|
|
Post by ๐๐ฌ๐ซ๐๐๐ on Oct 22, 2021 18:14:53 GMT
Most of the world appear to believe in a deity or god. What evidence is there that such a being exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Oct 30, 2021 9:34:03 GMT
Most of the world appear to believe in a deity or god. What evidence is there that such a being exists. I would answer the evidence of the existence of the apparent harmonious and symbiotic complexity of the perceivable universe. That together with our human cognitive ability to perceive it and appreciate it, is itself an indicator of our very conscious awareness being the product of some transmundane, intelligent, creative and controlling force or power. Primitive minds have previously acknowledged that โpowerโ in primitive ways (religions). More intelligent, advanced minds are now acknowledging the existence of that in more sophisticated ways. E.g. Rupert Sheldrake. โIt is not anti-scientific to question established beliefs, but central to science itself. At the creative heart of science is the spirit of open minded inquiry. Ideally, science is a process and not a position or a belief system. Innovative science happens when scientists feel free to ask questions and build new theories.โ I recommend viewing his TED talk entitled โthe science delusionโ. It is a talk which ironically some โscientistsโ were so emotionally challenged by that they got it banned. Such is the nature of humans attached to irrational beliefs. โThe biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers, that the details still need working out but in principle the fundamental questions are settled.โ |
|
|
|
Post by Tribunus Laticlavius on Oct 31, 2021 23:22:07 GMT
Does this imply that sentience, intelligence and perhaps unknown attributes are an example of the Cosmos looking back upon itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Nov 1, 2021 5:28:50 GMT
Does this imply that sentience, intelligence and perhaps unknown attributes are an example of the Cosmos looking back upon itself? Yes. Well put. As the great German scientist Max Plank put it:&np; "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."In the same way that in a dream state, we experience ourselves perceiving and interacting with people, places and objects. Yet all those are occurring within and are โprojectionsโ of our own conscious awareness. Similarly in the โwakingโ state, all sensory perception of โexternalโ reality occurs in individual consciousness. So understanding that โ and its relationship to the collective consciousness โ is necessary to correctly understand the material universe. |
|
|
|
Post by Tribunus Laticlavius on Nov 1, 2021 19:16:29 GMT
Similarly in the โwakingโ state, all sensory perception of โexternalโ reality occurs in individual;consciousness. So understanding that โ and its relationship to the collective consciousness โ is necessary to correctly understand the material universe. Of course all sensory perception of external reality is introspective; there is only agreement through common languages (which may or may not approximate similar sensory experiences); even though body language may be similar to my own for instance, the words used may be similar, even similar&np;electroencephalography; there is, however, no way to know if the introspection's are the same; Perhaps the emotions and sensations are like tunes played in a different key, or perhaps a different tune altogether.&np; Perhaps Wittgenstein was right when he said;โThe limits of language are the limits of my world.โ This brings us to the philosophical issue of the Ghost in the Machine;Descartes believed in dualism, the idea that the human mind is not physical, that it exists independently of the human brain. Ryle referred to this idea as the ghost in the machine. He believed that human consciousness and mind are very dependent on the human brain; I tend to go with Ryle on this due to lack of evidence on anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Nov 1, 2021 22:35:11 GMT
...Ryle believed that human consciousness and mind are very dependent on the human brain; I tend to go with Ryle on this due to lack of evidence on anything else. But what evidence exists for brain creating conscious awareness? On the contrary, the case of Pam Reynolds on the operating table, ears plugged, bindfolded, monitored and seen to be clinically brain-dead appears to refute that. She had an out-of-body NDE experience, correctly seeing objects and events, plus correctly relating heard conversations while undergoing brain surgery. So I would argue that the idea of inert matter being the source of consciousness defies both science and reason. As Max Plank observed, โwe canโt get behind consciousnessโ, as all concepts of brain, mind, etc. follow from the pre-existence of conscious awareness. This is the scientific method: first a theory/hypothesis is formulated; then an experiment is devised and conducted; then observations are made. But all hypothesese and devising occurs in consciousness, and the perception of results of experiments occurs in and is limited by quality of consciousness. Consciousness is primary and independent: perception is secondary and dependent. ______________________ Jerry Fodor: โNobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be consciousโ.Francis Crick: โThereโs no easy way of explaining consciousness in terms of known scienceโฆ how can you explain the redness of red in terms of physics and chemistryโSteven Pinker: โThe Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation. The problem is hard because no one knows what a solution might look like or even whether it is a genuine scientific problem in the first placeโฆC.S. Lewis: โI have consciousness: but it is impossible that consciousness could emerge from the action of the unconscious.โPeter Williams: โWhen we ask which world-view makes the best sense out of the irreducible nature of rationality, the โmatter firstโ view of naturalism is revealed as a complete non-starter, whereas the โmind firstโ view of theism provides a coherent explanatory context for our rational capacities.โ________ SUMMARY: Qualia are more fundamental than quanta.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Tribunus Laticlavius on Nov 1, 2021 23:01:53 GMT
Mr Lewis may be a little biased considering he was a lay theologian; introspection on ones own thinking is meta-cognition; what is perhaps more important is "sentience"; It is clear that many animals (esp mammals) experience sentience; humans are just another mammal in reality.
The millions of living creatures with sentience are all made from unconscious inanimate matter; atoms and molecules assembled into DNA, biochemical compounds with what seems like exquisite precision and purpose. One can almost forgive the creationists for believing this was a work of some divine being, whatever, one may call it.
Yet on a daily basis, atoms and molecules are rearranged by enzymes into new forms to create the patterns of living creatures; this is done automatically, the chemicals derived mainly from the food eaten. These chemicals also form the neurons of the brain, the receptors, dendrites and neurotransmitters; these work together to enable an organism to process the world and experience sentience.
As any stroke patient will know, that loss of physical function of one part of the brain has significant impact on the ability to function normally. It is known that certain parts of the brain are responsible for emotions, hearing, smell, sight and so on; this is true in all mammals.
How the brain truly works is unknown; perhaps it is a quantum computer?. What seems clear is that thought processes are a result of physical interactions between chemicals, especially Na+, K+,and neurotransmitters; the fact that something is not known does not mean we should invoke the "god of the gaps" or the "ghost in the machine" as an explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Nov 1, 2021 23:10:27 GMT
I am not arguing for any โGod of the gapsโ. I am pointing out that A B S O LUTELY EVERYTHING โknownโ and perceived only appears within conscious awareness, yet we donโt know what that is, nor how it could come from inert matter.  It is mechanistic materialism that has an understanding which bridges huge โgapsโ with simplistic explanations. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 28, 2022 3:56:22 GMT
Yes, consciousness is independent of a material existence. No, I won't discuss how I know that. It's not a belief and I have no interest in proselytizing.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,113 
|
Post by nazgul on Jun 28, 2022 5:06:38 GMT
Yes, consciousness is independent of a material existence. No, I won't discuss how I know that. It's not a belief and I have no interest in proselytizing. Yet if your neurons die (material existence) as in a stroke your brain function, even sentience is gone. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 28, 2022 6:59:44 GMT
No, your consciousness remains independent of your brain.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,113
|
Post by nazgul on Jun 28, 2022 8:23:17 GMT
No, your consciousness remains independent of your brain. I know what you are saying T but consciousness is a brain function and can be altered by chemicals (drugs) or stopped completely. I personally think the brain is a quantum computer. What is a possibility is that as nature is responsible for the brain it is possible that vastly more complex brains exist. If it happened on earth there is no reason to suggest it could not have happened elsewhere. No evidence of course.. yet. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 28, 2022 8:38:16 GMT
I'm really not comfortable discussing this, Nazgul. However, for lack of a better descriptive your consciousness comes from an alternate dimension. Does it return there after death? Apparently since I can't imagine anyone signing up for a short, one way ticket to oblivion. Is there some reward/punishment system for how you live your life? Damfino. That's about as far as I want to go with this.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,113
|
Post by nazgul on Jun 28, 2022 8:45:47 GMT
I'm really not comfortable discussing this, Nazgul. However, for lack of a better descriptive your consciousness comes from an alternate dimension. Does it return there after death? Apparently since I can't imagine anyone signing up for a short, one way ticket to oblivion. Is there some reward/punishment system for how you live your life? Damfino. That's about as far as I want to go with this. I never said an alternative dimension but the brain function is more than we currently know. I suspect the brain has quantum potential or greater. The brain is well known to be a complex system of neurons and synapses; some have compared it to a windows computer. In philosophy, this is a dilemma and put into the discussion of the "ghost in the machine". I personally do not think this is a "spirit" but it is certainly more than the mere sum of its parts. I accept what you said as it is as valid as anything anyone has said. Thanks for contributing. |
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Jun 28, 2022 9:17:31 GMT
"Spirit", "soul" or whatever are just labels just as "consciousness" is. I don't claim to have a handle on the entire concept so really can't define it. Gotta' have something to call it, though. I suppose that "thingy" would work as well as any other moniker.
|
|
