and what doesn't I'd argue the existence of God and the existence of souls is also self evident.
But no, we can't even prove it's happening. We can't prove that an internal dialogue is happening. We can't prove that you experience a mind just as I do. We can only assume, because you're the same species, and behave much like me, that you probably experience once too.Keep deluding yourself. No one but you seems to think that way, and it's self serving to your cause. Which is the only reason you take that position. No scientist has ever said we need to prove we're conscious. It's obvious. Obvious things prove themselves, hence self evident.
Gods and souls are far from self evident.Einstein, with all he knew and understood about energy and the physical world, came away with the same conclusion. There's a God. Because of the order seen in the universe, it's self evident that there's a creator. Because of how matter and energy work. Think about it, even from your perspective, that one-two shot. Matter and energy. Or actually it's a single shot, matter/energy. One thing. If the mind is the product of energy, then the matter that makes up this physical world creates the perfect environment and the perfect vessel for this conscious mind to interact with it.
And those are two things that didn't evolve to become this. That energy was already there, right from the start.
Given how you think, how could you possibly deny that it's obviously deliberate. Intelligently created.Einstein's god wasn't your god. His was a natural god, like mine, if you like. He said so many times. And unlike you, I don't think intelligence is the highest form.
I know Einstein didn't subscribe to the idea of a personal God, and I understand that. It's free will that ties it all up in a neat little package that I think even Einstein would find compelling. It's free will that explains why a God of this level would most definitely be interested in our personal lives and decisions. It's the one element in all the natural world that's let off the proverbial leash. We're the one thing in all the universe whose behaviors aren't determined by natural law, but by our reason and intellect. Manufactured by a mind that's physically invisible.
But what's relevant here is the fact that if anything's self evident, it's the existence of a God. Whether or not He's interested in us on such a personal level is irrelevant.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.I've said many times that while theists can't seem to prove a god must by necessity exist, I can.
If you define god as that which brought all this about, without saying anything else about it, then by definition there is a god, because all this didn't form itself.
I had nothing to do with my being here, and nothing else did either.
But that doesn't mean a supernatural being did anything. It could be something very natural and something that doesn't need consciousness to create.
My nomination is energy, because it's laws are everything's rules. And rules are order. The way things can work, and can actually exist. Without laws restricting what can and can't happen, nothing could exist. Laws actually facilitate freedom. You can't eat if there is no way for you to get food.
I completely disagree, of course, that individual will can do anything unnatural. It's part of the rules which make existence possible. Of course most things have an individual will, but that doesn't give i individuals superpowers.
Will is individual and absolutely unique to the specific person or animal, but it is the manifestation of their unique and individual conditioning: Their genetic predispositions pitted against their individual environmental conditioning, experience and learned knowledge.
We choose to do things we want to/like to do, but we don't choose what we like or don't like. That's part of conditioning/predisposition.
Which is great, because everything has to work somehow, by rules, in order to be able to work at all.
Want to move a thing on 4 wheels 120 miles per hour? You can't push it that fast. And even if you tie 600 horses to it, you'll only go as fast as a horse can run. If you attach an internal combustion motor or even an electric one you'r on your way. Now, of course, you made the thing on 4 wheels strong enough, right? Or it's falling apart from the stress.
So there are conditions to everything governed by the rules. The laws of physics, the nature of energy.
Consciousness and individual being aren't a requirement at that level. It created us and facilitates our existence, or we wouldn't exist. And we may well not always exist. And certainly you and I won't.
So while it looks like it cares, It doesn't mean it does in any way.
Yet everything is made of energy, so how much more personal can it get? We and all things are part of it. Unlike if there were an outside distant conscious being we are not made of and wants to, by tyrannical decree rather than nature, run our lives."But that doesn't mean a supernatural being did anything. It could be something very natural and something that doesn't need consciousness to create."
Einstein and I disagree. The order we see in the cosmos, what exists, how it exists, how it works, all of it, it very much appears to be something deliberate. Purposeful. That's why Einstein believed what he did, and on that point, and numerous others, I very much agree with him.
"My nomination is energy, because it's laws are everything's rules. And rules are order. The way things can work, and can actually exist. Without laws restricting what can and can't happen, nothing could exist. Laws actually facilitate freedom."
Yes, exactly. There are laws. And those laws, the environment they create, and the way things behave within that environment, all appears to be deliberately intended. And that's why the whole free will element takes this whole thing to that next level. We're the exception to that. To adhering to those rules. There's a reason we're so unique in this universe. Our planet is the only one we've yet to find where created objects can be seen. Like the way our planet lights up on the dark side. Or the structures. The great wall. We don't work like anything else. We're different. That's why I think the God of this universe would take such an interest in us.
It doesn't make any sense when you think about it "just happening". Us. The lives we lead. The passions we have and the dreams and aspirations. The way we're always striving for better. Always falling short. Like we're living in an environment we don't quite fit in. We tear it up. Destroy. We're like cancerous cells in a complex bodily system that behave independent of that body's DNA. Just by being who/what we are we destroy and compromise.
You always say I twist things around to make them work. Well when I consider the other person's point of view, like that of the atheist, I really try it on for size. If this is true then this must be true, and so on. And for that reason, as well as others, I believe in God. I wouldn't be able to accept a viewpoint that on many counts falls flat logic wise. No matter how I twist it.
"We choose to do things we want to/like to do, but we don't choose what we like or don't like. That's part of conditioning/predisposition."
That conditioning explanation, while it sounds good, just doesn't fit. That's what's significant about how the mind/brain evolved. All the functions of the brain are in service of this will. The will simply had to be there from the beginning. It doesn't work for both of these to evolve together. The brain and all it's capable of, evolved that way because there was a self/will there already.
And of course conditioning couldn't shape the behavior of energy. What it is is what it's always been. So even in that conditioning context, sure seems deliberate that it worked out the way it did. The interaction between energy/consciousness and the energy/matter around us. The conditions shaped us. Made us who/what we are. Don't see how you can know all of that and still stick with this "doesn't need consciousness to create" thing.
"Unlike if there were an outside distant conscious being we are not made of and wants to, by tyrannical decree rather than nature, run our lives."
Oh no. See you keep thinking like a product of this universe with this idea of an "outside distant conscious being". Far from. See that's why I think it's a faith-based thing. It's like a method of calibrating a free willed being. Looking outward to the world around us for confirmation of God is pointing our attention the wrong way. The calibration is to turn our gaze inward where the connection to God, to the eternal, exists. That self. Us. The real us. As Yoda said, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." But we have our own will so we have to choose to do it. We can't be forced. God is not a tyrant. He's a master creator. He devised a truly astounding way to make free will possible. All of this is to make that happen.“That conditioning explanation, while it sounds good, just doesn't fit. That's what's significant about how the mind/brain evolved. All the functions of the brain are in service of this will.”
Well there’s a problem here. Your consciousness controls none of your body functions. Your will has no access to that.
Then there’s the fact that your subconscious knows what you are going to do as much as seconds before it informs consciousness.
Your consciousness thinks it made the choice, but it didn’t. We are inundated with feelings, which we translate in to conscious concepts. This requires language, because thought is done in your native language. Try thinking without language. Without language you can’t have an inner dialogue. Can’t use deductive reasoning. That’s what sets us apart.
That’s the state of meditation. There you touch the subconscious and experience the world as emotions. You can reach states of just knowing, just understanding, unity with all.
What consciousness gives us is the ability to teach and change the subconscious’s behavior. Change the way we feel about things too. That’s what the brain uses it for.
Consciousness is not where will comes from. It comes from the subconscious. Will is clearly a manifestation of conditioning. You have traits you inherit. Behaviors, mannerisms, even personality traits.
Just for this argument, say my son is like my father: never happy where he is. They have a wanderlust. That forces them to make some of the choices they make.
You have similar traits to many that went before you. Those traits are genetic and shape not only what you look like, but who you are. Those genetic traits control what you like and don’t like.
Those traits are determine your default reactions to experience.
However, experience can teach the brain and thereby modify auto responses to the degree allowed by predisposition. This can be a great 180 degree change, or a much smaller change.
Again, we have lots of will. It’s absolutely unique to us. We are individuals with our own will. We can change and learn and adapt. And that gives us what for all intents and purposes a large degree of possibilities that look like and are a form of freedom.
But, there are historic, genetic, cultural, educational, reasons and therefore influences on our final choice.
In other words, it’s a natural ordered cause and effect process that governs the actuality of our choices. That process facilitates us making relevant ordered choices when faced with them.
In any event, without language consciousness as we know it wouldn’t exist. No lights at night, no man on the moon, no Newton, no Einstein, no electricity, not of anything but good stone tool craftsmen. Maybe by now we would have invented the horse and cart, but evolution of the mind and technology would be dead slow."Well there’s a problem here. Your consciousness controls none of your body functions. Your will has no access to that."
First off, keeping the body alive is also in service of the will. No we don't have to willfully keep alive. The body/brain does that for us. But we can certainly control bodily functions with our conscious minds. I just slowed my breathing. I can also slow my heart rate. But ultimately, right. The brain has to keep the body alive so the conscious mind can survive. Plus, it needs blood flow and nutrients to do what it does, which the body provides.
"Then there’s the fact that your subconscious knows what you are going to do as much as seconds before it informs consciousness."
It's all the brain. In most cases the subconscious can make a choice. If it doesn't take conscious deliberation the subconscious can often make the call. A lot of our decisions are 'conditioned' by previous experience. Much like what you described. The conscious mind alters and refines the decisions of the subconscious so that we don't consciously have to be focused on all things all the time. We can retain conscious thought for the task at hand and assign the rest to the subconscious.
"We are inundated with feelings, which we translate in to conscious concepts. This requires language, because thought is done in your native language. Try thinking without language. Without language you can’t have an inner dialogue. Can’t use deductive reasoning. That’s what sets us apart."
Right, I agree. Where you lose me is where you attribute all of this to energy. Baffling.
"That’s the state of meditation. There you touch the subconscious and experience the world as emotions. You can reach states of just knowing, just understanding, unity with all."
Everything you experience during meditation is a product of your imagination. Whatever you think you tapped into, your imagination tried to make 'real world' sense out of an experience that's anything but. So it puts it in a construct you can then 'logically' understand and describe. But whatever you think you accomplished, there's no real way of ever knowing that's actually what happened.
"Consciousness is not where will comes from. It comes from the subconscious. Will is clearly a manifestation of conditioning. You have traits you inherit. Behaviors, mannerisms, even personality traits."
Yeah, you do have traits and behaviors you inherit. But they're not consciously carried out. Most times the conscious mind only notices when they're observed or pointed out.
And will cannot be the manifestation of conditioning. Without will there's no action to then condition. You're putting the cart before the horse.
"But, there are historic, genetic, cultural, educational, reasons and therefore influences on our final choice."
Yes, there are. But you can consciously acknowledge those influences and choose whether or not to carry them out. You said it yourself. "influences on our final choice". These things must coax action out of the willful conscious mind.
"In any event, without language consciousness as we know it wouldn’t exist. No lights at night, no man on the moon, no Newton, no Einstein, no electricity, not of anything but good stone tool craftsmen. Maybe by now we would have invented the horse and cart, but evolution of the mind and technology would be dead slow."
I disagree. When I'm in a creative place, either writing a piece of music or developing an automated scripted system, I think in concepts and images and soundscapes, not words. I only really need words if I need to research something or explain something to somebody else. But an inner dialogue of language is not necessary in this process."Everything you experience during meditation is a product of your imagination. Whatever you think you tapped into, your imagination tried to make 'real world' sense out of an experience that's anything but. So it puts it in a construct you can then 'logically' understand and describe. But whatever you think you accomplished, there's no real way of ever knowing that's actually what happened."
I 100 percent agree. The feeling of just knowing is just that, a feeling. You know nothing more in real terms then when you entered the state. It's exactly the same state as just knowing through faith."I disagree. When I'm in a creative place, either writing a piece of music or developing an automated scripted system, I think in concepts and images and soundscapes, not words. I only really need words if I need to research something or explain something to somebody else. But an inner dialogue of language is not necessary in this process."
Because most of it is subconscious. Anything you do well is done on automatic.Not at all. I wouldn't be able to tell you what was going on if it all happened subconsciously. Sure, some associations and concepts may have come from the subconscious, but the creative process for me is very much a conscious thing.
Creativity doesn't lend well to being "automatic". Something automatic is the opposite of creative.You sure about that? The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
But I'm curious. So how do you consciously think without the inner dialogue? Explain that experience for me.What evidence? Brain activity? Everything we think we know about what the brain is doing or how it operates is a guess when it comes to the mind because the whole mental part of the equation is completely invisible to us. "Knowing" before we're aware just means the brain activity leading up to that realization resembles what it looked like the last time that same decision was made, allowing them to predict what the decision will be before the subject is aware of it.
That's the brain activity that leads up to that person realizing, or determining, their decision. Everything going on in your mind, everything you experience, every sensation you have or 'observe', is going to have correlating brain activity. What that brain activity is accomplishing exactly, no idea. I mean, we can trace some things and figure it out. Like how the brain processes images. We can show a subject an image and trace the activity that's actually storing that data. But that's processing physical information. Physical light. But when it comes to thoughts, following thought processes, we can only really just monitor where the oxygenated blood is going and where the neuron activity is. Do that enough, gather enough statistical information from test subjects telling you what's going on when this or that happens in the brain, and you might be able to start doing things like "predict" a decision. When in actuality, all you're really doing is peaking in on the machine making that decision, so you're seeing the brain activity that leads to one decision over another. If it's their left hand, it looks like this, if it's their right hand it looks like that. Is this bit the subconscious mind and this bit the conscious? Don't know.Stick to the subject. You said: "Creativity doesn't lend well to being "automatic". Something automatic is the opposite of creative."
I said: The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
All the other posts about images and sound made my point nicely.
"Yes, there are. But you can consciously acknowledge those influences and choose whether or not to carry them out. You said it yourself. "influences on our final choice". These things must coax action out of the willful conscious mind."
It's like a collapsing wave function. The choice follows the uncertainty principal. There are many possible choices in the wave and many influences. When all are factored in, they modify each outer, some cancel out. The dominant set, as one, collapses the wave and your choice is made.
You want a certain outcome, but again, your predispositions control your desires. Your will has nothing to do with consciousness itself. Consciousness inherits the will and finds ways to serve it.
The body isn't there to serve the brain, the brain developed to serve the billions of individual cells we're made of.
That the human brain thinks it's the other way around is obvious, but it's not."Your will has nothing to do with consciousness itself. Consciousness inherits the will and finds ways to serve it."
Everything you consciously do is carried out through the will. Your consciously having this discussion with me. That's your will. Consciousness gives the will something to act through.No. Because you don't consciously choose what you like or don't like, and what you like best in a given scenario is what you try to do. So consciousness serves the will/unconscious mind. Again, will isn't a separate thing, it's your conditioning.
"And will cannot be the manifestation of conditioning. Without will there's no action to then condition. You're putting the cart before the horse. "
So you think will exists on it's own? Don't make me laugh.
It's a system. You can't have will without a system. The system has needs. Those have to be resolved. That's will. I have to eat, so I go out to find food. That's will. Your likes and dislikes are predisposed. Those predisposed likes and dislikes are manifest as what we call will.
Action is an indication of need felt, auto response to resolve it. We call that will. Will, as we call it, is a manifestation of biological conditions and processes.
I thought you understood that when I say conditioning I'm talking about predisposition. It's not a matter of: Without will there's no action to then condition. It's a preconditioned/predisposed system, that can be and is modified or re-conditioned by environmental experience.
No carts, no horsesI do understand that. But notice how in each example you gave the will had to be there. That hunger pang coaxes the will into action. It's not at all an auto response. It's deliberate. And takes some coaxing to inspire the desired action.
Conditioning could not have made the will if the will needed to be there.
You don't know it's a system. You assume it's a system. That's based on your baseless model.Yeah the will was there, Of course it was. That's what I've said all along. It should be obvious. it's your conditioning/predisposition manifest. Your predispositions come with the human. Part of them are what we call instinct. Instinct that can be altered over time. The subconscious is instinctive. That's how it works. Instinct or if you prefer, auto-response can be altered through learning.
No cart, no horse.Don't get things confused. Don't confuse or mix up the subconscious with 'instinct' or 'subliminal'. What you do "instinctively" or "automatically" was at one time consciously considered. Like learning to walk. Or learning to play an instrument. Or learning to type. At first you have to consciously focus on it. How to position your hand or your fingers to make this reach or that action easier. But after enough of that it's programmed into muscle memory. Now the conscious mind has shown the subconscious enough that it can now be done without having to consciously think about it.
"What you do "instinctively" or "automatically" was at one time consciously considered. "
Except the genetic instinct you were born with. We agree on how auto response is changed over time. But all will is, is that auto response. Will is instinct. I'm not confused at all. But you clearly are.You do seem to be confused. See, we both (presumably) experience the mind. There's no special anything you need to "see" what I see. Life experience gives you all the data you need.
Will is not instinct. Instinct doesn't care about what kind of impact it has on the environment around us. It just wants to do. What Jung called the "Id". The conscious self, the will, what controls these behaviors, is a different thing. The will is the one that wants to back off the wants of the Id. Govern it. Self wants to behave in a way that doesn't conflict with others around us. Forms the ego. The personality we develop to interact with the world around us.
This is the will. The one actually driving. The one the id has to get past to do what it does. The one calling the shots. The one in control."Will is not instinct. Instinct doesn't care about what kind of impact it has on the environment around us. "
You just won't see it because you don't want to so make shit up to argue stuff about that I've explained at length a dozen times. What does instinct feel like? You need to do some thing so you try to do it.You just said it yourself ...
"What does instinct feel like? You need to do some thing so you try to do it."
There's that instinctual desire, then there's the choice whether or not to carry it out. That second bit is the will. Separate from instinct. Instinct, like everything else in the brain, has to influence, or coax, the will into action.That second bit is conscious deliberation. After that a choice is made and consciousness is informed of it. It's a good system. Instinct wants to act, subconscious throws up the default solution, consciousness has the opportunity to consider the pro's and cons of the act, possibly altering the default response or not, and then a choice is made. Then consciousness finds out about the action decided on and thinks it did the deciding.
Of course it did because it's all one connected process in the brain. No real separation. Just a perceived one.So you think our making a decision consciously is just an illusion? That we're fooled into thinking we made a choice we actually didn't? And you think that because this bit of the brain lit up on the CAT scan just like it did on that other decision seconds before the subject was 'conscious' of it? Yeah, that lighting up of that spot must be the decision being made for you.
Many experiments have been done now that point to that being a fact. It's become the working model in neuroscience. I give it a good chance of being true because I have experienced it, and long suspected it.
But it's early days. More testing and research is needed. Lot's to figure out.I'm familiar with what experiments have been done. It's one of those things I actively keep up with. Just out of curiosity. But the case is the same now as has always been the case. The mind can't be observed. Every experiment, every observation has that caveat. Lots of comparisons are done between brain states. What was happening in this scenario, that scenario. Then comes a lot of guessing. Nothing about that data conclusively confirms that what activity is seen is something happening beyond consciousness. Everything you're conscious of. Everything you mentally experience, is generated by that brain. That activity is creating these sensations. So is that 'early' activity a decision being made for you? Or is it simply the activity that ultimately results in that decision being made just as it was made before?
"So is that 'early' activity a decision being made for you? Or is it simply the activity that ultimately results in that decision being made just as it was made before?"
Good question. Both. And it's still you making the choice, just not the layer that thinks it did.Okay, here's the thing though. How do you know that? Based on what?
Logic and personal experience plus later findings of science which point to that preliminary conclusion. More work needs doing and is being done.
"Right, I agree. Where you lose me is where you attribute all of this to energy. Baffling."
Energy is the source of mater. Matter, which is a complex form of energy creates the compounds around you. Every biological thing is made of electro-chemical processes. Atoms, energy, proteins, etc. Everything follows the laws of physics. That's the nature of energy.
So I can only conclude, since I see no other process going on, that consciousness is part of this process. It's only logical. What else would it be? We'll see.
Your claim to a god no one can prove is no more convincing to me than any of the other 40 or more thousand gods mankind has created and can't prove either. So I have little or no choice."So I can only conclude, since I see no other process going on, that consciousness is part of this process. It's only logical. What else would it be? We'll see.
Right, since you see no other process going on. But, like the mind, like consciousness, it's self-evident. Yes, I understand your logic, but logic dictates that given the elements involved and that nothing in all we know about these elements suggests that they're in any way capable of this that there must be something unseen involved.Yes, but you are saying that as if we know these things can't produce consciousness. We don't know that at all, in fact I see evidence to the contrary.
I am pointing out that from every aspect it doesn't make logical sense. The only way it does is with a creator. That's the only way this works. Logically.
So says the theist. What else could we expect you to say? It only might be logical if your god exists. Unfortunately you can't prove your god exists, and real research in to this field is fledgling. That's what's logical here. We have to wait.
It doesn't work that way. My belief can't inform my logic. Logic can only be guided by logic. If it's logical, it's logical. The only difference is I don't prematurely answers questions. I leave open possibilities that you have rejected based on irrelevant information. Like this statement here about how "real research in to this field is fledgling". Let me lay it out for you one more time. Follow the logic. If God is the creator of the universe then He is not a product of this universe. So everything we know scientifically does not apply here. All we can determine through that "real research" deals with what was produced by this universe. So I'm not sure what you're waiting for.
Let me ask you this. Please actually try to answer this. What evidence do you expect to find if God is real? What would that evidence look like do you think?"It doesn't work that way. My belief can't inform my logic."
Oh please. What you think is logical reeks of your beliefs. Most people's does.
It's images, really. And sounds when it comes to music. There's no words. Just a lot of imagination. There's no need really for dialogue and calling things by name. That's only really necessary when working with a partner or if you need to look something up to figure something out. When it comess to understanding another's thoughts, that's where language comes in. All the dialogue part of my mind is really needed for is for putting into words my thoughts. And I only really do that when interacting with others.
Of course, if I'm studying text, then it's necessary in that regard. But once those words are processed and associated with the images that I associate with those words in my mind, the words are dropped. Now their images/sounds/smells."It's images, really. And sounds when it comes to music. There's no words."
Exactly. Subconscious pattern recognition, learned skills. Not conscious deliberation as I said in the first place. Awareness, yes. Not consciousness."Awareness, yes. Not consciousness."
That statement right there just makes me shake my head. What is consciousness other than awareness? What we're conscious of is what we're aware of. The designation between consciousness and what's not is what we're aware of and what we're not. These are not two different things. There's not some other inside your brain "aware" in the subconscious while you're aware outside of it. There's no other awareness than you and what you're aware of."That statement right there just makes me shake my head."
Because you don't understand the difference between conscious thought and awareness. I get it. But there is a difference.
I'm going try one more time. Subconscious/unconscious mind is by definition not conscious, not part of our consciousness. But it's very aware, and the way we know that for a fact, is that it reacts automatically. It has to be aware of the situation before consciousness is.
A ball coming toward your face. Think about it for a split second and its hit you in the nose. Auto response sends up an arm and catches the ball. It has to be aware to do that.
Consciousness is deliberation. Conscious language oriented complex thought.
I just had a thought. Wouldn't consciousness be a better soul candidate than will? After all, it identifies as "I" and it alters the auto response/instinct/will.
Of course, to me it's a tool more than anything.
The brain's main function is to co-ordinate a moving system of cells so they can more effectively get food, replicate, fight off predictors, and meet all their biological needs. Ours has become so complex due to language above almost everything, that it now believes, like a bad government, that the system is there for it, rather than it is there for the people, or cells.
That's probably why we have this desire for gods and souls that can help the brain live forever and cheat death. Forget the body. It's just there.
Don't you believe it.Yes, the brain manages the body. And part of that is actions. Taking action. Fight or flight. That sort of thing. But then there's the conscious mind that becomes aware of the body in infancy. And throughout life we're continually learning new things about it. That ego. That "I". I found one article where they differentiate consciousness and awareness as the thoughts, emotions, sensations, and awareness as the observer that experiences these things. But this is all subjective. It's different people trying to assign a label to an experience that can't be shown. Me, I think I lean towards the definitions of the root words. Both awareness and consciousness mean being consciously aware of something. And there's not some other awareness that's not you. That's silly. If you're not aware, you're not aware. Yes, the body can and does react to things and do things. But it's most times based on data coming in through the senses observed consciously. Consciousness may not take control and spend the time to assess the incoming fastball. Then again, maybe it did, one time in the past. So after that experience you unconsciously flinch in that scenario. You can consciously override this flinch, if you know it's coming. It might take you by surprise.
But that doesn't mean there's something inside of you that's aware of something you're not. That would be me thinking there's something aware in my laptop because it new to change the clock for daylight savings time. It's a machine. It's programmed to do things.And so are you, and that's will. What else would you call it when you do something instictively and then feel a sense of accomplishment?
You're right. I've said before there is no separation between conscious and unconscious brain. It's a way we talk about. The conscious awareness is layered. When you experience the world with no inner dialogue you are experiencing a more basic feeling driven layer. Emotions emote you. They drive you to act. That's will, and it comes from under the "I" layer and isn't controlled by it.
It can be changed by it, getting rid of that emotion and need to act. But feelings/emotions are obviously not being controlled by consciousness. Just as you don't and can't choose likes and dislikes, you don't and can't choose your emotions.
What do we say will does? It drives us to act. Not acting is an action in this context. That's what emotions do. Why? Because we have predisposed ways in which we act toward specific events or scenarios. The conscious layer translates those feelings and events in to concepts. It deliberates, reviews memory, other feelings/predispositions, learned and genetic, in conjunction with subconscious layers to come to a final choice and corresponding feelings.
A reformed racist no longer has feelings of hate or suspicion about people they used to hate with a passion and mistrust. It's a long process but I've seen people go through that change and make 180 degree turn.. Feeling is all important because it's what drives us: our will/instinct/predispositions. Deliberation and learning can change our feelings.
You know things when you know them. There isn't a second consciousness. It's all you, just that different layers do different things within the system."What do we say will does? It drives us to act. Not acting is an action in this context. That's what emotions do. Why? Because we have predisposed ways in which we act toward specific events or scenarios. The conscious layer translates those feelings and events in to concepts. It deliberates, reviews memory, other feelings/predispositions, learned and genetic, in conjunction with subconscious layers to come to a final choice and corresponding feelings."
Right, what you call the "conscious layer". That's you. You're the one conscious. You're your will. You operate as you decide is best for you. Whether or not to act on instinct. Whether or not to fight or flight. You're in charge, in control. The body does what it's done since the beginning. It's a complex machine that evolves and adapts.
Those emotions, they don't just trigger an automatic response. They work the way they do because they have proven a useful aid to our will. They interact in the way they do, by coaxing the will into action, because that's what works.Sorry, The whole thing is you; despite the fact your conscious layer thinks it can beat death by separating itself from the rest.
Right, kind of odd it would evolve that way and think those kinds of things. Why does the conscious mind feel 'separate' from the body it's evolved along with all this time? From the start the body is alien to us. It's a part of the physical world around us, just as strange as the physical world around us. We're often grossed out by what the body does. Vomit, deficating, menstral anything. In fact, I read a psychological explanation behind the male dominance our species developed being based on the fact that women are more closely tethered to the natural world through menstral cycles, child birth and feeding, etc. Because of how men feel towards those things.
"Right, kind of odd it would evolve that way and think those kinds of things."
Not in the least bit odd at all. Once the conscious "I" layer is in place it's isolated. It think's it's what's alive, as you do, and the rest is an envelope which just happens to be made up of trillions of individual cells with their own lives and functions within the whole.
From evolution we know single cells started to group together creating multi celled animals with feelings and emotions like our own. With brains too. Seems brains are only required when an organism moves around. Multi celled plants don't have them, and the sea squirt, which has tadpoles instead of spores or seeds, which find a place to take root and eat their brain while they wait.
Another way to form large creatures is by fully individual animals merging with each other to form large animals. Several species like that exist in the sea. They form one large brain from many small ones.
But none of that you find odd? We're special yet every animal has will and emotions and everything we do. All without this soul of yours? All other brains were formed to co-ordinate the many, but not ours? Now that I find hard to believe and rather odd. Particularly in the context of evolution.Yes, I find all of that odd, but that's a different kind of odd. That's biological differences between what I know about my biological body and how other biological things work. I find a lot about biology weird. I find a lot about the human body weird.
Yes, animals have bodies and minds and wills an emotions. We share a lot in common with all mammals. Reptiles less so, but still there's commonality. We're most definitely a product of evolution. We come from the same stock. What makes us different is we have a free will. Cats are always cats. Dogs always dogs. A horse is a horse. If you know one you pretty much know them all. You know what to expect. But humans, we've changed quite a number of times. We operate on a different plane. And it's not just having a more complex brain. We're free to behave as we wish. To alter behavior. We're self aware.
And I think all living things have souls. I think life itself is the soul. It's just that humans, unlike most other human things, have a soul with a free will.
But it's the fact that that conscious "I" layer that presumably was created by this biological machine. It's a product of it. Yet that conscious "I" finds the body a mystery. And in many ways finds it kind of disgusting. It's almost strange that we each walk around with a bag of urine inside of us that we have to drain periodically. Seems foreign. Almost alien. There's all kinds of just really gross things the body does that we all find kind of disgusting. We hide it from others in shame. Keep it private. Though we all experience the same types of things. We're ashamed of it.
Yet this conscious "I", that has been there all along, that evolved right along with the rest of it, finds these things foreign and strange. Apart from us. Other. Separate."Cats are always cats. Dogs always dogs. A horse is a horse. If you know one you pretty much know them all."
You could say that about humans too. But you'd be just as wrong. Humans all have the same basic needs, basic structure, basic capabilities. Cats too. But we all have different personalities, and so do cats and dogs and horses.
I was recently in Quebec city's marine land. I noticed some strange things. Some of the fish, not all, come close to the glass to watch humans. But what I found amazing were the stingrays. There was a round pool with at least ten big fish in it. A stone wall was around it. But only waist high.
Some of the fish just hung around. But three of them played to the crowd. They actually swam up close and stuck their wings out of the water so people could pet them as they went by. They didn't have to. They wanted to. They loved the attention.
Every animal has its own personality as different one from the other as yours and mine.
You may find your body strange but I felt that way about mine. I'm not grossed out by blood or menstruation or any of what you mentioned. That's your personality/disposition. I have mine. But perhaps yours is reinforced by your belief in a divine soul trapped in a base body, and mine has to do with the fact that to me there is nothing unnatural, and there is nothing but nature.
I think your way of thinking may be psychologically unhealthy because it keeps mind and body separated. Integration is important. Some people have mental illnesses where they hate a limb or body part because they feel like it doesn't belong to them. They beg for amputation, and in some cases they do it themselves.
So you identifying as a soul may be what's causing you to feel strange about your body. .Yeah, animals have their own personalities. I've had dogs and cats as pets all my life. I could sit and watch animals of any kind for days on end. I know and recognize those personalities. But even with their unique personalities each dog I've had was still very much a dog. Cats the same. Their personalities will form based on their life experiences and environment. Like those fish in that habitat. Interacting with humans has always been part of their environment.
But they're all still what you expect. Those dogs of mine, each with their own unique personalities, were still very much dogs. If you walk up to a cow in field you've never encountered before, you pretty much know what to expect. They're going to behave for the most part like every other cow you've ever encountered.
Animals don't go through the changes humanity went through. They didn't transition from one way of living to another, like going from a hunter/gatherering species to one that builds civilizations. And I know you'll attribute that to our more advanced brains. Another human behavioral change came in our coveting of possessions. If you study indigenous cultures around the world you'll find they all have that in common.
Another significant change unlike anything in the animal world is our transition from egalitarian to male-dominance. This is often considered to be something t hat came from our mammalian pack/tribe past, but it isn't. Indigenous cultures and hunter/gatherer tribes were not male-dominant. That didn't come along until after civilization. As well as class structure. There was no individual more important than any other in the tribe/pack. Not until the onset of civilization. But not caused by the transition to civilization. It's actually the other way around. The changes in living practices came from the behavior change.Humans are always humans too. Yes we evolved differently due to a new brain layer which allowed for consciousness like ours along with physical capabilities, the right vocal cords, opposeable thumbs etc.
Other animals have one or the other but not all together. No big mystery. Evolution experiments, and we're what we are because of it.What you call a "new brain layer" isn't that new. Humans achieved anatomical modernity over 100,000 years ago. The brain cavity hasn't changed in size or shape in that time. The brain as it is today was the same as it was then. But the changes that came, when/where/how, doesn't match up with it as you describe it. Like this brain layer was the cause of it. It still didn't happen for numerous generations. And the conditions that they happened in when they happened were not in any way unique.
Evolved differently, yes. There were differences. But the stuff we're talking about didn't come as gradually as that explanation suggests.Evolution is slow. Just because you have a capability doesn't mean it's already developed. A baby has the equipment needed to walk as soon as its born. It takes a year before they actually get up and do it.
Even memory has to develop over time. I remember very little about early childhood and most people don't. But by 6 years my memories can be vivid. And again, changes happen slowly until they reach critical mass or a tipping point, and then major changes come quickly for a while.Yeah, a long slow process. Not something that evolves, and then all of the sudden 150 generations later there's a huge leap forward. It might make sense if there's an outside cause, like a specific environmental condition that coaxes the behavior out of this highly developed brain, but that didn't happen. No, it would seem something psychologically happened first. That didn't happen with that same brain for tens of thousands of years before.
A slow progression would make sense in what you're describing. Not what actually happened.Like I said: change accumulates to a tipping point. Then major changes happen quickly. In a hundred years we went from horse and buggy sails and candle light to rockets and cell phones with more computing power than the room full of computers we sent people to the moon on.
More progress in 100 years than in all of history and prehistory combined. No god required. And look how its changed human behavior, and its not done yet.I find it interesting that you somehow reach the conclusion that there's "no God required", yet in the same breath you'll attribute consciousness to energy. Energy, which wasn't able to change and evolve and accumulate, right from the beginning it would seem, is able to generate consciousness. Yet, even though that conscious mind is part of the equation here, you're certain that it all can just happen unaided with no need for a god.
"Energy, which wasn't able to change and evolve and accumulate, right from the beginning it would seem, is able to generate consciousness"
That's all it does. It evolves into everything. What don't you get about that? You make it sound like I'm saying energy=consciousness. I never said that though who knows? What I say is that energy created all things and through evolution, things with an awareness and consciousness.
Why would a god be required? It's not. No need for one at all.
But what I meant was no god required in the context of our amazing unprecedented progress in the last 100 or more years. See how you twist things sometimes?I'm saying you don't know that and cannot make that declaration. Like you said about energy, who knows? Exactly. You don't. Yet you know enough to say it happens without a God?
I think it's the most probable answer. Science shows it, it's logical from the evidence, and yes if it's true, no god required. You can't even show a god exists. I'm at least on solid ground while you're guessing because of your unfounded faith.
You can know nothing at all about your belief with certainty., I know little to nothing with certainty yet but my model can be tested.
You have faith so are certain you are right, though faith only gives you the feeling of certainty without the substance.
I think my model has a good chance of proving true and await more test results as time goes on.Science shows it? It's logical from the evidence? Your model can be tested? Well then, what's the hold up? You'd think that would be a priority. And if it's true, you still can't say no God exists. In fact, if it turns out matter/energy is capable of generating a conscious will, then I'd say it's much more likely there's a God behind it. For matter/energy to be capable of generating a universe is remarkable enough to think it could have just happened like that, a conscious will also 'just happening as well' is a whole other thing.
Nothing you've said about my belief is any different than where you are. No difference. There's no solid ground to be found to support you. No data, nothing turned up despite how extensive the investigation.
"I think my model has a good chance of proving true and await more test results as time goes on."
That's a statement of faith. Christians are waiting in much the same way."what's the hold up? You'd think that would be a priority."
For who? You are too impatient. Life doesn't work that way.
"And if it's true, you still can't say no God exists."
Nope. Can't say divine spaghetti monsters with meatball eyes don't exist. But I don't believe they do either.
"Nothing you've said about my belief is any different than where you are. "
I know you wish that were true. Clearly it's not.
"That's a statement of faith. Christians are waiting in much the same way."
No. It's not faith at all. Wait and see can hardly be thought of as faith by anyone but you. Again you wish that were true but's not. And do tell Christians not to hold their breath.Life doesn't work that way? What does that mean? If we're capable of testing and proving this, what are we waiting for? It's not impatience. Humanity has been waiting for this answer since ancient Greece.
No. Spaghetti monster or no, the answer will ultimately, officially, be yes there's something. Because the level of delusion it would take to convince oneself that on top of everything else consciousness was also some unintended cosmic accident produced, again totally unintended, from matter/energy. That's just too much.
"You can know nothing at all about your belief with certainty., I know little to nothing with certainty yet but my model can be tested.
You have faith so are certain you are right, though faith only gives you the feeling of certainty without the substance."
That, word for word, applies to you as well. Except, of course, for your claim that yours can be tested. Problem there is that the mind has to be observable to be testable. To determine whether or not a mind or conscious entity of some kind is being generated by matter or energy you have to be able to detect it. You have the same problem regarding the mind that I do regarding God. Exactly the same."Because the level of delusion it would take to convince oneself that on top of everything else consciousness was also some unintended cosmic accident produced, again totally unintended, from matter/energy. That's just too much. "
Yet some invisible super being in the sky makes sense? To me that's absurd. I'm looking for real answers, not stone age myth.
And our personal feelings about what the truth is, are irrelevant.Yes, that makes sense. Sentient self-aware conscious beings do exist. To think we're the first and only, that's absurd. To think our existence was just how things cosmically fell into place, absurd. Because we exist as we do, a being like God isn't that far fetched. In fact, given what's observed, it's the most likely conclusion.
What exactly do you find absurd about it? Like you said, personal feelings are irrelevant.What's absurd about it? It's a stone age myth. A god that want's followers but demands worship by faith alone, making faith a virtue? That should send up red flags to any rational person. It's simply a mind trap designed to keep believers believing in spite of there never being evidence for its existence.
It's what one expects when there is no real god.
Besides which, it all sounds like fantasy. The whole book is contradiction after contradiction.
It's obvious myth mixed with some history and a lot of imagination, politics, and lies.
Your god is a contradiction too, modeled on a tyrant king. Too human like to be a god. It's cruel and unjust and egotistical .
Where did it come from? Why after an eternity does it suddenly decide to make conscious viruses like us? It makes zero sense. And people still believe this stone age crock? Sorry. I can't.
So I look for logical answers. You just continue living in the stone age.Ah, I see. So your conclusion that there isn't a god is based on your views toward that particular god. That's not what we're talking about. None of that even enters into this. It's just whether or not any of this is possible without having been deliberately created. That it could just fall into place like that. Is that really a rational conclusion to think?
But, I will address some of your objections. I get it. I used to think much like that. Maybe you can understand why I think what I think.
Regarding your statements about God wanting followers and demanding worship by faith alone. This isn't an ego thing. It's a necessity. Think about it like this. God's will IS natural law. God is the creator, everything in the universe exists because He wills it. Complex systems require rules and order. Ant mounds, flocks of birds, multi-celled organisms. There has to be order. A system. Think of it in the context of the human body with each human being a cell in that body. All the cells that adhere to the DNA code of the body make a complex system like our bodies work. If a cell begins to behave in a way contrary to DNA, that's what we call cancer. It's detrimental to the system.
Now, imagine if each cell in your body was capable of willfully choosing whether or not it wanted to live according to the DNA code of your body or of its own accord. That's what free will is. That's what God introduced into the world. A very dangerous element. If even one of those trillions of cells begins to act contrary to DNA the whole system could be in danger.
Now, let's say you're a god, capable of creation. Just you. One day you decide you want companions. You want to create and populate your world with others. Now, do you create drones that just have to do exactly as you will so as not to become a volatile element in your world? They love you because they have to. Choose to do what you say because they have to. No original thoughts of their own. They don't create art or music or anything. Nothing interesting because it's all exactly what you expect all the time. And what's the point of their life. Just to live and serve like a robot?
So let's say you decide you want to imbue these others with a free will. Make them individuals with their own thoughts and dreams. How would you go about doing that? That's a potentially dangerous thing. You're giving them the power of creation. Not everything in existence is created by you anymore. Now they're making stuff too. You have the wisdom, being the creator of how things need to be done. How to keep the system running smooth. But they don't. They have no idea. They don't know how everything works. They have no experience to draw from. Nothing.
That's what I think this life and this universe is. God's method for creating free will. Worshiping Him, following Him, that's necessary. Like the public roads. You're free to go where you want when you want. But you have to follow the rules and acknowledge and respect the authority that establishes those laws or you lose the privilege. Those rules are in place to keep everyone safe and to keep everything running smoothly. They're not there for you to respect the authorities. They're there for the system itself. For the ability to drive. Well, this is all in place for life with free will to be possible.
Wisdom can't just be given. It must be earned. Lived through. This life, all of human history, is just the kind of knowledge base we'd need to wield free will responsibly. This universe was created as a temporary place. Everything begins and ends. Nothing lasts. It's a test environment with safety measures in place. We can only do so much damage here. But we can do damage. We learn that through experiencing life and living amongst millions of others with a will of their own. We learn to interact, to work together, we learn what helps and what harms.
Anyway, that's how I see it."t's just whether or not any of this is possible without having been deliberately created. That it could just fall into place like that. Is that really a rational conclusion to think?"
There is zero difference between the results of a process and the results of deliberate creation, because both have to use a process to get results. So yes, as I see it, no god required. Energy is what people are saying when they say god. Even if they don't know it.
Tesla said something similar: Something like: Saying god is like saying the laws of physics.
And he was religious, brought up Russian/Serbian Orthodox.Yeah, that's just the sort of nonsensical bullshit you have to convince yourself of to accept that view. The results are, yes, a culmination of those processes. But those processes are no accident. Those processes are governed by laws. And those results aren't just some spontaneous random causality.
Yes, Tesla was religious, and was saying much the same thing I am. He's drawing a line of commonality between God and the physical laws. It's not just pure chaos. Chaos becomes ordered systems. Evidence of deliberate intent. You don't have to actually see God to recognize that.Tesla wasn't saying what you are. There are no accidents in a cause and effect universe and no god required.
Accident - an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
That's all that happens in a cause and effect universe.Things happening by chance is subjective perspective. No such thing objectively. Every event has a cause. Accident, chance, all just subjective ways to talk about events we don't fully understand the cause of.
Accident might mean human error. You didn't mean to hit the other car. It's an accident. That's an unintended event. But not causeless. It didn't just happen. It's the end result of a chain of events taking place intended and not. No accident happening there except in relation to a subjective lack of intend.
You weren't setting out to hit another car, but your so your intent had nothing to do with it, except your intent to change lanes and your failure to check .your blind spot.
A process makes no mistakes exactly because there is no subjective intent. Things happen by nature. The nature of every aspect involved in every interaction with everything interacting.
Chance, just happens, accident, only applies to subjective intent. Not natural process.Accident doesn't mean causeless. It just means the cause, or the outcome, wasn't deliberately intended.
Rather than getting into an argument of semantics, how about we just both acknowledge we know what I mean by accident."Accident doesn't mean causeless. It just means the cause, or the outcome, wasn't deliberately intended."
That's what I said. It doesn't apply to natural process. Only subjective ones.We're not talking about whether or not there's a cause. Of course there's a cause. The question is whether or not there's deliberate intent behind that cause. Was in on purpose or was it an accident?
Was it deliberate or not? That's fine. Was it deliberate or part of a process? That's fine too.
Accidents only relate to the subjective. They don't happen. No such thing, exactly because everything has cause.
So if you talk about your car accident, that's fine. But it wasn't an accident. Unintended consequences are said to occur by accident because the person acting did not intend them to spring from their actions. But they are not accidents because their actions set off a chain of cause and effect which had to produce those exact results with all variables accounted for.So you're saying if there's a cause then there's no accident? That's ridiculous. If there's no cause then nothing happened. An accident is an unintended cause. Not the lack of a cause. A car accident, there's still a cause and a result. It's just that the cause was not intended.
Right. Unintended by a human. It's subjective. No such thing as accident in reality. For there to be an accident there has to be intent and unintended consequences.
Well as much as I love a good semantic argument, it's all really beside the point. The meaning is clear. Either the universe happened as it did by unintended cause, meaning haphazard unintentional just fell into place as is, like setting a stack of paper and a container of ink on top of a bomb in a room, closing the door, setting off the bomb, and walking back to in to find a fully formed dictionary, or it was deliberate. There are laws that create order out of chaos because those laws were deliberately set to do so.
"Either the universe happened as it did by unintended cause,"
I'll accept that. But the rest of your haphazard just happened stuff is again wrong. No such thing as haphazard or just happened or random events in a cause and effect universe. Just your subjective mind assuming if it's not intentional it's random. That's silly.I never said random. I mean there's no deliberate intention behind anything. There's no intended result. Everything that happened, everything that exists, is the result of the materials in play and the natural behaviors they exhibit in the environment they're in and the laws that define that environment.
Well, see, there's nothing for me to argue about there. I agree utterly and completely..
But I can't agree with what you say above being characterized as random, accident, just happened in the sense of no cause, etc.
I also know physicists who do the same thing. It's common usage to use these words badly. But it's a matter of being precise with meaning in communication.
Obviously accidents don't happen. There are no random or causeless acts. People need to know these ideas are relics of a past before science. Another one is: there are no selfless acts.
An accident is relative to a subjective act. It's unintended consequences can be considered subjective accident. Mistakes is another good one. No one accuses nature of making mistakes. Why? No subjective intent = no possibility of mistakes.
"All the cells that adhere to the DNA code of the body make a complex system like our bodies work. If a cell begins to behave in a way contrary to DNA, that's what we call cancer."
Since cancer susceptibility is genetic and some cancer's run in families, that analogy doesn't work. If god created all the ways we can be a cancer then he's responsible for it. He made evil possible setting the world up for it. A rotten system if done consciously. No wonder the Satan's rebelled. they knew what you won't see.
Ok. It's his game so he doesn't want me to use the free will he supposedly gave me. I have to "willingly" bow to his will and authority? Can you say egomaniac?
No, my friend, it's a hoax. And if not, I'd want nothing to do with your god or his stupid games.
I like the way I was taught. God judges on what you do and what's in your heart. Not whether you believe he exists or not. That would be a loving god. But I found out early that's not what christianity believesYes, god made evil possible. If you weren't capable of making evil choices then you wouldn't have freedom of will. You'd be like a dog chained to a tree. No, you can't get in trouble, but you can't do anything else either. What kind of life is that? It's not a rotten system. You'd rather be a drone? Incapable of doing anything other than God's will? No will of your own?
Which is better would you say? Finding a mate who loves you because she's chemically/biologically predisposed to and doesn't have a choice? Or she loves you and chooses you by her own choice? Which would you say is more meaningful?
Not everything apart from God's will is evil. I think that's where you're going astray in your thinking. Yes, you're capable of evil, but you're also capable of many other things.
Why do you think He'd go through the trouble of giving you free will if He didn't want you to use it?
And, just on the side, it's irrelevant what Christianity believes. That's all interpretation by other humans that know just as little as anyone else. None of that matters in the least.
"That's what God introduced into the world. A very dangerous element. If even one of those trillions of cells begins to act contrary to DNA the whole system could be in danger."
What a dick were that true."Wisdom can't just be given."
It isn't, but it could."we learn what helps and what harms."
That we agree on. But not much else.
Oh, one other thing regarding faith. I think it's actually pretty ingenious. It's all about free will. It's all about you being what you choose to be. Faith means you willfully choose to believe. Willfully choose to acknowledge God as the creator of the universe and the rightful authority. If God showed up one day it's no longer your choice. Then you're forced to acknowledge His power and authority. So are you choosing to bow to Him because your scared of Him? Was it a choice in that case?
I see it as a kind of way to calibrate us. To calibrate our gaze, so to speak. For us to look inward to find our connectedness with God. To not be looking to the outer world for confirmation. To look within for the answers, for guidance, to find our way.
If you have faith then you're willfully acknowledging God as the authority. Your a cell in the body willfully choosing to follow the DNA's code and exist in the system as a healthy cooperative element. To not be so is to be a kind of unnatural element. If your will is king, and not God, then your a cancer in the system. There can't be two mission statements. Two paths. Then it's no longer a system."Oh, one other thing regarding faith. I think it's actually pretty ingenious. It's all about free will."
Great that you keep saying that but's bull. It's the opposite. If I don't know anything for a fact about something how do I have the ability to make an informed choice? I don't. All I can do is say: Oh, Oh! some cave man tells me if I believe in his god it will give me ever lasting life... after I'm dead.... Really?
I better believe it just in case it's for real! And according to the caveman's book, if I don't believe now before I die, they'll wake me up, in the Koran ten angels will beat me, and in the bible I get thrown in to a fire and destroyed, or, according to some I rot in hell for eternity.
Can you say ruse and manipulation?
Don't ask if I'd rather god watched my every move over my shoulder. That's what most christian cults want me to believe anyway. But without him actually being detectable. If he's actually there I want to know it, not just feel it because I have faith. He doesn't have to hang around at all. Just prove he exists by showing up to everyone in plain sight, and showing us in no uncertain terms that he's god. It has to be easy for him.
Then, once I got to know his actual character I would actually have the choice to love or hate him, and whether to follow him or not. Now I don't., no matter how you twist this shit up in your mind.
And everything has will, not just humans, and will is unique conditioning. Separate from your god's will if it existed. No need for supernatural supposed "free" will that doesn't exist.So, you see the order in the universe, you acknowledge the laws that give order to the universe, but you still need visual confirmation that there's a creator. And yes, I'm sorry if other believers have said it, but a visible god peering over your shoulder would certainly have an impact on your free will. If you choose to believe that god is watching, and choose to live your life as though that were the case, that's still a willful choice. A visible god looming on the horizon, casting a shadow over you and all you do, not so much.
And I think the arrangement is more than fair. You can acknowledge God's authority and respect His rules, or you can cease to exist. You didn't ask to exist. So if you choose, again your choice, you can go back to not existing. Sounds fair to me."So, you see the order in the universe, you acknowledge the laws that give order to the universe, but you still need visual confirmation that there's a creator."
Not even necessarily visual. But yes. You need to confirm extraordinary claims. Look, if there is a god then when I die I'll find out. If not I'll just be dead. Fine by me either way. If god's a dick I'd rather just be dead. If not, and he judges me on my actions, I'll see what he has to say.
I'm not sure why people want to live forever. I'm sure I don't. After all, all I want is knowledge. So if I got a few thousand years and in the end knew everything, what would I look forward to after that?
Life has value because its fleeting. It is gust the default state even after you die. It not cheep, it's the default. So what, in that case?
Anyway, being an individual consciousness isn't the goal? Perhaps as Buddhism teaches: There is a cosmic consciousness that you join ones you're ready. Sounds almost like what you say except Buddhist get more than one try at it. Your god expects you to get it in one or perish.
Or maybe there's something else going on entirely.
I'll start with science and what it's found. That's my unique choice made by my unique conditioning and experience. The christian/Jewish/Islamic god is the last thing I expect to be real.Being an extraordinary claim, would it even make sense to have some sort of sense-based confirmation? We're talking about whatever's responsible for creating the universe. He exists apart from the matter/energy/time/space universe we're a product of. The expected result is exactly what we see, or don't see. A universe that's ordered and organized. That just works.
Then you've got an end result of free will. A life created to give each of us an opportunity to live life with a will of our own, to learn, and to give us each the opportunity to either accept the conditions necessary to live that life, or bow out and go back to where you were before. To give you what you're requiring would undermine all of that.
Yes, death gives life purpose and meaning and urgency. I agree with that. And I too am all about knowledge. That's what I'm most looking forward to because it seems to me that all of humanity is spiritually interconnected. Once we're free of these physical forms we'll be able to see each other's life experiences as if we experienced them ourselves. We'll each be able to investigate the entirety of human history. And all the universe. With what we've seen of this place in this life, I can't hardly imagine what there will be to see there."Being an extraordinary claim, would it even make sense to have some sort of sense-based confirmation? We're talking about whatever's responsible for creating the universe. He exists apart from the matter/energy/time/space universe we're a product of. "
Yet more claims you have no proof of and can have no proof for. That's evidence that it's nonsense. Nothing else.A lack of evidence is an expected result given what we're talking about. But I do have evidence that the universe and all matter/energy has a beginning, so anything that's responsible for creating it all would, consistent with that evidence, be something that's not detectable. Consistent with what we know.
"A lack of evidence is an expected result given what we're talking about."
Right. Only things that exist leave traces of themselves. Things that don't exist don't do anything and leave no trace. So yes, the idea of your god not existing is an expected result of lack of evidence.The mind doesn't. There's no trace of it, yet it exists. So that alone blows your whole statement out of the water. Besides, there are traces of God's existence. It's the universe and everything in it. If not for that we wouldn't need a God as an explanation.
"The mind doesn't. There's no trace of it, "
Sorry. Utter nonsense. It leaves traces of itself all over everything.I have. There's nothing you can empirically show to be the product of the mind, or that the mind really even exists at all. You can only subjectively associate your experience in your own mind to behaviors you see in others. It's nothing more than assumption and speculation.
Computers, cars, lights, physicists, art, music, technology, books. Do I really need to tell you this? Those things didn't create themselves, we humans with brains did it and we have more than adequate proof of that. Mind or brain leaves traces everywhere. Go ahead, deny the obvious self evident again.I dare you.
Okay, let's think about it this way. Imagine aliens came to Earth and began to study humanity. They see all of these things you mentioned created by humanity. What evidence is there for them to find to make them understand these things are product of a mind created by the brain?
Think about it in the context of paleontology. All they can look at is behaviors and things humans created to then try to figure out the mental evolution or psychology of these ancient peoples and cultures. No evidence to actually evaluate the mind itself. Only our ability to compare to our own experiences with the mind and to try to understand that way.They have a mind or brain themselves if they are here considering us. They have high tech too if they can get here.
The fact that we have intelligence is going to be as obvious to them as it would be to us were we to travel to their world and see them at work and play, and see their technology.
Good dog, man! We know crows are super intelligent. They make and use tools, solve complex problems, They even trained Japanese motorists to crack black walnuts for them.
Behaviour tells all.Yes, exactly. You're making my point for me perfectly. Behavior tells all if you experience a mind yourself and can make that connection. There's no physical evidence to make the mind itself observable, but through the behaviors you can determine it's there. If you yourself also have a mind and can associate their behaviors to your own. No actual observation of the mind itself is possible. Like God. You can't observe God Himself, but you can observe His behaviors. The result of His intelligence. Same thing. And still the point stands that there is indeed something we both know exists that cannot be observed, therefore your stance that if it can't be observed or detected it doesn't exist is flawed.
You don't know that there is no physical evidence. Actually brain activity is physical evidence. But no, there's no mind organ as far as we know. It's all about electromagnetism. Perhaps that's a clue.
Perhaps it happens in any number of ways that we can't detect yet, or haven't thought of yet.
To assume a god did it is way premature.
And show me just one indisputable god action.
"Behavior tells all if you experience a mind yourself and can make that connection. "
And if you have no mind you wouldn't have anything to say at all. So what's your point? Only minds care about mind. Nothing else gives a rat's ass.I'm saying the only way you can even know that a mind exists, or that a subject is experiencing a mind, is if you have a mind yourself to associate to those behaviors. Observing behaviors isn't observing the mind itself. And no, brain activity is not physical evidence of the mind. There's no empirical evidence that even ties brain activity to the mind because there's no empirical observation of the mind.
The only way we know it's there is because we experience it. If not for that there's nothing about brain activity that would even suggest the existence of a mind.Of course there is. You choose not to see it because you want it to be supernatural, yet you can't even prove the supernatural exists.
Even having a mind doesn't show a god exists.
Again, you think you know already so you'd rather no one bothered to find the real answers. I, however, would love to know the truth. So I'll wait and see.Again you accuse me of choosing what I want to be true or believe. I'm only interested in truth, and even if I were interested in deluding myself, I certainly wouldn't waste anyone else's time with my delusions. I'd keep them to myself. I am only interested in truth. Real truth. That is it.
Of course having a mind doesn't mean God exists. One step at a time. I'm showing you that just because there's no physical evidence of something that can be detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The mind is an example of that. Something you and I both know without a doubt does exist."Again you accuse me of choosing what I want to be true or believe. I'm only interested in truth,"
A person of faith looking for truth is an oxymoron. A person of faith thinks they already have the truth.
If you were actually looking it would mean you don't have faith. You can't have it both ways.
So if you are looking for truth, first thing you have to do is drop faith like a hot potato.I can understand how you'd think that, but that isn't the case. If there were something observed that simply made what I previously believed impossible, then I'd drop that belief. My belief doesn't answer all questions. Only one really. And what's observed either fits or does not fit what's believed.
True, except that belief is usually confirmational. Confirmation bias is something everyone, including me, is in danger of at all times. More so the more deeply things are believed. Hence why I choose a path of non-belief.
I have opinions, but I don't give any faith to them. I've had to drop them dozens of times in my life. No use making it harder by having skin in the game. And it's not always easy not to. You have to be vigilant and actively aware of and actively and adamantly removing that skin.
I may seem as if I have a kind of certainty about my models when I'm arguing with you, but that's because I'm using you to farther my investigations. And you've been of help, making me think harder than I do arguing with many others. That's the way I learn best. Throw out what you got and see what others have to say, and then try to find answers to their objections that actually add to your own understanding, even if they still disagree. It's often better they do, for my sake.
I only allow myself probability based on evidence. Never absolute certainty, even about facts.But I accept facts/data conditionally, but not their interpretations.
QM says there is something called wave collapse. Trying to see which slit a photon or electron goes through collapses the wave.
This led to even scientists claiming that when we try to see the photon, our minds collaps the wave.
Utter nonsense. No one observed anything. A sensor, which was not passive, collapsed the wave. Human minds had nothing to do with it.
If you watch Richard Feynman lectures, in his early years he used to say photons were definitely particles, not waves. Later he talked about photons being particles but acting like waves, and easier to calculate as waves. Still later he tells us photons act like particles and waves, and probability clouds, but they aren't any of those things.
A few years ago someone did the double slit experiment with sensor again, and then added polarization. Guess what? The wave didn't collapse.
Fact. Photons act like particles or waves in a double slit experiment. Anything else said about it is philosophy and interpretation based on these facts, but not necessarily facts themselves. And that's fine. As long as you know that.
I see people all over the internet married to one interpretation or the other. They think its a fact. But's not.
Same with religion. So many interpretations. Few facts beyond how amazing life is. And how it's pretty rough for so many. Who to believe? No one.
Study facts, not interpretations. But look at interpretations, know them, use them, but fall to nothing. Believe nothing. Have no skin in the game except the goal: finding truth.
Doesn't have to be the entire truth, though that's the ultimate goal; finding any truth is a win.Finding any truth is a win? You can't ever claim truth.
So is that the truth? Or does your claim shoot itself in the foot? Sorry. The claim kills itself logically. If your claim is true then it can't be the truth because you claim there is no such thing. If false it's obviously not true. Either way it's sunk.
This is why I constantly check myself through having discussions with people of differing views and against what's confirmed through science. I know we're all prone to confirmation bias. I'm not interested in deluding myself or going through life as if something is true that isn't. I use all the material and resources at my disposal to ensure what I think and believe is as accurate as can be achieved.
We're very similar based on what you've described here. Like with religion. So many interpretations. That's why I became a dirty heretic. Because all those religions marry themselves to centuries old interpretations, appoint themselves as the authority, and stick to it no matter what. That's why I don't attend a church. They're just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. If they were open to discussing and reassessing I'd be all in. Well maybe not. I absolutely hate going to church. Always have.
I take the approach of St. Augustine, whose considered by many religions to be a kind of forefather of the church, yet none of them take his advice. He said, "The interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge." I agree whole-heartedly.
I'm not married to any belief. If I can determine something I believed is wrong, I no longer have any use for it. I'm only interested in what's right. Right and true always wins out. I even considered an existence with no God in the same way. It just didn't hold up to scrutiny and lost out to the view I found to be the more accurate in light of reality.Similar road, different conclusions. I, of course find Christianity itself untenable and illogical. But that's my finding. Yours is the opposite. I can somewhat understand that. But can't in any way agree
Yeah, I can understand that. I definitely think it could use a good rethink for sure. The way it's presented through the organized religions and such leaves a lot of people cold. Left me cold. If it weren't for the alternative (no God) just falling apart logically I'd probably still be there. But that forced me to look again and now I have something that I feel is very much in line with reality and all that we now know. I find it to simply be the best possible explanation given all the data.
You feel no god falls apart. I feel your version of god falls apart. who's right? We can't both be right. We'll see.
Here, I suggest you read this. Just found this while having a similar discussion elsewhere ... https://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/wilder_penfield/
"Thus, the mind, as Penfield understood, can be influenced by matter, but is, in its abstract functions, not generated by matter."He finished his career as an emphatic dualist."
Right. And he may be correct, but that doesn't mean the mind is supernatural. Others disagree with him and I've seen studies where mind is shut down by electrical impulses to a particular gland in the brain, Where is it under anesthetic? This magic mind disappears. Personal experience and hearing others describe their experiences tell me even time is lost. I woke up asking when they were starting, and was surprised it was over.
Where was that supposed supernatural mind? Gone. Shut down by a drug. Some supernatural that is.
Nop. He's guessing.Because the only way to observe the 'output' of a mind is through the behaviors and actions of the physical body, which requires a functioning brain. Shut down that brain partially or completely and it's ability to express is impacted.
But that shouldn't happen if soul/mind and brain are separate. What happens when you die? You can't think anymore? I'm sure you'll say no. So what's the difference? Your mind is your soul, right? So why would it shut down when you're brain does? Doesn't make sense that it would, if it, not your brain, is you.
But it's gone. That tells me it's all brain.The brain is only for this life. The brain facilitates the interaction between a non-physical self and the physical world. Once you die you're no longer on this physical plane. You're then on the plane that's the natural environment for your non-physical self.
Jeeezzz, don't you wish you had proof of even one word of that?
Don't really need it. I don't have evidence to show it empirically and prove it to you or anyone else, but I've got all the evidence I need. The consistency between what's described in the bible centuries before they knew any of this, the way it made the distinction between the world/flesh and the spiritual side of things, what's observed and what we've learned about the natural world. The fact that it's primary theme is centered around the behavior of humans when we've learned through science it's all about behavior and how consistently everything behaves in the natural world. I have plenty of evidence for my own liking. It's simply the most logical answer in every way.
To you and many others. I know.
I don't see any consistency in the bible.
But it's hard even for some scientists to get away from numinous feelings. And I think that's partly due to our subconscious awareness that all things are connected. It's natural to turn that into spiritualism of varying sorts.
I'm with Spinoza, of course. Nature, or in my modification;energy, is the source of everything, and qualifies as god. Not a being, not outside the universe, but the universe itself, and us with it.
The findings of science are my religious moments. Just as strongly felt as those of any theist.
I get why people like you believe. But I just can't. It doesn't ring true.See, I agree with you in a lot of ways regarding Spinoza's God. Except the part about the universe itself being God. If that's the case then this God has a creator. Where the one in the bible is consistent with being beyond this universe. Something that experiences time differently. Being outside/apart from this universe would mean being outside time and space as well. Which is consistent with a God described as unchanged by time and existing in every moment every place simultaneously from our perspective.
Einstein, as I'm sure you know, also subscribed to Spinoza's idea of a God. His one objection to the idea of a personal God as the religions of the world spoke of was that this God was not interested in the personal lives on our level.
That's why I find the central interest being human behavior being so significant. In how it describes, and in what we've found, all the universe conforms to natural law, except us. We're the one creation that behaves according to our minds and wills. That, in my mind, is exactly why such a powerful God would have such a vested interest in us. We're unlike anything else in the known universe.
That's why this rings so true to me. It makes sense out of the universe, out of life, all of it." If that's the case then this God has a creator."
Why? You don't know that and can't. Energy may have always existed. No reason to think otherwise even from the perspective of BB and all the other models out there. No where is energy created.
And a god outside the universe makes no sense. You can't say with certainty that there is an outside. That's completely speculative.
"all the universe conforms to natural law, except us."
To me that's an utterly nonsensical and illogical statement. Everything has and uses will. It's called your overall conditioning. And if it were free it would be useless and irrelevant.
We learn. that's what looks like free will, and we modify our auto responses by doing so. But free in front of the word is meaningless and in my view stupid.But it is free because we can actually edit our responses. Nothing else can. The rules say do this, it does it. That how we define the laws are even there. Based on the consistency of the behavior of matter and energy. Humans are not consistent in that same way.
Unlike anything else in the known universe our behavior is determined by our reason and our will. In that way we're creators. We create things that aren't of natural law, but are of us. That's why our planet is the only one lit up with electric light and structures that alter the landscape. And that's why God has such a vested interest in our behavior.
Having free will means we have to willfully conform the God's will/natural law like everything else does naturally."But it is free because we can actually edit our responses. "
Because we can learn and change our view. Animals can and do learn too and change/edit their responses. We can do it to a greater degree, but it's just a matter of degrees.
"The rules say do this, it does it."
So do you or you couldn't function at all.
"Humans are not consistent in that same way."
Sure we are. We're just more complex which means more rules interact and cause an even more dynamic system.
"Unlike anything else in the known universe our behavior is determined by our reason and our will. "
You mean like all other biological systems. Reason and will are determined by conditioning.
"We create things that aren't of natural law, but are of us. "
No we don't. We manipulate natural materials which all have natural laws which is why we can manipulate them. We don't create material itself. Knowing cause and effect allows us to manipulate the world ever more. All animals change their environment to suit themselves. We just do it on a grand scale.
"Having free will means we have to willfully conform the God's will"
What an egotistical sadistic prick.Calling God egotistical is like saying your body's DNA is egotistical. Or the queen of an ant hill is egotistical. It's simply necessary. It's not His ego. In any complex system with multiple parts there has to be an organized system. There has to be rules. That's how things work. We've been given our own will, so for us to be an operating part of the system we have to conform to the rules and acknowledge God as the rightful authority of this system willfully.
As for animals, yes, they can do the same. They have minds and wills as well.
Yes, physically our bodies follow the laws of nature. I agree with that. But the mind is a different story. If the elements in our brains actions determined our minds and those elements could only follow natural law then we'd have as much control as a river has in choosing it's course.
When I say we create things I mean our minds are free to think and do things. Yes, physically, we're still beholden to natural law. Our physical selves. The flesh. And the materials we work with. It still has to be realized in the material world. But the mind is different. It's immaterial."Calling God egotistical is like saying your body's DNA is egotistical."
It would be were it conscious.
Sure there need to be rules. We agree there completely.
So this god gives us "free" will just so we do his will because we want to? Make sense? Not unless he's a sadistic egomaniac dick.
We get this supposed magic free will which is only there so we can "freely" choose to do his will, because he doesn't want us to use our "free" will for any other reason than to do his will because we want to?
If we do use it for ourselves its evil and according to Christianity we get punished.
So you are doing his will because you are scared not to.
Did we ask to born? Did we agree to any of this? No. It's a ridiculous game only designed to boost your god's ego. All through the OT he is doing things, as he puts it, to glorify himself.
What more do you need? A glory seeking tyrant egomaniac. That's all he is.
What ever rules there are they are made up by him. Not a natural system, right? So there is no need for them to be as you say they are because he could have done it any other way. But he chose to act like a human tyrant.
I'm just glad he's a bad fantasy.No, no, no, there's plenty we're capable of of our own will, that's not of His, that isn't harmful. It's just a powerful capability we're being given. Just as we're finding out in this life. There has to be order. There has to be a leader, a government, someone in charge, laws. Or people will step all over each other. Competing wills will clash and overlap. But finding a worthy authority is difficult to do, because, again, free will. Humans will do what they do. We see it everyday.
You're right. None of us asked to be here. You have to exist to be able to ask. So this is the next best thing. You can either agree to the terms necessary to continue existing or you can go back to not existing as before. But you can't just be a loose cannon. That's why this life is as it is. For us to experience and learn that actions and decisions have consequences. And this life gives us the opportunity to willfully choose what we want. Either existence under God's authority in the necessary way for everyone to have their own minds and wills and coexist for all eternity, or just go back to not existing if you don't like the terms. Sounds fair to me. No ego at all. In fact, it shows that He's doing it all for our sake. And going through a whole lot of trouble to do it.
