Jump to content


Photo

What Are Thoughts?


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#41 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 22 July 2009 - 04:47 AM

Okay, I think I see the difference there. Could you explain what thoughts are made from then, if not material? I want to understand how something can be non-material and yet physical at the same time.
What is the other thing(s) they are caused by?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Hi Arch,

I am really limited on time right now, so I won't be able to reply to the other forum topic for a day or so...

But to answer your question here, you must first understand the difference between physical and material.

Light is certainly physical, but not material. Light carries energy. By definition, we have called this carrier of energy a photon, but that's just a definition of an energy carrier. It is still not material.

Gravity, as I already have shown you is physical, but not material.

These concepts are real. It is only difficult for you as a materialist to comprehend them.

Light is caused by material things....ie the sun.
Gravity is inmaterial caused by who knows. (I think God) If it is caused by a curvature in space/time then it is caused by something inmaterial. Gravity at the particle level has no known cause at this time.
The strong nuclear force is the same way.

So I hope you can begin to understand the reality of physical things that are inmaterial.

Thoughts are inmaterial entities like light, that are caused by material things. Thoughts are caused by the brain, heart, hormones, oxygen, and who knows what all else. But the thoughts themselves are physical, but they have no matter.

Please understand that God is physical, just not material. He is a spirit. Except of course excluding Jesus who is both physical and material. Cristians and most other religions believe in a spirit within each living soul. That spirit is physical, but inmaterial. According to the scriptures, the spirit is highly involved with thoughts and emotions.

#42 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 22 July 2009 - 06:54 AM

Light is certainly physical, but not material.  Light carries energy.  By definition, we have called this carrier of energy a photon, but that's just a definition of an energy carrier.  It is still not material.

View Post


Light has to material too surely? A photon is a particle. It also has a measurable effect when it strikes other physical objects.

#43 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 22 July 2009 - 09:42 AM

Light has to material too surely?  A photon is a particle.  It also has a measurable effect when it strikes other physical objects.

View Post


Why is this so important to you? That light be material....?

A photon is a defined term. A quata is a defined term.

Light has no mass, no substance. But it is a carrier of enormous enery in the universe. Scientists can redefine anything as being matter, but the fact is light is inmatterial.

#44 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:19 PM

Hi Arch,

I am really limited on time right now, so I won't be able to reply to the other forum topic for a day or so...

But to answer your question here, you must first understand the difference between physical and material.

View Post


Not a problem mate. This forum is cool, but it shouldn't get in the way of real life :lol:
I think you are correct in saying we need to understand the difference between physical and material. My problem is I don't think they are any different, and that's what we'll need to work on.

Light is certainly physical, but not material.  Light carries energy.  By definition, we have called this carrier of energy a photon, but that's just a definition of an energy carrier.  It is still not material.

View Post


I'm not entirely sold on light 'carrying' energy, but that may be due to a lack of understand about light on my behalf. My question is, what is energy? I was under the impression energy was both physical and material.

Gravity, as I already have shown you is physical, but not material.

View Post


Sorry you may need to go over that again. I still can't tell the difference. If the curvature of space is what causes gravity I can definitely see it as both physical and material.

These concepts are real.  It is only difficult for you as a materialist to comprehend them.

View Post


Still not convinced they are real, but being a materialist would certainly be getting in the way of understanding.

Light is caused by material things....ie the sun. 
Gravity is inmaterial caused by who knows.  (I think God) If it is caused by a curvature in space/time then it is caused by something inmaterial.  Gravity at the particle level has no known cause at this time.
The strong nuclear force is the same way.

View Post


The part in bold is what concerns me. I just feel that a lot of what you think is in-material comes from not understanding how things work.

So I hope you can begin to understand the reality of physical things that are inmaterial.

View Post


I think I'm starting to wrap my head around the differences in theory, but we've got a ways to go before you convince me it is how reality works.

Please understand that God is physical, just not material.  He is a spirit.  Except of course excluding Jesus who is both physical and material.  Cristians and most other religions believe in a spirit within each living soul.  That spirit is physical, but inmaterial.  According to the scriptures, the spirit is highly involved with thoughts and emotions.

View Post


If God is physical and not material...does that mean he obeys the laws of the universe? Is it physical or material things that would be effected by say, gravity?

Regards,

Arch.

#45 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 23 July 2009 - 08:45 AM

Not a problem mate. This forum is cool, but it shouldn't get in the way of real life ;)
I think you are correct in saying we need to understand the difference between physical and material. My problem is I don't think they are any different, and that's what we'll need to work on.

View Post


I think we are beginning to make a liitle progress. Even though our philosophies are diametrically opposed, you apprear to be willing to discuss in an honest and open dialog.

What I highlighted is the part of your belief system that I called faith in another topic discussion. It is your axiom. Your foundational belief system.

My axiom is that God is the author of the Bible and His word is true. Every thing I do is based or related to that. Your axiom is that everthing has a natural explanation. These axioms create our paradigm of logical thinking. If we limit ourselves to just one paradigm, then we cannot see any logic in the other paradigm. If we open our mind (thoughts) to the logic of another paradigm, then we can see a broader realm of truth.

Let me use an example of playing cards...a 52 card deck. That constitutes a paradigm of a certain sequences of colors and denotations on the cards. A magician uses this paradigm to demostrate what your mind thinks is impossible. Your mind is fixed on the 52 card paradigm which allows him to "trick" you. The magician knows the truth. He is using an altered deck of cards which is another paradigm. The magician has more "truth" because he has opened his mind to both paradigms.

Science and religion are logical paradigms. One can be against the other, or both can be combined and more truth is revealed.

Me personally, I have studied science, I work in a scientific field, I have studied Chritianity as well as many other religions, and I have studied most of the denomentional divisions within Chritianity. And I also love history. From all of this, I have expanded my logical paradigm base, and from all of this, my thoughts and reasoning have led me to my current state of "truth" in my life.

Now that's my philosophy 101 lesson for the day. :(

I'm not entirely sold on light 'carrying' energy, but that may be due to a lack of understand about light on my behalf. My question is, what is energy? I was under the impression energy was both physical and material.


For the most part you are correct. However, this is all a "matter" of definition. Most energy transfer involves two material sources of energy. Howerver light acts like a wave and it acts like a particle with no mass. All of this violates the logical paradigm of matter within science, so a nerwparadigm (quantum mechanics) must be constructed to partially explain all of this. But ther are flaws in these logics as well.

Light now has momentum without mass by just changing the definition of momentum. Do you see how easy this is? If our paradigm logically blows up, let's just change the logic. This is the underlying process of science. However, my paradigm the Bible doesn't change. In fact, I am commanded not to mess with God's word. It is fixed.

Now I understand that that axiom is difficult for materialists to deal with. They generally prefer the constant change offerred by science. But in reality it is a constant change of the logic. The logic doesn't change in my axiom. Therefore, I can always test the logic. It it fails, then I would drop it. However, I haven't found a scientific or religious test that causes my axiom to fail yet. I have found countless many in science, so the logic gets changed over and over again. It is as simple as changing definitions as I showed you in an earlier post from Websters dictionary on "nature".

Sorry you may need to go over that again. I still can't tell the difference. If the curvature of space is what causes gravity I can definitely see it as both physical and material.


OK, it is difficult, so here's my try....

Gravity is physical (can be observed and measured), but is not material (isn't made up of substantive parts).

If gravity is caused by a curvature of space/time, have you ever thought about just what that means? Time is not material. Space is not material. Both are physical. So if gravity is caused by a space/time curvature then this non material thing is caused by two non-material things. Doesn't that now just blow away your mind (thoughts)?

Also, have you ever considered the paradox of the BBT? The theory clearly states that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. Basically it also postulates that space didn't exist either. That's why there are infinities involved in the equations for gravity at the BB. What that means is that logically this cannot be. For me, in a different paradigm, that means that science is just discovering that even in a natural model "god-like" attributes must exist.

Still not convinced they are real, but being a materialist would certainly be getting in the way of understanding.
The part in bold is what concerns me. I just feel that a lot of what you think is in-material comes from not understanding how things work.


I agree to an extent. However, the fact remains that on the macro level, the more we learn about the universe, the larger and more complex it becomes. And on the micro, the smaller and more complex things get. So the fact remains, that the more we learn, the less we really know.

I think I'm starting to wrap my head around the differences in theory, but we've got a ways to go before you convince me it is how reality works.
If God is physical and not material...does that mean he obeys the laws of the universe? Is it physical or material things that would be effected by say, gravity?


Yes, and no. I will reword what I think you mean. We believe God is the creator of nature. He created and organized (designed) the laws of nature. As any lawmaker, God works within the laws He created, because they are "good" laws.

For instance, we believe that God caused the flood of Noah. That doesn't mean he "poofed" anything. No magic. That means God was involved in the "natural process" of the fountains of the deep bursting forth. These giant geisers caused sustantial techtonic activity, as well as rain, erosion, extinction, and a whole host of other things. God uses nature. Every miracle that God does has part of it that can be explained naturally.

The bigger question should be, why does nature have laws? Why do you have a mind? Why do you have thoughts? Why are you arguing with a computer screen with letters on it? Why do you believe that I even exist? There are a host of other natural explanations for the letters on your screen.(haven't you seen the Matrix?)

Just some things to ponder in your spare time.... Don

#46 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 July 2009 - 07:57 PM

I think we are beginning to make a liitle progress.  Even though our philosophies are diametrically opposed, you appear to be willing to discuss in an honest and open dialog.

View Post


Not always easy and you often have to give yourself a mental slap on the hand, but I do try. Straight back at you by the way.

My axiom is that God is the author of the Bible and His word is true.  Every thing I do is based or related to that.  Your axiom is that everthing has a natural explanation.  These axioms create our paradigm of logical thinking.  If we limit ourselves to just one paradigm, then we cannot see any logic in the other paradigm.  If we open our mind (thoughts) to the logic of another paradigm, then we can see a broader realm of truth.

Let me use an example of playing cards...a 52 card deck.  That constitutes a paradigm of a certain sequences of colors and denotations on the cards.  A magician uses this paradigm to demostrate what your mind thinks is impossible.  Your mind is fixed on the 52 card paradigm which allows him to "trick" you.  The magician knows the truth.  He is using an altered deck of cards which is another paradigm.  The magician has more "truth" because he has opened his mind to both paradigms.

Science and religion are logical paradigms.  One can be against the other, or both can be combined and more truth is revealed.

Me personally, I have studied science, I work in a scientific field, I have studied Chritianity as well as many other religions, and I have studied most of the denomentional divisions within Chritianity.  And I also love history.  From all of this, I have expanded my logical paradigm base, and from all of this, my thoughts and reasoning have led me to my current state of "truth" in my life.

Now that's my philosophy 101 lesson for the day.

View Post


And a rather good one at that ;)

The chunk I've bolded there is because we fit into a similar boat. I too love history and like to study religion and science. Sadly I don't work in a scientific field; I am a 3D designer. My ultimate goal would be to work at a Pixar or Dreamworks company, however I'd love to do some 3D simulation for NASA or something similar along the way.

What is your field by the way?

For the most part you are correct.  However, this is all a "matter" of definition.

View Post


That is a terrible pun and someone should hurt you for it :)

Most energy transfer involves two material sources of energy.  Howerver light acts like a wave and it acts like a particle with no mass.  All of this violates the logical paradigm of matter within science, so a nerwparadigm (quantum mechanics) must be constructed to partially explain all of this.  But there are flaws in these logics as well.

View Post


Agreed, there is a lot we don't understand.

OK, it is difficult, so here's my try....

Gravity is physical (can be observed and measured), but is not material (isn't made up of substantive parts).

If gravity is caused by a curvature of space/time, have you ever thought about just what that means?  Time is not material.  Space is not material.  Both are physical.  So if gravity is caused by a space/time curvature then this non material thing is caused by two non-material things.  Doesn't that now just blow away your mind (thoughts)?

View Post


Okay, I think we're on the same page with how this all theoretically works :(
What I'd like to see you try and reason now is why you think gravity isn't material.

As I pointed out in a previous post, there is current research being done in an attempt to prove the existence of gravitons (gravity particles). If these are found it means gravity is indeed material.

Would you agree that at present we just don't know if gravity is material or not, or do you have a solid reason for putting it in the 'in-material' category?

Also, have you ever considered the paradox of the BBT?  The theory clearly states that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.  Basically it also postulates that space didn't exist either.  That's why there are infinities involved in the equations for gravity at the BB.  What that means is that logically this cannot be.  For me, in a different paradigm, that means that science is just discovering that even in a natural model "god-like" attributes must exist.

View Post


I'll address the bold point first. My knowledge of BBT is pretty limited, but I have serious doubts scientists are trying to work on this theory and ignoring the logical problems. What I've heard about the BBT all adds up for me and makes logical sense, but again what I know is only scratching the surface.
The other point I wanted to make about the bold bit was that as you said, science is having to constantly change the way we logically look at things. Perhaps it makes perfect sense and you're just looking at it with the wrong logic? :lol:

As for having 'God-like' properties...no disagreement here.

I agree to an extent.  However, the fact remains that on the macro level, the more we learn about the universe, the larger and more complex it becomes.  And on the micro, the smaller and more complex things get.  So the fact remains, that the more we learn, the less we really know.

View Post


Quite a paradox you've got there. Actually, just for clarity I'd point out that we don't actually know less, we just know that we know less than what we originally thought we didn't know (and I hope that totally messes with your head :lol:).

Yes, and no.  I will reword what I think you mean.  We believe God is the creator of nature.  He created and organized (designed) the laws of nature.  As any lawmaker, God works within the laws He created, because they are "good" laws.

View Post


Fair enough. He obeys the laws because he's a good 'person'. Theoretically though, he could break them correct? I'd just like to get an idea of whether or not in-material things obey natural laws or not. Perhaps God is not the best example to work with. Do 'thoughts' obey cause and effect for example?

God uses nature. Every miracle that God does has part of it that can be explained naturally.

View Post


I like this part. I think this kind of thinking could be used to explain a lot about our world and human thinking.
Question, if you (like me) think that every work of God can be explained naturally, why do you attribute it to God, rather than nature? Is this just a logical conclusion for you, based on the historical accuracies of the Bible?

The bigger question should be, why does nature have laws?  Why do you have a mind?  Why do you have thoughts?  Why are you arguing with a computer screen with letters on it? Why do you believe that I even exist?  There are a host of other natural explanations for the letters on your screen.(haven't you seen the Matrix?)

View Post


Because the alternative is that I'm talking to myself and am in fact insane. I don't really like that conclusion much.

Seriously though, I think these are questions that science will one day have to answer if it wishes to be taken seriously. We're still a long way from writing all the laws of the universe down and interpreting them. Once that's done then we can start to puzzle out why they are there in the first place.

Regards,

Arch.

P.S. Do you have any idea how much I have to edit these posts to try and keep them under 10 quotes. Blah!!

#47 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 26 July 2009 - 02:15 PM

What is your field by the way?

View Post


I have an educational background in Mechanical Engineering. I currently am President of a small company which resharpens medical devices for multiple use. we also sharpen and manufacture carbide cutting tools for the metal cutting industry.

What I'd like to see you try and reason now is why you think gravity isn't material.

As I pointed out in a previous post, there is current research being done in an attempt to prove the existence of gravitons (gravity particles). If these are found it means gravity is indeed material.

Would you agree that at present we just don't know if gravity is material or not, or do you have a solid reason for putting it in the 'in-material' category?


Yes, there is zero evidence that it is material. It is only the faith in the axiom of science that cause these pursuits of scientific study. Abiogenesis is the same way. There is no evidence for it, only the knowledge that life exists. It is the faith part of science that I have trouble with, because it is not based on observable repeatable phenomena.

I'll address the bold point first. My knowledge of BBT is pretty limited, but I have serious doubts scientists are trying to work on this theory and ignoring the logical problems. What I've heard about the BBT all adds up for me and makes logical sense, but again what I know is only scratching the surface.


Scientist don't ignore this. They know it doesn't make sence. That's just one of the reasons to look for the graviton.

The other point I wanted to make about the bold bit was that as you said, science is having to constantly change the way we logically look at things. Perhaps it makes perfect sense and you're just looking at it with the wrong logic? ;)


You might be making a strawman argument in your question. People in this forum have no qualms with observable repeatable science. None.

we do have problems with the historical sciences which look into the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Evolution, BBT, and Abiogenesis all fit this category. They are highly succeptable to bias and interpretation.

As for having 'God-like' properties...no disagreement here.


So nature is God-like?

Fair enough. He obeys the laws because he's a good 'person'. Theoretically though, he could break them correct? I'd just like to get an idea of whether or not in-material things obey natural laws or not. Perhaps God is not the best example to work with. Do 'thoughts' obey cause and effect for example?


Thoughts obey cause and effect. As I said earlier, I believe the spirit is a fundamental causing agent of thoughts as well as the material aspects of the flesh. The spirit is not a supernatural entity in my opinion. It is natural. It can be destroyed. It is not immortal. I was part of God's creation. All of God's creation is natural.

Question, if you (like me) think that every work of God can be explained naturally, why do you attribute it to God, rather than nature? Is this just a logical conclusion for you, based on the historical accuracies of the Bible?
Because the alternative is that I'm talking to myself and am in fact insane. I don't really like that conclusion much.


I do not think that every work of God can be explained naturally. I said that God works through his natural creation. For instance science says that rain is caused by condensation in the sky on micro particles which finally drops to the earth. The Bible says God causes the rain. People pray to God for Rain. My paradigm allows me to conclude that both are true. God caused the winds to blow, condensation to start, and rain to fall. God set all these laws in place. Your paradigm prevents that conclusion. So Nature causes the rain. Well, just what is nature then? Scientifically nature is the cause of every phenomena. Isn't that just as a religious of a philosophy as mine is?

#48 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 July 2009 - 05:37 PM

I have an educational background in Mechanical Engineering.  I currently am President of a small company which resharpens medical devices for multiple use.  we also sharpen and manufacture carbide cutting tools for the metal cutting industry.

View Post


Ooh, sounds important. I'd love to hear more about it some time.

Yes,  there is zero evidence that it is material.  It is only the faith in the axiom of science that cause these pursuits of scientific study.  Abiogenesis is the same way.  There is no evidence for it, only the knowledge that life exists.  It is the faith part of science that I have trouble with, because it is not based on observable repeatable phenomena.

View Post


Sigh... sorry Performedge, but it really is one of my pet peeves that people on this site keep using the word "Zero" when referring to scientific evidence they don't agree with. There is plenty of evidence for gravitons, abiogenesis and the Big Bang for those that take the time to look.

A while ago I started listening to some audio tapes that covered Big Bang theory. I was flabbergasted at the amount of evidence that leads to the Big Bang. I thought it was predominantly looking at the movement of space and extrapolating it backwards, but it's so much more than that.

I'm not sure of the exact figures for the most up to date information on abiogenesis, but I believe we have recreated approximately half of the amino acids required for life. That's heaps of evidence.

People here always seems to claim that unless it's proven 99.99% of the way it counts as 'zero' evidence, which is simply not true.

Even if you are unaware of the evidence for gravity being material, that doesn't lead you to thinking of it as in-material. You're just rejecting the material evidence; I would like to know what reasons you have for believing gravity to be in-material, other than a lack of understanding.

Scientist don't ignore this.  They know it doesn't make sence.  That's just one of the reasons to look for the graviton.

View Post


Okay, I think we're fairly well in agreement on this point ;)

You might be making a strawman argument in your question.  People in this forum have no qualms with observable repeatable science.  None.
we do have problems with the historical sciences which look into the unobservable, unrepeatable past.  Evolution, BBT, and Abiogenesis all fit this category.  They are highly succeptable to bias and interpretation.

View Post


Hmm, could be a bit of a strawman, I'm not sure. The only point I'm trying to make is I think you're jumping to conclusions based on a lack of knowledge and not for a specific reason.

So nature is God-like?

View Post


Again, this is based on a lack of understanding. With the current logic we employ, yes nature must be God-like. But that's only because we assume our logic is correct.

Thoughts obey cause and effect.  As I said earlier, I believe the spirit is a fundamental causing agent of thoughts as well as the material aspects of the flesh.  The spirit is not a supernatural entity in my opinion.  It is natural.  It can be destroyed.  It is not immortal.  I was part of God's creation.  All of God's creation is natural.

View Post


So just to lay out the major points so far:

Material = obeys natural laws and is observable.
In-material = obeys natural laws and is not observable.

Simply put, does this sum things up okay?

I do not think that every work of God can be explained naturally.  I said that God works through his natural creation.  For instance science says that rain is caused by condensation in the sky on micro particles which finally drops to the earth.  The Bible says God causes the rain.  People pray to God for Rain.  My paradigm allows me to conclude that both are true.  God caused the winds to blow, condensation to start, and rain to fall.  God set all these laws in place.

View Post


Fair enough. That's a good example of God working naturally. Do you have an example of God working without natural means?

Your paradigm prevents that conclusion.  So Nature causes the rain.  Well, just what is nature then?  Scientifically nature is the cause of every phenomena.  Isn't that just as a religious of a philosophy as mine is?

View Post


No, religion worships a deity. Nature is just a word that collectively describes what occurs without attributing it to anything or anyone. I would agree that they are both philosophies to a degree, but mine is not religious.

The other difference is I can show you how condensation works, but you cannot show me how God causes the winds to blow. Mine is based on the tangible and observable, yours is based on faith.

Regards,

Arch.

#49 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 26 July 2009 - 07:03 PM

Sigh... sorry Performedge, but it really is one of my pet peeves that people on this site keep using the word "Zero" when referring to scientific evidence they don't agree with. There is plenty of evidence for gravitons, abiogenesis and the Big Bang for those that take the time to look.

View Post


Sigh? My pet peeve is false claims and strawman arguments.

Please present one ounce of evidence for gravitons.

Please present one ounce of evidence that suggests life can come from non-life.

You presented a strawman with the BBT which I didn't mention in context.

I'm not sure of the exact figures for the most up to date information on abiogenesis, but I believe we have recreated approximately half of the amino acids required for life. That's heaps of evidence.


Please pray tell, how would the existence or creation of amino acids lead to a conclusion that life can from non-life. It's a false conclusion. An amino acid to a living cell is like a molecule to a galaxy.

People here always seems to claim that unless it's proven 99.99% of the way it counts as 'zero' evidence, which is simply not true.


Nope, I said zero, and I meant zero.

Even if you are unaware of the evidence for gravity being material, that doesn't lead you to thinking of it as in-material. You're just rejecting the material evidence; I would like to know what reasons you have for believing gravity to be in-material, other than a lack of understanding.


There is no evidence to date of any particle nature of gravity. That by definition makes it non-material. I have said this earlier....If gravity is a curvature of space/time then both space and time are non-material entities.

The evidence is that it is non-material.

Again, this is based on a lack of understanding. With the current logic we employ, yes nature must be God-like. But that's only because we assume our logic is correct.


You have just made my point. To any believer in the Judaeo/Christians God, God is the creator of the universe and all life. God is all powerful. God is ever present. God is eternal (has no beginning) etc.

Science has concluded that nature is the creator of the universe. Nature is the creator of life. Nature holds all the power in the universe. Nature is ever present. Nature had no beginning (it existed before the BBT).

So the logical conclusion is that we both believe in a god. I believe in God. You believe in Nature which holds all the attributes of God. It's all a matter of definition.

So just to lay out the major points so far:

Material = obeys natural laws and is observable.
In-material = obeys natural laws and is not observable.

Simply put, does this sum things up okay?


No, not at all. I have stated this clearly before...

Material = made up of matter, has substance. And yes it is observable and obeys natural laws.

In-material = not made up of matter, has no substance. It also obeys natural lays and is observable.

Fair enough. That's a good example of God working naturally. Do you have an example of God working without natural means?


I assume you mean supernaturally. Yes, of course. When God created the universe, He acted supernaturally. When God created life, He acted supernaturally. When Jesus was conceived, God acted supernaturally. When Jesus was resurrected, God acted supernaturally.

No, religion worships a deity. Nature is just a word that collectively describes what occurs without attributing it to anything or anyone. I would agree that they are both philosophies to a degree, but mine is not religious.


I disagree....Source

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[11] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. Thus religion is considered by some sources to extend to causes, principles, or activities believed in with zeal or conscientious devotion concerning points or matters of ethics or conscience, and not necessarily including belief in the supernatural.[12]



The other difference is I can show you how condensation works, but you cannot show me how God causes the winds to blow. Mine is based on the tangible and observable, yours is based on faith.


I agree completely!

But you cannot show me how the BB happened. That's based on faith. You cannot show me how abiogenesis happened. That is based on faith. You cannot show me how one animal evolves into another. That is based on faith. Not all science is observable and repeatable my friend. I accept observable and repeatable science. I do not accept theories based on the distant past and millions of years of missing observations.

A magician relies on you observing only part of the sequences and then drawing false conclusions. That's exactly what you have in those scientific areas above. Yes there is some evidence for all of these theories, but there is much more missing evidence than existing evidence. Therefore, there is ample room for false conclusions that are prejudiced by the axiom of naturalism, which is religious.

#50 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 July 2009 - 10:10 PM

Please keep in mind I'm not interested in having a debate about whether this data is correct (there are other forums for that). What you asked for was evidence that supported the theories and here is a very small selection. Whether you agree with the evidence is irrelevant from it's existence.

Gravitons: Has there been new evidence for gravitons

Abiogenesis: First Evidence for abiogenesis?

Big Bang: Evidence for the Big Bang: Talk Origins

Please pray tell, how would the existence or creation of amino acids lead to a conclusion that life can from non-life.  It's a false conclusion.  An amino acid to a living cell is like a molecule to a galaxy.

View Post


Yes, it is a little more complicated than that. But that does not make it a false conclusion; it is a work in progress.

Wikipedia: Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

Nope, I said zero, and I meant zero.

View Post


I'm sure you simply weren't aware ;) A quick read of the above articles will show you there is indeed evidence.

There is no evidence to date of any particle nature of gravity.  That by definition makes it non-material.  I have said this earlier....If gravity is a curvature of space/time then both space and time are non-material entities.

View Post


No, that by definition means you have no evidence. You are making assumptions from a lack of information. Is there anything that would lead you to believe something is non-material, or is it simply an assumption based on not having evidence?

No, not at all.  I have stated this clearly before...

Material = made up of matter, has substance.  And yes it is observable and obeys natural laws.

In-material = not made up of matter, has no substance.  It also obeys natural lays and is observable.

View Post


Sorry my mistake, I wasn't clear enough. I was including "made of matter" under "observable". I think we agree on the definitions.

Could you please tell me again how in-material things are observable? Perhaps use 'thoughts' as the example again; it makes things a little clearer for me than using God.

I assume you mean supernaturally.  Yes, of course.  When God created the universe, He acted supernaturally.  When God created life, He acted supernaturally.  When Jesus was conceived, God acted supernaturally.  When Jesus was resurrected, God acted supernaturally.

View Post


Yes, I did mean supernatural ;) Again, good examples. I'm wondering though if you might have something a little more modern? Something we can observe today? Or has God only been working with natural means for the past 2000 years?

I disagree....Source

View Post


I think one of us is missing something in that article. I found nothing in there that led me to think nature, science or even atheism is a religion. Perhaps a specific quote would clear things up?

But you cannot show me how the BB happened.  That's based on faith.  You cannot show me how abiogenesis happened.  That is based on faith.  You cannot show me how one animal evolves into another.  That is based on faith.

View Post


No, they are based on evidence, not faith. To claim them as absolutely, definitively the way it happened...that would be faith.

Not all science is observable and repeatable my friend.  I accept observable and repeatable science.  I do not accept theories based on the distant past and millions of years of missing observations.

View Post


Haha, then it's not science, or at the very least not very good science. Fortunately all of the theories listed in your posts do have observable, repeatable science. And it is not the millions of years of missing observations that make the theories, but the observable bits within those millions of years.

A magician relies on you observing only part of the sequences and then drawing false conclusions.  That's exactly what you have in those scientific areas above.

View Post


It is certainly a possibility, however you are making vast assumptions by saying that it is definite. Your God is a fantastic magician as he's deceived us very well :P

Yes there is some evidence for all of these theories, but there is much more missing evidence than existing evidence.

View Post


Hang on, if you agree there is some evidence, why are you using the word 'zero'. And why did you make me go to the effort of finding articles for you? I admit, I feel a little cheated here.

Regards,

Arch.

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 August 2009 - 06:48 AM

I believe this belongs here:

http://bethinking.or...alism-a96oreg10

This is dry and I'm listening to it again to see if I can get a better handle on what is being said. The major premise is to question our ability to form proper beliefs based on evolutionary assumptions.

This is a fair warning. You need your thinking cap and a gallon mug of coffee will be needed as well. :)

#52 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 August 2009 - 07:29 PM

This thread has been quite for a while. I'm not sure if it's dying off or if people have just forgotten to come back to it.

Either way, I'm going to try and write a summary of what we've discussed so far. Hopefully it will serve as a conclusion to this thread, or it will spark discussion again and we can continue.
---------------------------------------

I began by asking the question, are thoughts physical or metaphysical?

Adam then made the comparison between thoughts and love, and asked for physical evidence of love. The same connection can be made between any emotion.

Judy then made the connection between these emotional states and the electronic impulses of the brain, putting this forward as proof of emotions and thoughts being physical.

The question was then posed, do these impulses cause thoughts, or do the thoughts cause the impulses? After much debate I still hold the opinion that they are one and the same, and that the cause of thoughts comes from the surrounding environment.

This then raises the issue of whether or not free will is simply an illusion, as it implies people are slaves to cause and effect. Since this wasn't entirely relevant to the question of thoughts being metaphysical the train of thought was abandoned temporarily. If we reach an agreement on whether thoughts are physical or not, perhaps we could discuss these implications?

Performedge then raised the question of whether or not thoughts could be physical, but immaterial. In a nutshell this means that thoughts would obey the laws of the universe (cause and effect for example) but would not have a material body.

Although an interesting proposition, Performedge's theory so far has fallen into the "God of the gaps" argument. All 'evidence' supplied so far has been from a lack of knowledge about a specific area of study and nothing has been presented to back up this idea.

At present I believe thoughts and emotions are definitely physical, and not metaphysical or even immaterial. All the evidence we have leads us to a physical connect within the brain. We also understand that the functions within the brain are subject to the laws of the universe, such as cause and effect; another reason to believe them to be physical.

If anyone has any disagreements, or anything additional to add, type now or forever hold your peace ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#53 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 12 August 2009 - 05:23 PM

I have been discussing something similar in another forum, and although the topic of that thread was whether or not freewill is an illusion, I think the position I maintain addresses the nature of what thought is as well.

Instead of redirecting you to the forum to search the thread in order to get my point, I have cut and pasted one of my responses to another member with whom I am debating with. Just to give you a little background information to the following response, DBT, the member whom I am engaging in discourse with maintains the position that freewill is an illusion. He suggests that because our consciousness, or our subjective self, is determined by an intricate network of neurons firing as it responds to stimuli--or as he says information input--and because this process is what dictates what the subjective experience is, that the subjective self is in fact not the one doing the deciding. That the awareness we typically think of ourselves as being, is really after the fact of what he considers making the decision. That is to say, what we consider our conscious decisions is in fact necessarily determined by our inherent biology condition and our placement in our environment.

The following response is my refutation to his position, explaining the nature of consciousness, thoughts, and the physical and how they relate. Let me know what you guys think.

Quote:Originally Posted by philosophik

I think your misconception is that you think that the waking consciousness(ego) is the only consciousness there is,


Quote:Originally Posted by DBT

Not at all, I've been pointing out the multi faceted nature of consciousness and its various attributes for years. The problem is having to reiterate everything again and again with every newcomer.



Sorry, I haven't had a chance to look over many of the threads to have noticed that you hold such a position, and based solely on what you have expressed in this thread it did not seem to me that you did. I totally agree that it becomes bothersome to repeatidly restate your position over and over again.

I guess my question to you is this: If you agree that consciousness is multi faceted, and your human consciousness is one of those facets, how are the other facets--such as the ones your subjective consciousness typically thinks of as not being you because those facets are percieved--not you?

To use a metaphor, it would be like saying that individual facets of an infinitely faceted diamond can be conscious, and therefore, the diamond as a whole is consciousness. And one facet of the diamond, being aware of the other facets of the diamond, sees himself as a subjective observer--thinking he is literally not the same thing as the other facets, that he is somehow different. Would you agree with this facet as being correct in thinking such? In thinking that it is different than being the diamond although the opposite is absolutely the case. Or in other words, if this facet is necessarily the diamond, and the diamond is necessarily all the facets, would you not assert that the facet is mistaken in thinking he is not the other facets?

To address freewill using this scenario, the diamond as a whole freely chooses the nature of it's consciousness, including the subjective experience of each facet. The whole diamond can make each facet believe what ever the diamond wants each facet to think as being true. Because there is nothing other than the diamond itself that can dictate how it will be. Now one might say that it is the diamond as a whole with freewill, and each individual facet does not have such a liberty, for the diamond as a whole is what decides what each facet will be conscious of. However, to say each individual facet does not have freewill would be to say that the diamond as whole does not either, for each facet being inexorably connected is the whole diamond.




Quote: Originally Posted by philosophik

You ever ask yourself who or what is doing the determining? You say biological and informational determinism is what dictates our consciousness but what makes you think it is not the other way around? I realize that our physiological make up and our placement in our invironment (which dictates our inormation input) is responsible for how we experience our waking consciousness, but since our waking consciousness is our physiological makeup and our placement in our environment, and if those elements are not doing the deciding, then what is? Is there any other possibility?


Quote: Originally Posted by DBT

That's were the multi faceted nature of consciousness comes in. The primary form of consciousness is perception. Perception begins when sensory data reaches the visual,auditory, etc, lobes and is propogated throughout the system being integrated with memory and formed into an internal represention of that sensory data, perception of the external world.

What is doing the determining is basically an interaction between the information processing mechanism itself, the brain, and the information it receives from its senses. Fundamentally speaking, that is all there is. Biolology and information.


So in other words, the nature of the biological makeup of an organism and what it percieves in the world (the information input), is in fact, what dictates and determines the consciousness that the organism will have; hence, biology in conjunction with it's environment(information input) is what is doing the determining on what the subjective experience will be, that is what is doing the choosing on how things will be. Am I correct so far in interpreting what you have just said?

To tie this in with my diamond analogy, our subjective experience is a facet, looking at other facets (environment) saying "I"m not you"--and doing it to the point that we think we are no longer inexorably connected to it. When in fact, the opposite is surely the case. For the most part, we beilieve that our subjective experience is the only thing that makes us us, and that it is the only thing we control.

You object to this notion of the subjective self as being in control, and you are correct in pointing out our subjective experience is dictated, and a direct result of our biology and environment. However, you conclude that because our biology and environment, is in fact, what is doing the choosing of how and what we subjectively experience, that our subjective self does not have freewill. However, by virtue of being our biology and environment--or in other words, because our biology, environment, and subjective experience are absolutely one in the same---our subjective self has freewill; for there is no way the whole (biology/environment/reality as consciousness) can have the liberty to choose between two realisable alternatives, while simultaneously denying each and every one of it's facet's (subjective experience as a part of the whole) the ability to exercise such a liberty to choose-- that is utterly impossible.


So in conclusion, thoughts are consciousness, and seeing how everything is conciousness, there can be no distinction made between thoughts and the physical, for they are necessarily the same thing. In other words, to say that thoughts and the physical are different, is to say that consciousness is not itself, and seeing how consciousness can't be anything other than itself, it becomes pointless to even consider that thoughts are not physical; for the only thing that leads us to believe such a thing, is that we are subject to the same dilema as the 'conscious facet' of the diamond, thinking our subjective self is truly what makes us us, and that we are not what we percieve.

#54 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 August 2009 - 06:21 PM

That diamond example really lost me until the last paragraph. I agree with your position that consciousness cannot be separated from the physical entities that make it up, however I'm not convinced this leads to free will.

Regardless of whether thoughts are made up of individual systems (facets) or the whole (you), they are still driven by outside influences, and subject to cause and effect. At what point do you get to choose what effect you wish to perform? Isn't that choice still based on the original cause?

I admit you really lost me with the diamond facets example, so I may be going off on a completely wrong tangent here.

Regards,

Arch.

#55 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 12 August 2009 - 10:40 PM

That diamond example really lost me until the last paragraph. I agree with your position that consciousness cannot be separated from the physical entities that make it up, however I'm not convinced this leads to free will.

View Post


Think of the diamond as our reality (everything that can possibly exist in this moment), and because reality is consciousness, it can dictate how it will perceive itself. You are one facet, looking at reality and thinking that you are somehow not what you perceive--that you exist in your environment but the environment is not you. This is because it is human nature to create a subjective paradigm that is dualistic in nature (self vs. environment). We think that our subjective consciousness is different than the consciousness we perceive(environment). Not realizing that it is this way because reality as consciousness chooses for it to be, and that reality as consciousness utilizes unrestricted freewill in the absolute sense of the word to do so.

It would then be erroneous to say that any aspect of reality does not have freewill, because you can not separate reality from itself for all of it is necessarily inexorably connected; so if all reality has freewill, then every part necessarily does to. And because we are a part of reality, there is no way we cannot have freewill.

Regardless of whether thoughts are made up of individual systems (facets) or the whole (you), they are still driven by outside influences, and subject to cause and effect. At what point do you get to choose what effect you wish to perform? Isn't that choice still based on the original cause?

I admit you really lost me with the diamond facets example, so I may be going off on a completely wrong tangent here.

View Post


Sorry, it makes so much sense to me that I forget it is a difficult concept to grasp, especially because of the inherent inadequacies of language, which is the only means available to convey such a notion. That is no way a knock on your comprehension ability, because I can tell by all your post that you are a highly intelligent, open minded person--it is my fault not realising that because I understand what I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be clear to others. Furthermore, I forget that to look at our-self this way goes against the very nature of what it is to be human; our dilemma however, is not realising that human beings is not all we truly are.

So let me try again, think of your consciousness in terms of a dichotomy, where there is your conscious self--or in other words, your subjective awareness--as one part of the dichotomy, and your unconscious self (everything that your conscious self is unaware of as being you, such as all of the environment and to a certain degree your biology) as the other. Now, because your subjective consciousness is unaware of the fact that your unconscious self's(biology/environment) actions are a result of your very own freewill, it does not mean that being dictated by, and a product of your environment and biology was not your choice. Because as I have pointed out earlier, your unconscious self is just as much you as your conscious self is. Despite the dichotomy that I have created, there exist no real division that results in one half of the dichotomy as not still being literally you. Is it any clearer?

Here is a simple way to demonstrate the unconscious self and subjective consciousness working together in harmony predicated on freewill. Ask yourself, and deeply contemplate this question: Do I know how to be me and everything that that entails? If you answer yes, then how can you justify that it is not in fact both aspects of your conscious dichotomy choosing to do so? Or in other words, if you know how to be you, and you are you, then why would you be you, if in fact, you did not decide to be? If you answer no, then how is it that you are you if you don't know how to be?

#56 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 August 2009 - 11:43 PM

Think of the diamond as our reality (everything that can possibly exist in this moment), and because reality is consciousness, it can dictate how it will perceive itself. You are one facet, looking at reality and thinking that you are somehow not what you perceive--that you exist in your environment but the environment is not you. This is because it is human nature to create a subjective paradigm that is dualistic in nature (self vs. environment). We think that our subjective consciousness is different than the consciousness we perceive(environment). Not realizing that it is this way because reality as consciousness chooses for it to be, and that reality as consciousness utilizes unrestricted freewill in the absolute sense of the word to do so.

It would then be erroneous to say that any aspect of reality does not have freewill, because you can not separate reality from itself for all of it is necessarily inexorably connected; so if all reality has freewill, then every part necessarily does to. And because we are a part of reality, there is no way we cannot have freewill.

View Post


Okay, the only part here I don't understand is how you've attributed consciousness to reality. But I think I can grasp how you think self and reality/environment are interconnected.

That is no way a knock on your comprehension ability, because I can tell by all your post that you are a highly intelligent, open minded person--

View Post


Thank you :)

Not to worry, I can detect a philosophers writing. I know this stuff wont be easy to wrap my head around.

it is my fault not realising that because I understand what I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be clear to others. Furthermore, I forget that to look at our-self this way goes against the very nature of what it is to be human; our dilemma however, is not realising that human beings is not all we truly are.

So let me try again, think of your consciousness in terms of a dichotomy, where there is your conscious self--or in other words, your subjective awareness--as one part of the dichotomy, and your unconscious self (everything that your conscious self is unaware of as being you, such as all of the environment and to a certain degree your biology) as the other. Now, because your subjective consciousness is unaware of the fact that your unconscious self's(biology/environment) actions are a result of your very own freewill, it does not mean that being dictated by, and a product of your environment and biology was not your choice. Because as I have pointed out earlier, your unconscious self is just as much you as your conscious self is. Despite the dichotomy that I have created, there exist no real division that results in one half of the dichotomy as not still being literally you. Is it any clearer?

View Post


Okay, I'll have a go at trying to summarize and simplify what I think you're trying to say.

Previously I've been coming at the idea of free will from the position of the environment does something, that in turn effects us and makes us perform a certain action. What you're trying to do is look at it from the other side...we effect the environment which in turn acts in a specific way, which then effects us, causing us to perform another action which effects the environment.

Because we and the environment are so interconnected by this cause/effect system it can be said that we (ourselves and the environment) are both the same system.

I fear you may have broken my brain :D Am I even close to understanding this?

Here is a simple way to demonstrate the unconscious self and subjective consciousness working together in harmony predicated on freewill. Ask yourself, and deeply contemplate this question: Do I know how to be me and everything that that entails?  If you answer yes, then how can you justify that it is not in fact both aspects of your conscious dichotomy choosing to do so? Or in other words, if you know how to be you, and you are you, then why would you be you, if in fact, you did not decide to be? If you answer no, then how is it that you are you if you don't know how to be?

View Post


Not so sure on this part. It seemed to be making some sense, then I tried substituting 'myself' for a rock and it didn't work quite so well. A rock doesn't 'choose' to be a rock (not that I'm aware of) and yet I'd still say it's a rock, even though it doesn't know how to be one.

Regards,

Arch.

#57 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 13 August 2009 - 04:15 AM

Okay, the only part here I don't understand is how you've attributed consciousness to reality. But I think I can grasp how you think self and reality/environment are interconnected.

View Post


Your getting so close, your almost there! OK, look at this way. Consciousness is, quite literally, being everything that can possibly exist in one infinite, eternally present(I know this term seems contradictory, but it perfectly describes what time really is), indivisible realty. What!?! Is what I first said after hearing myself say that. The reason for this reaction, is because to attempt to think about and conceptualize the nature of this consciousness as a whole, is to instantly doom yourself to failure, and this for one main reason--because the moment you attempt to conceptualize it, you are inevitably only experiencing one infinitesimally small aspect of it. Consciousness as reality absolutely can not be experienced in it's totality by one of it's aspects that doesn't realise that it is it. Ironic, isn't it.

Okay, I'll have a go at trying to summarize and simplify what I think you're trying to say.

Previously I've been coming at the idea of free will from the position of the environment does something, that in turn effects us and makes us perform a certain action. What you're trying to do is look at it from the other side...we effect the environment which in turn acts in a specific way, which then effects us, causing us to perform another action which effects the environment.

Because we and the environment are so interconnected by this cause/effect system it can be said that we (ourselves and the environment) are both the same system.

View Post


Yes and no. To say that you and your environment are the 'same system' carries the connotation of you knowing that you are connected to the environment via cause/effect but that you think the environment is not literally you. I'm saying that it is. Because your environment and your subjective self are both absolutely the exact same thing--reality as consciousness--it's just that you think that you are not.

I fear you may have broken my brain :blink: Am I even close to understanding this?

View Post


Getting closer by the minute, I can tell it will definately sink in.


Here is a simple way to demonstrate the unconscious self and subjective consciousness working together in harmony predicated on freewill. Ask yourself, and deeply contemplate this question: Do I know how to be me and everything that that entails?  If you answer yes, then how can you justify that it is not in fact both aspects of your conscious dichotomy choosing to do so? Or in other words, if you know how to be you, and you are you, then why would you be you, if in fact, you did not decide to be? If you answer no, then how is it that you are you if you don't know how to be?


Not so sure on this part. It seemed to be making some sense, then I tried substituting 'myself' for a rock and it didn't work quite so well. A rock doesn't 'choose' to be a rock (not that I'm aware of) and yet I'd still say it's a rock, even though it doesn't know how to be one.

View Post


Notice what you said here, to paraphrase in my own words, "it makes some sense until I realise I"m not aware that I am making the rock be what it is." It is precisely because both the rock, and yourself, are consciousness as reality, that both of you are deciding to be you. Because consciousness as reality is the only thing that can decide what it will be and you and the rock are both necessarily it! Lets put it this way, you can only truly know yourself through non-dualistic awareness, that is to say, only when you are aware reality can be experienced by not observing it, but quite literally, by being it. I know this seems confusing, but as I have pointed out earlier, you can't use language to describe something that absolutely can not be reduced to conceptual thought.

#58 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 August 2009 - 06:49 PM

Okay, there's definitely parts of this I'm still a long way from getting, particularly the rock analogy.

I think getting this is dependent on whether I can wrap my head around the idea of consciousness being everything. I'll try another metaphor, and see if that makes more sense.

Let's consider a human body to be an "indivisible reality" and the organs to be all the little people (or rocks) running about doing what they do in life.

It may be that the heart merrily pumps blood around and thinks itself to be doing a fine job. If we were to personify it, it very well may think that it is it's own entity and that by it's actions it effects the body around it. In turn it too is effected by the body.

What the heart fails to realise is that it is part of a larger system. It is only when all the organs are combined under the body system, that a human develops consciousness. Without all the pieces making up the whole, the body as a system would fail (and so too would the consciousness).

The same can be said for us and the universe. We (and the rocks) make up all the parts of the system, but it is only when all the bits are combined that we realise the true system, and that every bit is connected in such a way that the whole would fail if it were removed.

We getting warmer?

Regards,

Arch.

#59 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 14 August 2009 - 07:19 PM

Okay, there's definitely parts of this I'm still a long way from getting, particularly the rock analogy.

I think getting this is dependent on whether I can wrap my head around the idea of consciousness being everything. I'll try another metaphor, and see if that makes more sense.

View Post


It's definitely a completely different way of looking at the nature of consciousness, and until you can get past the notion that living things (especially the ones with brains) are the only conscious things, then it will be hard to fully grasp.

To refer back to what you mentioned in an earlier post, I think you maintained the position that the rock didn't choose to be a rock and that it did not know how to be one. You ever ask yourself how this is possible? How can anything be what it is, if it both didn't know how to be it, and choose to be it? What the rock is made of could have chosen to combine and be a part of anything else, and indeed it has. I would even be so bold to say, that to maintain such a position, is like asserting that square triangles are possible. But I once was in the same boat as you, where I wouldn't even consider the idea that a rock chose to be a rock, and that it definitely was not conscious of being one.

It's just that we get so used to our individual human consciousness, and because that's all most of us are ever aware of as being, we think that other sentient consciousness is not us. Probably even more detrimental to our discovery of our real self (consciousness as reality/absolute subjectivity), is that we earnestly believe that inanimate objects are not conscious; not realizing that we call the consciousness that dictates matter by different names--the laws of physics and nature. Quantum mechanics is the scientific discipline that is closest to understanding that everything is consciousness without realizing it; this is because the scientists observations are predicated on the belief that what the scientist are observing is not them. When in all actuality, what they observe is precisely what they are made of, and by virtue of being inexorably connected, absolutely indivisible with what they see--and because the scientist as subjective observers are consciousness--then what they observe is consciousness as well. Because there exists no real division between what they observe and what they are, aside from the illusion of thinking they are.

Let's consider a human body to be an "indivisible reality" and the organs to be all the little people (or rocks) running about doing what they do in life.

It may be that the heart merrily pumps blood around and thinks itself to be doing a fine job. If we were to personify it, it very well may think that it is it's own entity and that by it's actions it effects the body around it. In turn it too is effected by the body.

What the heart fails to realize is that it is part of a larger system. It is only when all the organs are combined under the body system, that a human develops consciousness. Without all the pieces making up the whole, the body as a system would fail (and so too would the consciousness).

The same can be said for us and the universe. We (and the rocks) make up all the parts of the system, but it is only when all the bits are combined that we realize the true system, and that every bit is connected in such a way that the whole would fail if it were removed.

We getting warmer?

View Post


Yes, you are indeed getting warmer. There is just a little hurdle you need to overcome. Its not that the system would fail if any part were removed, because not only can you not remove something from an indivisible reality, but reality as consciousness can never fail in being what it is. By virtue of absolute freewill in the strictest sense, reality as consciousness can be what ever it wants to be and nothing but itslef can influence it.

Your human body anaology as an 'indivisible reality' and how it correlates to us in the universe is indicitive of you beginning to fully understand what I'm suggesting.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 August 2009 - 07:44 AM

Thoughts are definitely not non-physical phenomena.  They are byproducts of interacting matter.  Has anyone ever measured a thought that wasn't bouncing around in someone's brain?

View Post

So you have no control over your thoughts. Just as I suspected... :blink:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users