I Think I'd Like to Change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2012, 03:20 AM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(11-05-2012 02:25 AM)Egor Wrote:  (Cantor might be able to expound on this)

Gwynnies? Big Grin

Nah, I see what you're saying, and it ain't bad shit. Alla that anthropomorphism wuz throwing me off... but don't you see that shit like hell and vengeance and punishment are only artifacts of modal interference? Like how I exist in a certain physical and ethical environment, and if like your triangle is parallel to mine, we can say good things about each other. But if you're triangle is perpendicular to mine, like going on about me scaring my Gwynnies, I'm getting to thinking the application of the sharp stick to the eye may be in order. If we share the same plane we can understand each other, if not, we can only see the points of intersection, which leaves the mind's eye to do the animal thing and fear the unknown. But if all we are is geometric forms of god's three dee lite-brite, when the lights go off, or if we see the whole volume, then that evil shit simply has no reality.

I'm thinking...

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
11-05-2012, 09:15 AM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2012 09:20 AM by lightninlives.)
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
Quote:(Today 12:05 AM)lightninlives Wrote: Is this god you're working on defining anthropomorphic? (e.g. has human characteristics).
How to answer that? I think no, because He is not like us, we are like Him.

And how do you know this? What are you basing this assertion on (e.g. that we are like him)? Is it purely subjective opinion?
Quote:Quote:Is this god you're working on defining a personal god in any way shape or form? (e.g. interacts/intervenes directly with humans in any way).
These questions don’t compute given a monistic entity. He doesn’t intervene with anyone, only with modalities of Himself. He’s the only real thing that exists.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion (e.g. that he is the only real thing that exists) and perhaps more importantly, how do you justify this in your own mind considering that one of the most commonly accepted definitions of existence is "
the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence." How do you go from a subjective experience (e.g. you've often mentioned your direct experiences of revelation that form the basis of your belief in god) to the assertion that something/someone you've only experienced subjectively with your human consciousness is now the only thing that exists (as opposed, to say, this forum, the internet, the electrical current that powers your computer, the photons of light your eye processes in order to allow you to read this forum, the molecules that form your physical computer, etc. and so forth).

Pantheism and panentheism are very cool concepts. I actually dig them quite a lot, just like I dig the luck dragon in The Neverending Story or the idea of tessering from the book "A Wrinkle in Time." It's just none of these concepts can be verified as actually existing (e.g. a part of physical reality outside of the bounds of conscious thought).

Quote:Quote:Is this god you're working on defining deistic or theistic in nature (e.g. does he interact with the physical universe or not).
Theistic, I suppose. If he stops the conscious observation of the universe, it stops existing.

And how do you know this and/or what is your rational basis for believing this to be true, considering that there isn't a shred of evidence supporting this assertion outside or your subjective experiences? (notice a pattern here)

Quote: [COLLAPSED] Quote:I think that my cohorts covered your "you can't exist" assertion, so there's no need to beat a dead horse. I'm more interested in some of the apparent contradictions you laid out in the statement above. Namely: At one point you state "...we were cre...[SNIP]...you stop existing by returning to an existence as god" and "the guy you say you don't like is more connected than you might think." So which one is it? Do we exist for god (e.g. we are separate from god) or are we part of god (e.g. we're connected)?
I have an article, maybe a pamphlet actually, about a theory of souls. The concept of a line is paramount in this theory (Cantor might be able to expound on this). A line is not a physical thing. It’s a mental thing. It has an infinitesimal width. All God has to do is imagine three lines which form the simplest shape, a triangle (I suppose it could be any shape but that’s a less important speculation.), and upon doing so, there is a modality. The question is: Is the modality its own thing or is it God? The truth is, it is both. It is the actualization of a square circle, so to speak. It is a paradox. Nevertheless, all God has to do is stop imagining the lines and the modality disappears and becomes one with God again as if it had never existed in the first place. Kind of like the way a drop of water ceases to exist upon hitting a pool.

You are a modality of God. Eventually, somewhere beyond even the lucid spiritual plane, the lines will disappear, but it will be you who erased them. That’s what God wants, and that’s why I don’t think people can end their own existence. God gets what He pays for in the end. Or at least that’s what I believe.


You didn't answer my question at all, unless what you're saying is that your belief is based on incoherence and paradox.

Perhaps this little anecdote will help you with your definition of the soul. That Hindu holy man described it thusly:[/align][align=-webkit-auto]He first asked, “have you ever looked out at the ocean on a sunny day? You ever notice that there seem to be a limitless number of glimmers of light reflecting off the surface of the water?” He then went on to assert, “much like those glimmers of light are simply illusory reflections of the sun, all of you are simply reflections of Brahman (e.g. oneness/singularity/nondualism). Moreover, what you believe to be your eternal souls are also just illusions; reflections of Brahman.”

I remember some Christians in the room being perplexed and asking questions about how this impacted concepts like heaven, hell, god, Jesus, the afterlife, etc.
The holy man just laughed.
[/align]
Quote:Quote:Oh, and one last thing, the whole "I don't like this guy" line was a hypothetical intended to highlight the tyrannical nature of the god you're working on defining for yourself and the rest of the forum. I don't dislike this god of yours anymore than I dislike Kris Kringle or the Luck Dragon from Neverending Story.
I don’t think this God is tyrannical. Did you think the concept of Brahman was tyrannical?

No, I don't think the concept of Brahman is tyrannical, because unlike your definition of god, Brahman does not interact with the universe or individual humans in any way shape or form. Brahman is not a personal god. It's not even a god. It's both god and no god and all gods. It's literally everything that everything that has ever and will ever exist and not-exist. It's the concept of non-duality, the domain of advaitist and people like my buddy Gabe. According to the concept of Brahman, I don't exist and neither does my "soul." Everything and everyone is simply an illusion, a reflection of a oneness experiencing itself.

Beautiful story. I dig it a lot. I just don't believe it because I have no evidence to support it. Can I be 100% certain that it's not real? Nope, but then again, quantum physics dictates that we can have 100% certainty about anything. And I'm cool with that, and will stick with the facts and not my own subjective, unfalsifiable feelings and ideas about what's real and what isn't.

P.S. The god you describe is not Brahman. Not even close.[/align]
Quote:Quote:This is truly fascinating stuff. For starters, how do you know that I have not already gotten to where I wanted to go in this regard? Secondly, have you ever done some sincere introspection on why you would dismiss a scientific approach to anything? Not just for yourself, mind you, but for humans in general.
I don’t know where you’ve gotten in terms of compassion. I just don’t thing a scientific approach to compassion really results in compassion. I’m not sure how it can.

You provided zero rationale for your assertion. Why can't scientific study of compassion result in compassion? Why are you "not sure how it can?" Have you looked into these ideas objectively or are you simply rejecting them out of hand because they don't align with your subjective view of reality?

Science is great for studying the physical properties of the universe. But there are some things that can’t be known via the scientific method. For instance, is a criminal guilty? Does a person love another person? Are you conscious like I am conscious? Etc. These things can be understood perhaps through logical analysis, and a reasonable belief can be formed, but they can’t be known through the scientific method, not the way the effects of gravity on a planet can be known, or the date of a carbon sample can be known, or the sensitivity of a microbe to an antibiotic can be known. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Yet again, how do you know any of these things you assert are true or even reasonable?

For starters, the scientific method could most certainly be applied to determine if a criminal is guilty or innocent. That's why DNA evidence is admissible in court.
And I'm guessing that you're not up to speed on the fascinating research being done on the neurological patterns associated with emotions like love.
Same goes for consciousness (highly recommend you follow this link, by the way).
And lastly, what makes you think that the scientific method provides any sort of near-absolute certainty about phenomenon like gravity? It doesn't. We certainly have a consensus theory of gravity and a massive body of evidence supporting that theory, but that's just a function of time and technology. What will you grasp onto in 100 years, when we have a similar consensus theory on consciousness, love, etc?

Can you see where I'm going here? The gaps that your god can fit into are getting smaller and smaller over time, replaced by tangible scientific knowledge that is afforded by ever-improving technology that itself is powered by the scientific method of inquiry.

Quote:Quote:Incidentally, I take a somewhat mathematical approach to concepts like compassion and happiness. They are not destinations. They are directions (hopefully, one of my mathematically inclined cohorts can draw up an equation or geometric graph to illustrate this divergence from mainstream, deterministic approaches to these concepts).
What is your theory?

My theory is pretty simple. When I was kid, I thought that "one day" I would truly be 100% happy, or compassionate, or in love, etc.

Today, I focus on being happy, compassionate, in love, etc. And with every passing day I grow more and more happy, compassionate, in love, etc. but I also recognize that this is an ongoing process. I also recognize that I occasionally lose my sense of direction and go in unhappy directions, etc. And when I notice myself doing that, I reorient myself accordingly.

I've abandoned the notion of 100% anything or final destinations of any kind. And it's had a profoundly positive impact on my life, relationships, and psyche.

Quote: [COLLAPSED] Quote:As far as what I mean when I say "god" I'm referring to the god you're working on defining in this and other threads. I don't believe in god, so I can only use the definitions that others give for him. Kind of goes back to that "Fountain of Youth" an...[SNIP]... ever will exist (not literally anyway, though I do believe scientific and technological breakthroughs will lead to serious life extension sooner than later). But if you believe it exists, I'll be happy to use your definition as a point of reference.
I didn’t address it because I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I mean, if you don’t know what God is, how can you be sure He doesn’t exist? What about my definition:

God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness? Do you believe there is a fundamental consciousness in the universe?


No, I don't believe there is fundamental consciousness in the universe. I believe the consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks (biological or otherwise) and I based that belief on empirical evidence.

You keep asserting words like "know" or "sure", which seems to betray your need for 100% certainty. I get that, because I was trapped in that mode of thinking for most of my life.
That's why the fountain of youth is a perfect analogy. It is reasonable for me to not believe something if there's no evidence for it. It is also reasonable for me to not believe in something I don't even know about in the first place.

It is not reasonable, however, to start with a presupposition (e.g. that god exists or that the fountain of youth exists) that is not grounded in objective reality (e.g. you subjectively experience it) and then build up supposed knowledge about said thing.

You're certainly entitled to do so, and many billions of humans have done so over the course of history, but you run the risk of wasting a good portion of your life on a wild goose chase similar to the one Ponce de Leon went on hundreds of years ago.

Quote: [COLLAPSED] Quote:The irony here is delicious, considering that the bible was written by professional writers (I think they called them scribes back then). But hey, at least you seem to be getting my point. There's no need to search for the fountain of youth or god. T...[SNIP]... will do the trick) you've already hopefully made enough progress to ensure that you vote and treat others according to reason and not religious dogma, and that's good enough for me. The rest is just exorcising the argumentative part of my psyche ; )
I don’t vote for religious reasons. I’m a working man, a practical man (sort of) I vote for guns, a big military, and lower taxes (my taxes!). That’s it. That’s all I want my politicians to do. That’s all I think they’re capable of.

My man! That's all that really matters to me at the end of the day. That people vote and treat others according to reason and evidence, not dogma and doctrine.

As for believing in God: Every day I come closer to the conclusion that it is irrelevant what we believe. What matters is what lessons we learn in this life. Even when we enter our lucid spiritual plane, we will not see God. In fact, He will be even more concealed. Eventually, you and God will both disappear and all that will be left is the fundamental consciousness. Same as it ever was. It’s a paradox, you know. Or at least that’s how I believe today. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Thanks for the discussion.



You're welcome and thank you. Apologize if I seem like I'm badgering you. That is not my intent.

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lightninlives's post
11-05-2012, 07:50 PM
 
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
Thanks Anjele for your rep point. I'll try to keep it up and not let you down.

uh...you know what I mean.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Egor's post
11-05-2012, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2012 08:18 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(11-05-2012 07:50 PM)Egor Wrote:  Thanks Anjele for your rep point. I'll try to keep it up and not let you down.

uh...you know what I mean.
Lets just get out of the red shall we? Wink



(11-05-2012 09:15 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  
Quote:(Today 12:05 AM)lightninlives Wrote: [/url]Is this god you're working on defining anthropomorphic? (e.g. has human characteristics).
How to answer that? I think no, because He is not like us, we are like Him.

And how do you know this? What are you basing this assertion on (e.g. that we are like him)? Is it purely subjective opinion?
Quote:Quote:Is this god you're working on defining a personal god in any way shape or form? (e.g. interacts/intervenes directly with humans in any way).
These questions don’t compute given a monistic entity. He doesn’t intervene with anyone, only with modalities of Himself. He’s the only real thing that exists.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion (e.g. that he is the only real thing that exists) and perhaps more importantly, how do you justify this in your own mind considering that one of the most commonly accepted definitions of existence is "
the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence." How do you go from a subjective experience (e.g. you've often mentioned your direct experiences of revelation that form the basis of your belief in god) to the assertion that something/someone you've only experienced subjectively with your human consciousness is now the only thing that exists (as opposed, to say, this forum, the internet, the electrical current that powers your computer, the photons of light your eye processes in order to allow you to read this forum, the molecules that form your physical computer, etc. and so forth).

Pantheism and panentheism are very cool concepts. I actually dig them quite a lot, just like I dig the luck dragon in The Neverending Story or the idea of tessering from the book "A Wrinkle in Time." It's just none of these concepts can be verified as actually existing (e.g. a part of physical reality outside of the bounds of conscious thought).

Quote:Quote:Is this god you're working on defining deistic or theistic in nature (e.g. does he interact with the physical universe or not).
Theistic, I suppose. If he stops the conscious observation of the universe, it stops existing.

And how do you know this and/or what is your rational basis for believing this to be true, considering that there isn't a shred of evidence supporting this assertion outside or your subjective experiences? (notice a pattern here)

Quote: [COLLAPSED] Quote:I think that my cohorts covered your "you can't exist" assertion, so there's no need to beat a dead horse. I'm more interested in some of the apparent contradictions you laid out in the statement above. Namely: At one point you state "...we were cre...[SNIP]...you stop existing by returning to an existence as god" and "the guy you say you don't like is more connected than you might think." So which one is it? Do we exist for god (e.g. we are separate from god) or are we part of god (e.g. we're connected)?
I have an article, maybe a pamphlet actually, about a theory of souls. The concept of a line is paramount in this theory (Cantor might be able to expound on this). A line is not a physical thing. It’s a mental thing. It has an infinitesimal width. All God has to do is imagine three lines which form the simplest shape, a triangle (I suppose it could be any shape but that’s a less important speculation.), and upon doing so, there is a modality. The question is: Is the modality its own thing or is it God? The truth is, it is both. It is the actualization of a square circle, so to speak. It is a paradox. Nevertheless, all God has to do is stop imagining the lines and the modality disappears and becomes one with God again as if it had never existed in the first place. Kind of like the way a drop of water ceases to exist upon hitting a pool.

You are a modality of God. Eventually, somewhere beyond even the lucid spiritual plane, the lines will disappear, but it will be you who erased them. That’s what God wants, and that’s why I don’t think people can end their own existence. God gets what He pays for in the end. Or at least that’s what I believe.


You didn't answer my question at all, unless what you're saying is that your belief is based on incoherence and paradox.

Perhaps this little anecdote will help you with your definition of the soul. That Hindu holy man described it thusly:[align=-webkit-auto]He first asked, “have you ever looked out at the ocean on a sunny day? You ever notice that there seem to be a limitless number of glimmers of light reflecting off the surface of the water?” He then went on to assert, “much like those glimmers of light are simply illusory reflections of the sun, all of you are simply reflections of Brahman (e.g. oneness/singularity/nondualism). Moreover, what you believe to be your eternal souls are also just illusions; reflections of Brahman.”

I remember some Christians in the room being perplexed and asking questions about how this impacted concepts like heaven, hell, god, Jesus, the afterlife, etc.
The holy man just laughed.
Quote:Quote:Oh, and one last thing, the whole "I don't like this guy" line was a hypothetical intended to highlight the tyrannical nature of the god you're working on defining for yourself and the rest of the forum. I don't dislike this god of yours anymore than I dislike Kris Kringle or the Luck Dragon from Neverending Story.
I don’t think this God is tyrannical. Did you think the concept of Brahman was tyrannical?

No, I don't think the concept of Brahman is tyrannical, because unlike your definition of god, Brahman does not interact with the universe or individual humans in any way shape or form. Brahman is not a personal god. It's not even a god. It's both god and no god and all gods. It's literally everything that everything that has ever and will ever exist and not-exist. It's the concept of non-duality, the domain of advaitist and people like [url=http://www.logicspeaks.com]my buddy Gabe
. According to the concept of Brahman, I don't exist and neither does my "soul." Everything and everyone is simply an illusion, a reflection of a oneness experiencing itself.

Beautiful story. I dig it a lot. I just don't believe it because I have no evidence to support it. Can I be 100% certain that it's not real? Nope, but then again, quantum physics dictates that we can have 100% certainty about anything. And I'm cool with that, and will stick with the facts and not my own subjective, unfalsifiable feelings and ideas about what's real and what isn't.

P.S. The god you describe is not Brahman. Not even close.
Quote:Quote:This is truly fascinating stuff. For starters, how do you know that I have not already gotten to where I wanted to go in this regard? Secondly, have you ever done some sincere introspection on why you would dismiss a scientific approach to anything? Not just for yourself, mind you, but for humans in general.
I don’t know where you’ve gotten in terms of compassion. I just don’t thing a scientific approach to compassion really results in compassion. I’m not sure how it can.

You provided zero rationale for your assertion. Why can't scientific study of compassion result in compassion? Why are you "not sure how it can?" Have you looked into these ideas objectively or are you simply rejecting them out of hand because they don't align with your subjective view of reality?

Science is great for studying the physical properties of the universe. But there are some things that can’t be known via the scientific method. For instance, is a criminal guilty? Does a person love another person? Are you conscious like I am conscious? Etc. These things can be understood perhaps through logical analysis, and a reasonable belief can be formed, but they can’t be known through the scientific method, not the way the effects of gravity on a planet can be known, or the date of a carbon sample can be known, or the sensitivity of a microbe to an antibiotic can be known. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Yet again, how do you know any of these things you assert are true or even reasonable?

For starters, the scientific method could most certainly be applied to determine if a criminal is guilty or innocent. That's why DNA evidence is admissible in court.
And I'm guessing that you're not up to speed on the fascinating research being done on the neurological patterns associated with emotions like love.
Same goes for consciousness (highly recommend you follow this link, by the way).
And lastly, what makes you think that the scientific method provides any sort of near-absolute certainty about phenomenon like gravity? It doesn't. We certainly have a consensus theory of gravity and a massive body of evidence supporting that theory, but that's just a function of time and technology. What will you grasp onto in 100 years, when we have a similar consensus theory on consciousness, love, etc?

Can you see where I'm going here? The gaps that your god can fit into are getting smaller and smaller over time, replaced by tangible scientific knowledge that is afforded by ever-improving technology that itself is powered by the scientific method of inquiry.

Quote:Quote:Incidentally, I take a somewhat mathematical approach to concepts like compassion and happiness. They are not destinations. They are directions (hopefully, one of my mathematically inclined cohorts can draw up an equation or geometric graph to illustrate this divergence from mainstream, deterministic approaches to these concepts).
What is your theory?

My theory is pretty simple. When I was kid, I thought that "one day" I would truly be 100% happy, or compassionate, or in love, etc.

Today, I focus on being happy, compassionate, in love, etc. And with every passing day I grow more and more happy, compassionate, in love, etc. but I also recognize that this is an ongoing process. I also recognize that I occasionally lose my sense of direction and go in unhappy directions, etc. And when I notice myself doing that, I reorient myself accordingly.

I've abandoned the notion of 100% anything or final destinations of any kind. And it's had a profoundly positive impact on my life, relationships, and psyche.

Quote: [COLLAPSED] Quote:As far as what I mean when I say "god" I'm referring to the god you're working on defining in this and other threads. I don't believe in god, so I can only use the definitions that others give for him. Kind of goes back to that "Fountain of Youth" an...[SNIP]... ever will exist (not literally anyway, though I do believe scientific and technological breakthroughs will lead to serious life extension sooner than later). But if you believe it exists, I'll be happy to use your definition as a point of reference.
I didn’t address it because I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I mean, if you don’t know what God is, how can you be sure He doesn’t exist? What about my definition:

God is the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness? Do you believe there is a fundamental consciousness in the universe?


No, I don't believe there is fundamental consciousness in the universe. I believe the consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks (biological or otherwise) and I based that belief on empirical evidence.

You keep asserting words like "know" or "sure", which seems to betray your need for 100% certainty. I get that, because I was trapped in that mode of thinking for most of my life.
That's why the fountain of youth is a perfect analogy. It is reasonable for me to not believe something if there's no evidence for it. It is also reasonable for me to not believe in something I don't even know about in the first place.

It is not reasonable, however, to start with a presupposition (e.g. that god exists or that the fountain of youth exists) that is not grounded in objective reality (e.g. you subjectively experience it) and then build up supposed knowledge about said thing.

You're certainly entitled to do so, and many billions of humans have done so over the course of history, but you run the risk of wasting a good portion of your life on a wild goose chase similar to the one Ponce de Leon went on hundreds of years ago.

Quote: [COLLAPSED] Quote:The irony here is delicious, considering that the bible was written by professional writers (I think they called them scribes back then). But hey, at least you seem to be getting my point. There's no need to search for the fountain of youth or god. T...[SNIP]... will do the trick) you've already hopefully made enough progress to ensure that you vote and treat others according to reason and not religious dogma, and that's good enough for me. The rest is just exorcising the argumentative part of my psyche ; )
I don’t vote for religious reasons. I’m a working man, a practical man (sort of) I vote for guns, a big military, and lower taxes (my taxes!). That’s it. That’s all I want my politicians to do. That’s all I think they’re capable of.

My man! That's all that really matters to me at the end of the day. That people vote and treat others according to reason and evidence, not dogma and doctrine.

As for believing in God: Every day I come closer to the conclusion that it is irrelevant what we believe. What matters is what lessons we learn in this life. Even when we enter our lucid spiritual plane, we will not see God. In fact, He will be even more concealed. Eventually, you and God will both disappear and all that will be left is the fundamental consciousness. Same as it ever was. It’s a paradox, you know. Or at least that’s how I believe today. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Thanks for the discussion.



You're welcome and thank you. Apologize if I seem like I'm badgering you. That is not my intent.
An infinite number of possibilities exist within infinity.

As for Brahman, and its hard to generalize, a good many Buddhists don't engage in any God concept, opting for "non being" a state that gives me a good deal of bother. By utilizing the reincarnation doctrine I see Hindus splitting themselves.......their monad or whatever, between the secular (living entities) and some non existential state that can only be grasped by reaching it............................... Huh
The Buddhist concept of Annatta tries to conceptualize this state in oblique manners that are not really adequate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
11-05-2012, 08:52 PM
 
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(11-05-2012 09:15 AM)lightninlives Wrote:  Same goes for consciousness (highly recommend you follow this link, by the way).

Sorry, Lightninlives, but you've simply asked more questions in this response than I have the attention span to answer. But I would like to address this article. It's very good. In fact, the Japanese have done something similar with an MRI machine and the visual cortex. I find both of these to be very exciting, however, because if they can take the next step, and I think they will, they could actually see what the patient imagines and hear words that the patient thinks.

But here's the rub for atheists, and you may need to brace yourself: Evolution seemed like it replaced the need for God, but it only revealed a necessity for intelligent design. The big bang at first seemed like it took God out of the creation event, only to later end up being one of the greatest supports for the cosmological argument for God's existence. This technology, if they can take the next step is at first going to seem like it supports the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain, but people will suddenly realize that this thing called consciousness is really stimulating the brain. The brain will be reduced to firing neurons and consciousness will have to be external to it. But of course, we already know this by examining paramecia and more subjectively, precognition and premonitions.


Quote:Can you see where I'm going here? The gaps that your god can fit into are getting smaller and smaller over time, replaced by tangible scientific knowledge that is afforded by ever-improving technology that itself is powered by the scientific method of inquiry.

Cosmological argument - big bang
Teleological argument - Evolution
Existence of the soul - brain imaging.

You think science is replacing God, but it's only changing our understanding of Him. Granted, and I think we can both agree, that the idea of the Christian God as a dualistic being who exists as a Trinity is going to end up in the dust bin of mythology--very soon. Christains are actually doing more to make that happen than atheists are.

Quote:My theory is pretty simple. When I was kid, I thought that "one day" I would truly be 100% happy, or compassionate, or in love, etc.

Today, I focus on being happy, compassionate, in love, etc. And with every passing day I grow more and more happy, compassionate, in love, etc. but I also recognize that this is an ongoing process. I also recognize that I occasionally lose my sense of direction and go in unhappy directions, etc. And when I notice myself doing that, I reorient myself accordingly.

I've abandoned the notion of 100% anything or final destinations of any kind. And it's had a profoundly positive impact on my life, relationships, and psyche.

That sounds very nice. I, myself, am very prone to depression and anxiety. It would be nice to be truly happy. I tend to focus on doing what I'm good at, and that helps. A very small amount of an SSRI helps. Riding my bike helps (motorcycle), and physical exercise helps. I'm not suicidal or anything, but sometimes I really look forward to what's coming next. I don't like this world very much. TMI, I know, but I say all that just to say it must be nice to be happy as you describe it.

Quote: No, I don't believe there is fundamental consciousness in the universe. I believe the consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks (biological or otherwise) and I based that belief on empirical evidence.

There actually is no empirical evidence that consciousness is an emergent property. The closest thing might be that when an animal's brain stops functioning, it no longer appear conscious, but that doesn't answer if the brain was being controlled by an external consciousness or if the brain was generating the consciousness. You have to understand that it would be very unsual indeed for unconscious matter to produce consciousness.

Granted, if you've never experienced precognition; if you've never watched paramecium feeding or being trained; if you've never considered what it is in you that observes your perceptions, then it might be easy to think consciousness comes from the brain. But in order to do so, you have to refuse to look at all these other phenomena.


Quote:You keep asserting words like "know" or "sure", which seems to betray your need for 100% certainty. I get that, because I was trapped in that mode of thinking for most of my life. That's why the fountain of youth is a perfect analogy. It is reasonable for me to not believe something if there's no evidence for it. It is also reasonable for me to not believe in something I don't even know about in the first place.

It is not reasonable, however, to start with a presupposition (e.g. that god exists or that the fountain of youth exists) that is not grounded in objective reality (e.g. you subjectively experience it) and then build up supposed knowledge about said thing.

You're certainly entitled to do so, and many billions of humans have done so over the course of history, but you run the risk of wasting a good portion of your life on a wild goose chase similar to the one Ponce de Leon went on hundreds of years ago.

Honestly, if there's no God and no continued existence after death, it really doesn't matter much what we do with our lives. And it really doesn't matter much what happens in our life.

Quote: My man! That's all that really matters to me at the end of the day. That people vote and treat others according to reason and evidence, not dogma and doctrine.

If nothing else, at least we can agree on politics.

Quote:You're welcome and thank you. Apologize if I seem like I'm badgering you. That is not my intent.


Not at all. I like the conversation. Whatever happened with that Hindu holy man? Why did you eventually break away from that?

Ed
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
Hey Ed. You continue to defend your position with all sorts of subjective assertions for which there isn't a shred of empirical evidence, so I think that we've reached the end of the road this particular around, but I feel confident that the atheistic seed is planted in you ; )

As PhilHellenes would say, accepting even for a moment, that god doesn't exist would instantly change everything around you. Everything you perceive would be forever changed. It would be like asking you to step into a completely different universe. That's asking a lot, and so it's understandable that you would either consciously or unconsciously push back with all your might. I just hope that someday, if/when you're ready, some of the things me and others have shared with you will come in handy. (FYI - I highly recommend these three PhilHellenes videos: http://youtu.be/VdRCPjXn1DY & http://youtu.be/9nnwvoH-4XI & http://youtu.be/r6w2M50_Xdk)


I would like to address a few of your statements real quickly, though:
It would be nice to be truly happy.

I highly encourage you to abandon that thought. True happiness is not a destination. You'll never get there. Just focus on some of the things you mentioned, and use them as compasses that help re-orient you in the direction of happiness when you catch your self pointing in other crappier directions (e.g. anxiety, etc.)

sometimes I really look forward to what's coming next. I don't like this world very much. TMI, I know, but I say all that just to say it must be nice to be happy as you describe it.

Firstly, take a moment to ponder what your first statement (e.g. "sometimes I really look forward to what's coming next) would mean if this human life was not a practice run for eternal life. For just a minute or two, consider just how valuable your conscious life would be if you knew for certain that it was the, in fact, the only life . Imagine just how pissed off you would be at the fucks that created this lie and perpetrated it for thousands of years, conning you into anticipating a "next" life that's not coming.

Then take a minute to soak in the utter joy and happiness when you realize that you've been fortunate enough to experience human consciousness. And be thankful. Truly thankful. Not for some god's sake, but simply for the sake of thankfulness. And then spend the rest of your waking life soaking up every single fleeting moment like if it will your last. Once in a while, your mind will wonder, and you'll forget to treasure life and soak in every moment, but for the most part, this sentiment will be front and center.

No need for god, the afterlife, etc. Life, for it's own sake, fleeting, and infinitely beautiful because of its finite nature, is more than enough.

That sort of happiness is yours for the taking my friend. But you know what you have to do...

Honestly, if there's no God and no continued existence after death, it really doesn't matter much what we do with our lives. And it really doesn't matter much what happens in our life.

Actually, you've got it backwards. Just read your own words above and it will become painfully obvious. It's the people who have been suckered by this fairy tale of eternal afterlife that think life here on earth doesn't really matter (e.g. "I look forward to what's coming next"). Much like precious metals are defined by their scarcity, the truly profound preciousness of life is only fully revealed when you come to the realization that it's finite and fleeting.

Whatever happened with that Hindu holy man? Why did you eventually break away from that?

For the same reason that I broke away from The Neverending Story and A Wrinkle in Time when I was a kid. The Hindu holy man's Brahman story was beautiful and still provides value and perspective to this day, but it's just a story. Beautiful, but not grounded in physical reality. And so I put it in it's rightful perspective, and seek out new stories and novel perspectives while remaining grounded in a skeptical, evidence-based approach to real life.

Thanks for listening and keep it up. I'm digging the direction you've taken, and I'll see you at the voting booth ; )

Join the Logic Speaks Community

I am the unconverted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2012, 09:41 PM
 
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
(11-05-2012 08:02 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Lets just get out of the red shall we? Wink

Ohmy Is that even possible?
Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2012, 09:49 PM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
This Remarkable Thing and Dust That Sings are truly beautiful.... peotry in fact. And the former uses one of my favourite Genesis instrumentals, too.
The third link didn't work so I am guessing that it's Science Saved My Soul.
Also, highly recommended are Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me? and Speculum

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
11-05-2012, 11:41 PM
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
Egor, you look nice in green Wink and I hear you quit your night job Big Grin

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2012, 12:36 AM
 
RE: I Think I'd Like to Change
OMG! Look at my rep points. I don't think I was ever positive in here before. I know it probably sounds stupid, but I'm truly grateful, and it really means something to me. Stark Raving was the one who tipped me over into positive with a +2 (thanks SR!). That you all have put your faith in me enough to do that is humbling.

Again, thank you all.

Sincerely,

Ed

(11-05-2012 09:24 PM)lightninlives Wrote:  Hey Ed. You continue to defend your position with all sorts of subjective assertions for which there isn't a shred of empirical evidence, so I think that we've reached the end of the road this particular around, but I feel confident that the atheistic seed is planted in you ; )

Well, I'm not sure why I need to be an atheist, per se. But I will always keep an open mind to any argument one wants to make.

Quote:As PhilHellenes would say, accepting even for a moment, that god doesn't exist would instantly change everything around you. Everything you perceive would be forever changed. It would be like asking you to step into a completely different universe.

Agreed. And believe it or not, I have been an atheist for a short time. There was some math I was doing once and I wanted to model an attribute of God mathematically, and I realized suddenly that "God" was a construction of mine. And it wasn't until I found a way to make a square circle, so to speak (the possibility of there being a type of dualism within monism) that I came back to a notion of God. It was actually recovering from that moment of atheism that led to my definition of God as the monistic entity of fundamental consciousness.

And during that time, I didn't think to change my life or anything. I mean I didn't fall apart.

Quote:That's asking a lot, and so it's understandable that you would either consciously or unconsciously push back with all your might. I just hope that someday, if/when you're ready, some of the things me and others have shared with you will come in handy. (FYI - I highly recommend these three PhilHellenes videos: http://youtu.be/VdRCPjXn1DY & http://youtu.be/9nnwvoH-4XI & http://youtu.be/r6w2M50_Xdk)

Can I ask you a question? Why would you want me to be an atheist?


Quote:I would like to address a few of your statements real quickly, though:
It would be nice to be truly happy.

I highly encourage you to abandon that thought. True happiness is not a destination. You'll never get there. Just focus on some of the things you mentioned, and use them as compasses that help re-orient you in the direction of happiness when you catch your self pointing in other crappier directions (e.g. anxiety, etc.)

Will do. Thanks.

Quote:sometimes I really look forward to what's coming next. I don't like this world very much. TMI, I know, but I say all that just to say it must be nice to be happy as you describe it.

Firstly, take a moment to ponder what your first statement (e.g. "sometimes I really look forward to what's coming next) would mean if this human life was not a practice run for eternal life. For just a minute or two, consider just how valuable your conscious life would be if you knew for certain that it was the, in fact, the only life . Imagine just how pissed off you would be at the fucks that created this lie and perpetrated it for thousands of years, conning you into anticipating a "next" life that's not coming.

You know, I've always been a little strange in that when it comes to the important things like love, compassion, existence, etc., if they aren't eternal in nature, I really don't want them. In other words, if I'm just going to go blank at the end of my life, I don't particularly want to drag it out. Like I said, I don't really like this world very much. But if the pain of this life is training for a higher type of existence, then it's worthwhile. You may not agree with that position, but that's pretty much my orientation.

Quote:Then take a minute to soak in the utter joy and happiness when you realize that you've been fortunate enough to experience human consciousness. And be thankful. Truly thankful. Not for some god's sake, but simply for the sake of thankfulness.

Yeah, but I'll be dead, and when I am none of that experience of consciousness or thankfulness will matter. I mean, why should I be thankful for human consciousness just to have it jerked away at death? What is the joy in getting a great gift soley for the purpose of losing it later on? All I can think in that case is that it would have been better to never have been born.

Quote:And then spend the rest of your waking life soaking up every single fleeting moment like if it will your last. Once in a while, your mind will wonder, and you'll forget to treasure life and soak in every moment, but for the most part, this sentiment will be front and center.

No need for god, the afterlife, etc. Life, for it's own sake, fleeting, and infinitely beautiful because of its finite nature, is more than enough.

I'm not trying to argue, but what infinite beauty are you talking about? And infinite for who? Not me, not if I return to blank when I die. I might be able to be happy in the moment if I were an animal, but not as a human being. My dog is happy in the moment. I don't think she anticipates or worrys about the future, but I see things in a larger perspective than my dog does. It's like, the more happiness life gives me, the greater the loss when I'm faced with death.

Quote:That sort of happiness is yours for the taking my friend. But you know what you have to do...

Become an atheist?

Quote:Actually, you've got it backwards. Just read your own words above and it will become painfully obvious. It's the people who have been suckered by this fairy tale of eternal afterlife that think life here on earth doesn't really matter (e.g. "I look forward to what's coming next"). Much like precious metals are defined by their scarcity, the truly profound preciousness of life is only fully revealed when you come to the realization that it's finite and fleeting.

That's a good point.


Quote:For the same reason that I broke away from The Neverending Story and A Wrinkle in Time when I was a kid. The Hindu holy man's Brahman story was beautiful and still provides value and perspective to this day, but it's just a story. Beautiful, but not grounded in physical reality. And so I put it in it's rightful perspective, and seek out new stories and novel perspectives while remaining grounded in a skeptical, evidence-based approach to real life.

I'm curious about something: If you didn't exist before you were born, and if you won't exist after you die, how can your life ever be considered real? If there is the eternity of non-existence prior and the eternity of non-existence after--are you sure you're even alive?

Quote:Thanks for listening and keep it up. I'm digging the direction you've taken, and I'll see you at the voting booth ; )


Grate convo. Thumbsup



(11-05-2012 11:41 PM)aurora Wrote:  Egor, you look nice in green Wink and I hear you quit your night job Big Grin

No doubt! But I'm not sure what you mean about the night job?
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: