AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1003/10031101-Research demonstrating how a computer is used to predict what film a person is thinking about.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3809 views

This is the start of a series of videos anticipating a "War on Neuroscience" which will be the next anti-science campaign-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XBZHJcoK4-This will include not only creationists but new agers of all stripes and even agnostics like dhw who think there must be more to consciousness than can be explained by materialism.

--
GPJ

3705 views

This is the start of a series of videos anticipating a "War on Neuroscience" which will be the next anti-science campaign
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XBZHJcoK4
> 
> This will include not only creationists but new agers of all stripes and even agnostics like dhw who think there must be more to consciousness than can be explained by materialism.-The speaker on youtube specifically said the neuroscientists could see the mechanism for consciousness. Wishful thinking. What he obviouly meant was that the PET scans, etc. can demonstrate that the subject IS conscious, not how consciousness works or derives from the brain. The research going on is excellent. We know that memories are scattered all over, but to tell a subject the exact memory he is reviewing will always be impossible. The neural network of an IQ of 150 will be much more complex than an IQ of 110. One will be able to measure the intensity of thought, not the exact thought. From a deist standpoint, not to worry.

3683 views


> ...The neural network of an IQ of 150 will be much more complex than an IQ of 110. One will be able to measure the intensity of thought, not the exact thought. From a deist standpoint, not to worry.-Heh. Except that well-rested, that neural network of 110 will consistently outperform an overworked and overstimulated 150. -I haven't had an IQ test since high school, but I'll openly admit that on the two occasions I took the test, I scored 90 and 120, respectively. The types of questions asked were of course, logic games, but I had never seen questions of the type before when I had taken it at a 90. -This same mind essentially failed his GRE math exam last summer too, but again this was due to exposure of the types of questions. The kids who score 700-800 on these typically drill every day the year leading up to them, as they had with their SAT/ACT exams in secondary school. -As for the second part, the brain undoubtedly has an encoding scheme for storing information, and this is one of the few things I am QUITE confident that we'll be able to discover. If you're familiar with the concept of B-trees, its quite easy to see theoretically how a neural net makes it incredibly easy to retrieve information. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-Tree-Viewed as a program, it doesn't explain how a mind initiates the calling procedure to access a memory--and I think it is THIS process that you believe can't be measured. We'll see. By the time I'm 60, I think we'll have the ability to implant computer components in our heads, and this will require some knowledge on how our minds transmit information.-http://www.streammygame.com/smg/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13-Here's a consumer-level device that will allow mental control of a mouse.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3753 views


> http://www.streammygame.com/smg/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13&#... 
> Here's a consumer-level device that will allow mental control of a mouse.-There are several extraocular muscles for different movements. How does one electrode know which one to pick up for up and down, oblique, or side to side movement for fast focus?

3720 views

GEORGE: This is the start of a series of videos anticipating a "War on Neuroscience" which will be the next anti-science campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77XBZHJcoK4
This will include not only creationists but new agers of all stripes and even agnostics like dhw who think there must be more to consciousness than can be explained by materialism.-First of all, agnostics like dhw do not think that there MUST be more to consciousness etc., but that there MAY be more. Secondly, a "War on Neuroscience" will not include agnostics like dhw. It doesn't even include theists like David Turell. The only war I'm liable to wage is against premature conclusions.
 
The speaker says that we have "begun to reveal the mechanisms", and we have identified the "physical correlates in the brain activity", which is presumably enough to convince him that the neural network is the physical source of all our mental activities. No-one on this forum is questioning that specific areas of the brain are related to specific activities. The point at issue is whether physical matter PRODUCES will, consciousness, emotion, memory, imagination etc. An analogy might be the fact that without TV cameras and TV sets you won't get the images, but the TV cameras and sets do not PRODUCE the images. Furthermore, it takes an independent intelligence to operate them. (How do we switch our own different mechanisms on and off?)-At one point, the speaker asks what seems to me the big give-away question, which Matt has also asked: if humans can build an android that produces all the above mental activities of humans, will theists still believe in a soul? I can only answer for myself: no, I won't. Of course, this won't settle the Chance v. Design argument ... I doubt if even the most naÃ¯ve of atheists would believe such a machine could spontaneously assemble itself ... but for me it would render God a virtual irrelevance. Sadly, we don't have a conventional theist on the forum to discuss this aspect of religion. However, the android hasn't been built yet. Maybe it never will be. I'm not going to base or dismiss beliefs on such a hypothesis. If atheists have faith that the machine can be built, and theists have faith that it can't, good for them. I prefer to wait for the evidence before I make a decision.

3704 views


> If atheists have faith that the machine can be built, and theists have faith that it can't, good for them. I prefer to wait for the evidence before I make a decision.-It is going to be a very, very, very long wait. George took his leap of faith, I've taken mine. There is no other way. God is concealed, will always be, and His presence will always be inferred, with stronger and stronger inference as biologic science continues to demonstrate an ever increasing complexity that underlies life. Join George, Pascal, and me!

3728 views


> > If atheists have faith that the machine can be built, and theists have faith that it can't, good for them. I prefer to wait for the evidence before I make a decision.
> 
> It is going to be a very, very, very long wait. George took his leap of faith, I've taken mine. There is no other way. God is concealed, will always be, and His presence will always be inferred, with stronger and stronger inference as biologic science continues to demonstrate an ever increasing complexity that underlies life. Join George, Pascal, and me!-Of course, you omit that inferences are always weak by nature. The only "good" inference is the one that can actually be verified; which by your own definition is something that can be never done. So it is useless. -An alternate point of view will be had by atheists for the same evidence: not useful either, but it's an easier proposition to live by. Both positions ultimately begin from a pre-rendered viewpoint: So why then, should we accept such a weak proposition? The ultimate question that I've probed at before that you've never ventured to answer, is *why* should I believe in this deity? God(s) only serve a purpose for those people that have an inclination to believe in the first place. Your view gives a *weak* justification for those people, but serves nothing more than those few. -I can't speak for dhw, but there is NO belief I hold based on such weakness. Why should he or I accept an unprovable position?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3692 views


> Your view gives a *weak* justification for those people, but serves nothing more than those few. 
> 
> I can't speak for dhw, but there is NO belief I hold based on such weakness. Why should he or I accept an unprovable position?-That position is fine for your inclinations. I believe ,a la', Adler that: It is reasonable to believe in a deity when the proof appears to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think for me it reached that point a few years ago. And in the past 6 years the proof has been strengthened for me with each passing level of life's complexity discovered. -What kind of God would you need? My 'areligious kind'(to coin a phrase implying a God not described by current religions) satisfies me. You are a strong person, obvious from what you have revealed about yourself. You don't need an outside source of comfort as offered by religions' Gods. I am the same way. I am about three times your age, but my thinking this way is not due to old age fear. I was like this in my 50's, but later, studying the obvious defects in Darwin only served to strengthen my point of view.

3697 views

Sorry David, I would have answered sooner but for some reason I didn't get the alert email. -I guess I just don't understand your perspective well enough. I know enough of Adler's argumentative style to posit that he takes this basis as an "if we have to make a decision now." His style in "A Difference" was very positively in this light. He then builds a "court case" as it were as to the reasons why... however, as far as I'm concerned I don't see how you can differentiate it from the argument from ignorance. -Yes, life is complex. I understand that. I don't understand why that is sufficient reasoning to say that this complexity is sufficient reason to posit an external deity.-It's like... to me you're saying "Because we can't fathom how life could be created by chance, we MUST have SOME explanation, and my chosen explanation is God." -My position (and I venture dhw's, tentatively) is that we can never be justified in making that claim. Court cases are overturned all the time! If you argue similarly to Adler, you might feel justified based on the current information, but I'm quite sure that the scientists that lived during the 16th and 17th centuries were just as certain of their datum concerning the world as you are in your position of God's existence. Chemistry in the 19th century was also as certain of its claims thought it was wrong about much of it. -So to me, I'm scrambling to explain why positing a deity does ENOUGH. What does it explain that chance doesn't? If the answer is "nothing," then it just doesn't sound reasonable to me. At least as far as I can see, it doesn't explain anything any better than chance. -Especially if multiple universes pan out to be true: Then it definitely makes it difficult to be as sure as you are--an infinite number of universes directly corresponds to exactly the kind of "guaranteed win scenario" that I've discussed as well as one of the more recent papers you posted here. 
[EDIT]To finish the court-case analogy, this method asserts on some level that it is necessary to make a decision right now at this moment, however--there is no judge nor jury here, and I see no need to decide on questions that are clearly unanswered. Yes, we're just discovering the true complexity of biology, but complex doesn't mean unanswerable. [EDIT]-Though I have yet to delve into the math, I'm really beginning to think that the basic accepted explanations of quantum mechanics (superposition vs. many worlds) are completely off the mark. I can't explain why yet.-[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3754 views


> Yes, life is complex. I understand that. I don't understand why that is sufficient reasoning to say that this complexity is sufficient reason to posit an external deity.-I believe that your time is spent so much on your chosen education and career that you have not had the time to study how complex a single cell can be. I cannot see how chemistry can go from inorganic to this degree of complexity, which is constantly increasing as research continues, without an guidance.
> 
> It's like... to me you're saying "Because we can't fathom how life could be created by chance, we MUST have SOME explanation, and my chosen explanation is God." 
> 
> My position (and I venture dhw's, tentatively) is that we can never be justified in making that claim. Court cases are overturned all the time! -My mind and logical thinking cannot be compared to court cases, where one set of individuals disagree with another group usually on technical legal grounds.- 
>
> So to me, I'm scrambling to explain why positing a deity does ENOUGH. What does it explain that chance doesn't? -My answer is that my expectation is 'chance' can NEVER explain it, and will never, so we have left onlly design.-> 
> Especially if multiple universes pan out to be true:-When will that be? String, membrane theory is unproven after 35 years of work. It may predict 10^500 universes, outside ours, never to be proveable! Try leaving ours. Atheist pie in the sky. ->
> Though I have yet to delve into the math, I'm really beginning to think that the basic accepted explanations of quantum mechanics (superposition vs. many worlds) are completely off the mark. I can't explain why yet.-I'm hoping you can one day. I still am sure there is only one of me, here and now. A herd of me would need a wrangler in control, not possible. )

3734 views


> > Yes, life is complex. I understand that. I don't understand why that is sufficient reasoning to say that this complexity is sufficient reason to posit an external deity.
> 
> I believe that your time is spent so much on your chosen education and career that you have not had the time to study how complex a single cell can be. I cannot see how chemistry can go from inorganic to this degree of complexity, which is constantly increasing as research continues, without an guidance.
> > -To a certain extent you're right--my training is such that no problems are considered unsolvable until they're proven unsolvable. As to the complexity within cells, as we're just now beginning to unravel the mysteries within cells--seems premature to claim "problem solved" (as you do) when we haven't fully defined the problem yet. You are the astronomer who has probed the depths of the biological cosmos and am amazed by what you see... but what we lack is an explanation of how our biological stars have come to be. Since we lack that explanation, we are in NO position to judge, in my book. -
> > It's like... to me you're saying "Because we can't fathom how life could be created by chance, we MUST have SOME explanation, and my chosen explanation is God." 
> > 
> > My position (and I venture dhw's, tentatively) is that we can never be justified in making that claim. Court cases are overturned all the time! 
> 
> My mind and logical thinking cannot be compared to court cases, where one set of individuals disagree with another group usually on technical legal grounds.
> -No, its the same. You have logically analyzed your evidence, and support your view, but to an outsider such as myself, it isn't convincing. The judge is each person you have met here (and elsewhere) that discusses them. I probed your position quite thoroughly, and it is technically sound. But since you're arguing for the position of an inference, your case rests on the strength of your evidence, and at least in my case, I find it weak, for mainly the reasons stated above. Your argument asks me to accept the existence of a creator based purely upon the notion that we don't have an alternative explanation. Since there is no other explanation, we have no choice but to accept the creator, no matter how weak the evidence is. I make the claim that weak evidence means more work is required, not that we accept the claim. Especially when dealing with statistical arguments. -> 
> >
> > So to me, I'm scrambling to explain why positing a deity does ENOUGH. What does it explain that chance doesn't? 
> 
> My answer is that my expectation is 'chance' can NEVER explain it, and will never, so we have left onlly design.
> -But it doesn't answer the question why it is ENOUGH. -> > 
> > Especially if multiple universes pan out to be true:
> 
> When will that be? String, membrane theory is unproven after 35 years of work. It may predict 10^500 universes, outside ours, never to be proveable! Try leaving ours. Atheist pie in the sky. 
>-Well, it has been proven that we don't live in Euclidean 3-space. Already we're dealing with a universe that has more than three dimensions, even though we can't directly detect the fourth. You are correct to be cautious about String Theory--even I consider it a dead end. (Albeit one that has driven some very excellent mathematics.) -But to declare "never to be provable" is a misnomer; we can't presently conceive of 10^500 other universes, so why would we think it possible to detect them? Don't take this the wrong way, but you consistently seem to make judgments about ideas before they have time to be given flesh. 35 years is a blink of an eye. It took 3-4k years (perhaps longer!) to realize that our universe had more than 3-dimensions in the first place.-It is the fact that we have continually proven ourselves wrong that makes me adhere to the principle that no idea should be accepted that doesn't provide hard evidence. 
 
> >
> > Though I have yet to delve into the math, I'm really beginning to think that the basic accepted explanations of quantum mechanics (superposition vsa . many worlds) are completely off the mark. I can't explain why yet.
> 
> I'm hoping you can one day. I still am sure there is only one of me, here and now. A herd of me would need a wrangler in control, not possible. )-Quantum computing is going to provide some very hard evidence about the nature of nature.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3766 views

MATT (to David): It's like...to me you're saying "Because we can't fathom how life could be created by chance, we MUST have SOME explanation, and my chosen explanation is God." 
My position (and I venture dhw's, tentatively) is that we can never be justified in making that claim.-We're sort of in the same position, but perhaps mine is less sceptical (unusual!) and more evenly balanced (not a criticism) than yours. I can understand perfectly well why David believes in a creator, and I can understand perfectly well why George believes in chance and the natural laws. It's purely a matter of what each individual finds more likely. When I consider the vast collection of independent, working bodies within my own body, and the incomprehensible phenomenon of consciousness and all its ramifications, and the sheer miraculousness of life itself, I simply cannot believe for one minute that it is all the result ... over no matter how many millions of years ... of an unconscious process that began by chance. David has therefore come to the logical conclusion that if it ain't chance, it's design. That's the point at which he stops, and although I think he does assign certain attributes to the designer, he acknowledges that they are purely a matter of personal faith. There are also certain experiences (let's subsume them all under the heading of "paranormal", although I don't like it) which may...just MAY...suggest there is indeed a dimension beyond the material ones we are familiar with. These should not be ignored.-You say that a deity "doesn't explain anything better than chance." But if one can't believe that chance created life, some form of designer does offer a better explanation provided one stops at that point. However, I (and you too, I think) can't stop at that point, and this brings me to the reason why I can also understand perfectly well why George embraces atheism. There is no evidence of a God. I feel as George does that there is no divine power "up there". Despite the pinpoint engineering of life and the functioning, interrelated mechanisms of the universe, our world just seems to go its own random way, which suggests total absence of a deity (or at the most, the presence of an indifferent deity, who might just as well not be there). Intellectually, there is also no avoiding the question of God's own provenance, and if you can believe in a supreme intelligence that either came into being undesigned or has always been there, then you might as well believe that WE came into being undesigned or that life has always been there (BBella's view). I share your opinion that in this respect God offers nothing that chance can't offer. -And so I can't say as you do that "we can never be justified" in embracing a belief. My agnostic dilemma lies in the fact that I see both sides as having an equally strong and equally weak case! Hypotheses like multiple universes or man-made brains mean nothing at the moment. You might just as well say: "Supposing God suddenly reveals himself?" As I said in my response to David, I'm content to keep looking, to wait for new developments, and probably to die without getting any closer to the ultimate truth, but I don't have a problem if others choose for or against design. My only problem is when people who have made their choice hurl ridicule at those who have gone the opposite way, but fail to acknowledge or even recognize the equally vast gaps in their own reasoning.

3760 views

I'm content to keep looking, to wait for new developments, and probably to die without getting any closer to the ultimate truth, but I don't have a problem if others choose for or against design.<-
dhw, you state you are content to sit on the fence and rest in your easy chair for the rest of your life if need be, which I understand, because I have a chair on the agnostic fence as well, altho I admit to playing in the field quite often, it's a good center of the playing field. You say you will probably die not getting any closer to the UT, but in truth, we will all die the same, in ignorance of the UT. -But that said, I ask you to come play in the field just a moment (your comfy ez chair safely at arms reach) and indulge me a hypothetical question(or anyone else that would like to indulge as well). I hope not to complicate the question trying to get it across. -What do you wish or hope the ultimate truth is? Not asking what science, proof/no proof, the intelligent or the wise of humanity believe it to be. Just considering the reality of the way things appear to you, in detail, what do you hope is ultimately taking place here in reality? -Metaphorically, I am asking you to take all the puzzle pieces that you see, and use your imagination to build your own UT Big Picture.-Thanks in advance to those who indulge me,
bb

3761 views

BBELLA: What do you wish or hope the ultimate truth is? Not asking what science, proof/no proof, the intelligent or the wise of humanity believe it to be. Just considering the reality of the way things appear to you, in detail, what do you hope is ultimately taking place here in reality?-Ugh, this is a devil of a question ... though I'm sure the purpose is angelic! As a preamble, firstly I need to get rid of the word "hope", because that's too emotionally committed. I'd prefer to say what I would see as my IDEAL "ultimate truth". Is that permissible? Secondly, although I've been exceedingly lucky (so far) in my life, in my thinking I just can't ignore the terrible suffering that life has inflicted on so many others. This undoubtedly colours my wished-for UT.-There would have to be some kind of continuance (and compensation) after death. I would like to retain my identity, to be with the people I love, and continue the activities I enjoy. These would include access to literature, music, sport and chocolate, though how on Earth ... or wherever else ... this would be possible without a body, I really don't know. (Sex is another obvious victim of bodilessness.) I would like all such opportunities to be available to everyone in a sort of universal ... though not communal! ... love-in. Your idea of rest periods, and the possibility of voluntarily entering another form of life appeals to me, as it removes the burden and boredom of eternity. This would all be part of a vast fabric of life of which I remain a tiny fragment in a tiny niche, just as I am now, though that niche could expand if I wished it to. There would be no God ... just this great multidimensional universe full of beings like myself in their own niches, but without suffering, without our human vices (chocolate in moderation, folks), without hierarchies, and without competition other than games (ah, cricket!), played in perfect sporting spirit. Why no God? Because then there would be no need to explain earthly suffering, no ultimate authority ... nothing beyond the joys of life itself. It would transpire that life has gone on and will go on evolving here and elsewhere in the universe for ever, and the universe itself is a body like ours that simply continues to renew and change itself without self-awareness and without purpose. Why without purpose? Because purpose sets limits. My ideal universe has no limits apart from the exclusion of suffering. How we could possibly live on bodiless in a universe of love and no suffering without there being a God to organize it all is far, far beyond my imaginative powers, but fortunately you didn't ask me to explain the technicalities!

3732 views

BBELLA: What do you wish or hope the ultimate truth is? Not asking what science, proof/no proof, the intelligent or the wise of humanity believe it to be. Just considering the reality of the way things appear to you, in detail, what do you hope is ultimately taking place here in reality?
> 
> Ugh, this is a devil of a question ... though I'm sure the purpose is angelic! As a preamble, firstly I need to get rid of the word "hope", because that's too emotionally committed. I'd prefer to say what I would see as my IDEAL "ultimate truth". Is that permissible? -Much better said, yes!->Secondly, although I've been exceedingly lucky (so far) in my life, in my thinking I just can't ignore the terrible suffering that life has inflicted on so many others. This undoubtedly colours my wished-for UT.-I was looking for you to give an "ideal" UT with the suffering on earth in mind as well. In your estimation (or anyone reading), what could possibly be the ideal UT going on here with all the suffering?-> 
> There would have to be some kind of continuance (and compensation) after death. -Is this your ideal UT for suffering? Continued life after death in compensation for the life of suffering here? If so, what would be the ideal compensation? ->I would like to retain my identity, to be with the people I love, and continue the activities I enjoy. These would include access to literature, music, sport and chocolate, though how on Earth ... or wherever else ... this would be possible without a body, I really don't know. (Sex is another obvious victim of bodilessness.) -If it is your ideal UT, why would you be without a body? It's your UT so you should have a body if you want one! ->I would like all such opportunities to be available to everyone in a sort of universal ... though not communal! ... love-in. Your idea of rest periods, and the possibility of voluntarily entering another form of life appeals to me, as it removes the burden and boredom of eternity. This would all be part of a vast fabric of life of which I remain a tiny fragment in a tiny niche, just as I am now, though that niche could expand if I wished it to. There would be no God ... just this great multidimensional universe full of beings like myself in their own niches, but without suffering, without our human vices (chocolate in moderation, folks), without hierarchies, and without competition other than games (ah, cricket!), played in perfect sporting spirit. -Within your "vast fabric of life" of your UT we already know there is suffering here on earth. I had hoped (not a true emotional investment of hope, but can't think of another word at the moment) you would consider suffering within your ideal UT, just because we already have it. ->Why no God? Because then there would be no need to explain earthly suffering, no ultimate authority ... nothing beyond the joys of life itself. It would transpire that life has gone on and will go on evolving here and elsewhere in the universe for ever, and the universe itself is a body like ours that simply continues to renew and change itself without self-awareness and without purpose. Why without purpose? Because purpose sets limits. My ideal universe has no limits apart from the exclusion of suffering.-In your above ideal UT, didn't you give the universal body direction or purpose in which to evolve by wishing to exclude suffering? When you exclude suffering you are placing purpose and limits on which the fabric of the universe can evolve. Only by self-awareness can suffering eventually be eliminated purposely. If, in your UT reality, you excluded suffering, where was suffering placed? It can't be "forgotten" because it will always be part of the history or remembrance of the fabric. You could place it in a locked closet where no one could enter? But eventually, after a million or so years, you may even want to peek into for a visit just to remember what it is you can't quite remember was so bad. Not only that, if you are the only one that remembers, you become the "God" that doesn't allow suffering. Eventually, someone is going to want to know what you are hiding in there.-[edit] continued in next post

3717 views

2 part continued from previous post->How we could possibly live on bodiless in a universe of love and no suffering without there being a God to organize it all is far, far beyond my imaginative powers, but fortunately you didn't ask me to explain the technicalities!-Still unsure why we should have to be without a body after death in our own UT? Also, if there is only the fabric of What IS in which we all exist within and are part and parcel of, then it is already organized enough to maintain existence as we know it. Whether by chance or by an organized God or just a fabric, it is already able to sustain life as we know it. Why could it not sustain or provide for life with a body after this life that some claim they know is? -Not surprisingly, I agree with you on most everything. Your UT is right in line with mine... except, I would have suffering in my UT. Sadly, because we already have suffering, it cannot be placed into a closet and forgotten. It would have to be a place that throughout time a body could have the choice to experience so they could truly comprehend just how good they have it, and so freedom truly means free. But....my UT would have a holographic program we could enter into and experience all the hell we need to remind us of just how great we have it, lest we forget and repeat it again. We would enter and leave the hologram just like people enter here and leave here; through birth and death. That way it's not just a "fun house" for the base minded. This hologram would be purely a hologram and not real in anyway, altho it would feel as if everything is real, just like it feels when we come here, no difference...a whole life without memory of how we got here and where we are going when we leave.

3784 views

BBella asked for my ideal "ultimate truth", and I said that it would be coloured by my consciousness of the terrible suffering here on Earth. There's been a major misunderstanding over this, perhaps best summed up by your comment:
"Your UT is right in line with mine...except I would have suffering in my UT. Sadly, because we already have suffering, it cannot be placed into a closet and forgotten."-I've taken suffering on Earth as a given truth that can't be changed, not an "ultimate" truth, and the rest of my post is built on what I see as an explanation and an ideal compensation ... i.e. an afterlife in which suffering has been eliminated. I'm not going to pretend that I've thought this through down to its last detail, but I think I can answer the questions you've posed about suffering and about the body.-I see suffering as an inevitable result of the randomness and physicality of our life here. That will continue. We can do nothing about it. That is how physical life (which entails the battle for survival) works. Whoever lives through it will of course remember it ... memory is part of our identity, and in my ideal universe, our bodiless selves will still be us, and what we have learned from life on Earth will remain with us. I agree entirely with you that our suffering enables us to appreciate the good things all the more (a fertile approach to the subject of good and evil), and it will have helped to fashion us, but we will have left it behind us. In my ideal afterlife, then, all the causes of suffering will have been removed. That's why I said that there would be no body (the cause of much suffering, as you know only too well), no hierarchy, no competition, and the list could go on and on: no money, no territory, no power, no greed, no lust ... not banished by magic, but by the fact that this new life has no need for any of these things. There is no battle for survival or power or wealth, and no exposure to the inevitable physical disasters and illnesses that plague our bodies. Maybe it's akin to the Buddhist Nirvana. Your idea of rest periods and of the voluntary choice to return to Earth in one form or another appeals to me as a possible refuge from boredom. Perhaps this should also entail the voluntary eradication of our past. I'd have to think about that when/if the time came. Your hologram might serve the same function, since it feels real ... but in that case, why not go for the real thing on Earth? Of course, our life here may also seem like a hologram once it's over, just as our own past sometimes feels like someone else's dream.-Matt's ideal UT that he would become God may help to explain why my ideal UT would be that there is no God! Despite my great respect and admiration and affection for my fellow truth-seeker, I don't want to be under the authority of any being subject to the same flaws and weaknesses as myself. Nor would I wish to wield such authority. You may argue that since I have the choice here, I can choose to have a God who is perfect according to my own concept of perfection. But my own concept entails a universe in which life goes on indefinitely in its earthly way (a given, unavoidable present truth) and in its unearthly way (ultimate truth, as described here and in my first post), and so there is absolutely no need for a God.
 
You've set us off on an interesting path, because clearly our ideal UT reflects much of our thinking about life in general. I'll stop here, but I suspect you'll be probing further!

3686 views

Sorry for the late reply, have been on Easter Holiday week with family out of town and just getting settled back at home.->I agree entirely with you that our suffering enables us to appreciate the good things all the more (a fertile approach to the subject of good and evil), and it will have helped to fashion us, but we will have left it behind us. In my ideal afterlife, then, all the causes of suffering will have been removed. That's why I said that there would be no body (the cause of much suffering, as you know only too well), -But, because everything would be your choice, why could you not retain a physical body and it not be subject to deterioration, etc? Why would the physical body be the cause of much suffering if we were perfect and in a perfect environment?->Your idea of rest periods and of the voluntary choice to return to Earth in one form or another appeals to me as a possible refuge from boredom. Perhaps this should also entail the voluntary eradication of our past. I'd have to think about that when/if the time came. Your hologram might serve the same function, since it feels real ... but in that case, why not go for the real thing on Earth? -The real thing entails the suffering of many beings but the hologram would only appear to have suffering, as a reminder.->Of course, our life here may also seem like a hologram once it's over, just as our own past sometimes feels like someone else's dream.-I've always said, my past seems like a book I once read...or like a dream I had. But, who is to say that life isn't just that way? Seems like it is the aborigine who claim life is the dream. Even better, maybe it is all a hologram, which is the basis of the book written by Michael Talbot; Holographic Universe. He brings physics into the paranormal realm, which is interesting. Excellent reading! Bohm and Pribram theorize a holographic universe as well, maybe there are others. 
 
> Matt's ideal UT that he would become God may help to explain why my ideal UT would be that there is no God! Despite my great respect and admiration and affection for my fellow truth-seeker, I don't want to be under the authority of any being subject to the same flaws and weaknesses as myself. Nor would I wish to wield such authority. You may argue that since I have the choice here, I can choose to have a God who is perfect according to my own concept of perfection. But my own concept entails a universe in which life goes on indefinitely in its earthly way (a given, unavoidable present truth) and in its unearthly way (ultimate truth, as described here and in my first post), and so there is absolutely no need for a God.-I agree in totality with the above. I believe the universal fabric, as it appears from my point of view, does allow for, or can accommodate everything we both have in mind, without an overseeing/authoritative god that allows or not allows. But, if there is an actual overseeing "God," maybe this being is using the fabric for his own purpose...who knows?

3717 views

BBELLA: But, because everything would be your choice, why could you not retain a physical body and it not be subject to deterioration, etc.? Why would the physical body be the cause of much suffering if we were perfect and in a perfect environment?-There seems to have been a subtle change in your challenge! We were asked what would be our chosen, or wished-for Ultimate Truth, and I interpreted this as meaning, for instance, whether God existed, whether there was an afterlife, and if so what it would be like. I didn't equate this with my being given the powers of God, and a free hand to change the laws of Nature! No, my UT is that there is no God and no other being with such powers. That includes me. My approach is to accept the reality of Life on Earth as it is (i.e. a given truth we can do nothing about, not an "ultimate" truth), and to fit the UT round that. I don't think it's possible for my body to die and yet live on as itself. All physical things change. All living, physical things die. Bodies have physical needs: food, drink, sex, protection. If we are to enjoy the physical pleasures, we have no choice but to accept the associated physical and psychological pains. You can't eat meat without killing, you can't have a winner without a loser, you can't always have the sexual partner you want, you can't move without the risk of a fall or a collision. I think it's impossible to eliminate suffering if we retain a physical body. This I take to be a given, unalterable truth. And so for me the only conceivable way of preserving identity and eliminating suffering after death is a form of life that is independent of transient physicality. That would be my ideal UT, "given what already exists" (as you wrote to Matt).-Actually, I think this fits in rather nicely with your hologram idea, because after death and the loss of the physical container, we would be left with our identity, memories, thoughts and continuing psychic pleasures, but the sufferings would have become dreamlike. Yes, it's a bit sad that we'd have to sacrifice sex and chocolate and cricket, but that could be a small price to pay!-In your post to Matt, you mentioned imagining the loneliness of God. Among the many possible scenarios, this has always struck me as one of the most plausible. Lonely and bored, he devises the game of life, then sits and watches. Still lonely, but not so bored.

3705 views

Bbella,-Took me a few days to really digest this to try and come up with SOME kind of answer. This is difficult because my framework is one of great caution. Hope in this kind of a question is typically not even part of the equation.-If there is some kind of Ultimate truth, I can safely say that I just want it to be humanly understandable. And I want us to be able to have confidence that we have it right. -Borrowing from dhw's words, if there is such a thing as existence after this, I'd like to be able to explore and know everything there is to know in our cosmos. (If you're familiar with Star Trek, a benevolent Q would be my ideal.) -But that's as close as I can get for an answer to the question. Unshockingly, for all intents and purposes, my favored UT is that I'd essentially become God.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3728 views

Bbella,-> 
> But that's as close as I can get for an answer to the question. Unshockingly, for all intents and purposes, my favored UT is that I'd essentially become God.-I guess that is really what I am aiming at here. Essentially, I am asking you to be the God (UT) of your own reality using the pieces of the puzzle you already have here. If you were the God of your own UT and you have found yourself here; what are you doing "here" and what will you want to be doing when you leave? If we have the ability to 'adjust' the fabric to our own specification, what would be the UT or purpose for this reality (suffering/birth/death/etc.?-Thanks for indulging me! I know it's not easy to imagine these kinds of elusive things, this is not a door the mind normally attempts to open, as most would just see it as a waste of time. But what's a little time wasted to indulge a moments fantasy? Does everything always have to be so cut and dry? Every now and then the mind does need a rest from the pursuit of the surety of concrete. -bb

3742 views

Bbella,
> 
> > 
> > But that's as close as I can get for an answer to the question. Unshockingly, for all intents and purposes, my favored UT is that I'd essentially become God.
> 
> I guess that is really what I am aiming at here. Essentially, I am asking you to be the God (UT) of your own reality using the pieces of the puzzle you already have here. If you were the God of your own UT and you have found yourself here; what are you doing "here" and what will you want to be doing when you leave? If we have the ability to 'adjust' the fabric to our own specification, what would be the UT or purpose for this reality (suffering/birth/death/etc.?
> -Phrased this way, there's quite a few ways to talk about it. God/religion is typically targeted at dealing with these kinds of questions. -On Suffering:-A God that would be as big as the universe would have a nature that would be vast and empty... So I think he'd want his creations to be self-sufficient. I don't think he'd want to be bothered... who would he have to turn to himself? No one could understand the problems of one so vast and mighty, not even if they tried. -I don't think I would attach any special meaning about death: the nature of this universe is one that is slowly trying to reach an equilibrium of as little concentrated energy as possible. Death is simply a consequence of this and I don't even think considered as part of a design per se: it just "is." --> Thanks for indulging me! I know it's not easy to imagine these kinds of elusive things, this is not a door the mind normally attempts to open, as most would just see it as a waste of time. But what's a little time wasted to indulge a moments fantasy? Does everything always have to be so cut and dry? Every now and then the mind does need a rest from the pursuit of the surety of concrete. 
> 
> bb

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3737 views

[Bbella]I guess that is really what I am aiming at here. Essentially, I am asking you to be the God (UT) of your own reality using the pieces of the puzzle you already have here. If you were the God of your own UT and you have found yourself here; what are you doing "here" and what will you want to be doing when you leave? If we have the ability to 'adjust' the fabric to our own specification, what would be the UT or purpose for this reality (suffering/birth/death/etc.?-> Phrased this way, there's quite a few ways to talk about it. God/religion is typically targeted at dealing with these kinds of questions.-I was hoping to get away from how others (religions/philosophies/etc.) see the universe. I just wanted you to express how you would want it to be, given what already exists, in your UT. It just seems best to use what already exists as a jumping off base for our own Ultimate Truth. What do we hope or want this all to be about, and where will it all eventually lead, for all in our own private UT? 
 
 
> On Suffering:
> 
> A God that would be as big as the universe would have a nature that would be vast and empty... So I think he'd want his creations to be self-sufficient. I don't think he'd want to be bothered... who would he have to turn to himself? No one could understand the problems of one so vast and mighty, not even if they tried. -So above, are you imagining yourself as God, being everything/All That Is, and imagine yourself being alone with no one to understand you, etc? If so, I remember once I imagined being God, as a universal presence of all that IS, and found myself completely and utterly alone. It felt so bad I decided right then it would not be good to be God if there were one. And if I were God, I would hope to be able to forget I am God by becoming one of my own peon beings. At least then, for a while, I could forget I am alone.- > I don't think I would attach any special meaning about death: the nature of this universe is one that is slowly trying to reach an equilibrium of as little concentrated energy as possible. Death is simply a consequence of this and I don't even think considered as part of a design per se: it just "is." 
 
So, you are saying above, that in your UT, death would just be death and people would just die and poof, they are just gone forever? That way, everyone but you would be finite? That doesn't seem fun.
 
bb

3768 views

dhw
> You say that a deity "doesn't explain anything better than chance." But if one can't believe that chance created life, some form of designer does offer a better explanation provided one stops at that point. However, I (and you too, I think) can't stop at that point, and this brings me to the reason why I can also understand perfectly well why George embraces atheism. There is no evidence of a God. I feel as George does that there is no divine power "up there". Despite the pinpoint engineering of life and the functioning, interrelated mechanisms of the universe, our world just seems to go its own random way, which suggests total absence of a deity (or at the most, the presence of an indifferent deity, who might just as well not be there). Intellectually, there is also no avoiding the question of God's own provenance, and if you can believe in a supreme intelligence that either came into being undesigned or has always been there, then you might as well believe that WE came into being undesigned or that life has always been there (BBella's view). I share your opinion that in this respect God offers nothing that chance can't offer. 
> -This block quite accurately describes exactly how I view the entire scenario. Okay, fine, say we agree that the universe had to be designed. -What then do we do with this agreement? Maybe David disagrees, but an explanation must really DO something, and his explanation doesn't do anything at all. I really wish someone could tell me what it actually explains? The most useful answer is a "how" something happens, followed immediately thereafter by a "why." One can say the Adler/Turell conjecture is valid, but beyond that, nothing. In David's language, even if we figure out abiogenesis, we still would have no idea if it is THE one our creator used, and we're still in the dark. -And to be fair, I can't really do anything with "chance," in the broadest sense of the word. -> And so I can't say as you do that "we can never be justified" in embracing a belief. My agnostic dilemma lies in the fact that I see both sides as having an equally strong and equally weak case! Hypotheses like multiple universes or man-made brains mean nothing at the moment. You might just as well say: "Supposing God suddenly reveals himself?" As I said in my response to David, I'm content to keep looking, to wait for new developments, and probably to die without getting any closer to the ultimate truth, but I don't have a problem if others choose for or against design. My only problem is when people who have made their choice hurl ridicule at those who have gone the opposite way, but fail to acknowledge or even recognize the equally vast gaps in their own reasoning.-I don't see the difference between us here--the fact that you can enumerate both strengths and weaknesses--and because of this--you don't select one over the other. This clearly demonstrates that you don't feel either has enough justification.-[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3744 views

MATT: Okay, fine, say we agree that the universe had to be designed. What then do we do with this agreement? Maybe David disagrees, but an explanation must really DO something.-Obviously I can't answer for David, but there are a few interesting ramifications to this argument. Some people feel that "truth" is an end in itself. Humans get restless when there are mysteries, and we feel better when we solve them. So if someone is satisfied that the mystery of life's origin can be explained by chance, or by design, it's one less niggle. You have acknowledged that you can't really do anything with "chance" either. No, of course you can't. You're dealing with one question, and one answer. That's the end of the story. And that's why atheist materialism is the simplest of all explanations, even though it depends on the unprovable hypothesis that life and the mechanisms of evolution came about by accident. -However, if your answer is design, it opens up vast new avenues of thought, all of which can be subsumed under the one question: what is the nature of the designer? I won't go into the rest, because it constitutes theology ... the "study of divine things", which is almost a contradiction in terms if you follow the line of thought that proclaims God is unknowable! But that's what the explanation "does". In David's case (sorry, David, only I need to refer to you as our only committed theist), it leads to panentheism. -I enumerated the strengths and the weaknesses of the two cases, and you wrote: "this clearly demonstrates that you don't feel either has enough justification", so you see no difference between us. The only difference, which is very minor, is that you can't understand why David firmly believes in a designer (though I don't recall you expressing the same incomprehension towards George's firm belief in chance and the natural laws). I can understand both beliefs. You're quite right that I can't embrace either of them, because I don't accept their weighting of the evidence, but that's the nature of belief, non-belief and disbelief: one's personal weighting of the evidence. The two faiths don't have enough justification for ME, but I won't challenge David or George on the grounds that their beliefs don't "do" anything.

3791 views

MATT: Okay, fine, say we agree that the universe had to be designed. What then do we do with this agreement? Maybe David disagrees, but an explanation must really DO something.
> 
> Obviously I can't answer for David, but there are a few interesting ramifications to this argument. Some people feel that "truth" is an end in itself. Humans get restless when there are mysteries, and we feel better when we solve them. So if someone is satisfied that the mystery of life's origin can be explained by chance, or by design, it's one less niggle. You have acknowledged that you can't really do anything with "chance" either. No, of course you can't. You're dealing with one question, and one answer. That's the end of the story. And that's why atheist materialism is the simplest of all explanations, even though it depends on the unprovable hypothesis that life and the mechanisms of evolution came about by accident. 
> -But then--life being designed is yet again another mystery, isn't it? It doesn't answer any question about life, it is a jumping point to more questions about the creator(s). --> However, if your answer is design, it opens up vast new avenues of thought, all of which can be subsumed under the one question: what is the nature of the designer? I won't go into the rest, because it constitutes theology ... the "study of divine things", which is almost a contradiction in terms if you follow the line of thought that proclaims God is unknowable! But that's what the explanation "does". In David's case (sorry, David, only I need to refer to you as our only committed theist), it leads to panentheism. 
> -It depends on what you're willing to limit yourself to study, doesn't it? Yes it might open more vistas, but only if you're willing to consider absolutely subjective ideas. We know where I stand there. My question, is why enter a realm of the completely subjective? It's about as fruitful as debating the existence of numbers. -> I enumerated the strengths and the weaknesses of the two cases, and you wrote: "this clearly demonstrates that you don't feel either has enough justification", so you see no difference between us. The only difference, which is very minor, is that you can't understand why David firmly believes in a designer (though I don't recall you expressing the same incomprehension towards George's firm belief in chance and the natural laws). I can understand both beliefs. You're quite right that I can't embrace either of them, because I don't accept their weighting of the evidence, but that's the nature of belief, non-belief and disbelief: one's personal weighting of the evidence. The two faiths don't have enough justification for ME, but I won't challenge David or George on the grounds that their beliefs don't "do" anything.-Why? What are some explanations that don't do anything? I'd agree with you if we can somehow demonstrate that there are common explanations that do nothing. Generally speaking, if an explanation does nothing, we treat it as a bad one. -UFO's might be aliens, but most people accept that its more likely to be test aircraft. We can DO something with test aircraft, but what can we do with Aliens? We can "open up vast new avenues of thought, all of which can be subsumed under the one question: what is the nature of [Aliens]." -I'm not very concerned with detailing the aspects of a creature that we don't know exists, because I really think doing so beforehand causes more problems than they solve.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3725 views

MATT: ...an explanation must really DO something.-We can probably end this discussion if you tell me what you expect an explanation to "DO"! I expect it to give me reasons for something, or to clarify something I don't understand. We both agree that no-one can yet explain the origin of life, and so all that the different theories can "do" is offer an attempt at clarification. Design, however, leads to the mystery of who did the designing, while chance leads to the mystery of how inanimate matter can spontaneously make itself animate, reproducible, adaptable and ... ultimately ... conscious. Neither theory stops science from investigating how it all happened. You go on to ask: "Why enter a realm of the completely subjective?" Why not? The question for me is not what an explanation "does", but whether it might be true. Until the truth is known (if it ever is), there can only be a "completely subjective" conclusion, whether it's design or chance. I'm not prepared to believe either, but I don't expect everyone to be an agnostic just because I can't decide. -Perhaps, though, we might broaden the discussion and consider another category of subjectivity, because the term has become far too negatively loaded. There is also intersubjectivity. Our human world would be even more chaotic than it is now if we dismissed all our basic premises as "subjective". We have a consensus in our society, for instance, that rape, infanticide, theft, murder etc. are "bad", although in the animal world from which we're descended, these are often essential to survival. If you lived in a society that regarded the "paranormal" as an everyday element of reality (not uncommon in Africa), your subjective scepticism would lead you to be regarded as an ignoramus. Let me nip any misunderstandings in the bud here ... I'm not arguing for the paranormal (or for design). I'm arguing against your dismissiveness of subjectivity, your own concept of which is culture-based and is not even provable within our own culture. There are billions of people who believe in some kind of designer, and this belief has endured throughout recorded history. That doesn't mean it's true, but nor should it be dismissed just because each individual's belief is subjective. I don't see subjectivity as necessarily being a bar to truth, particularly when it moves into the realms of intersubjectivity on such a uniquely colossal scale. I think you and I have similar parameters within which we impose our own limits on what is credible, but those parameters are subjective too. In your response to BBella you wrote: "I'd like to be able to explore and know everything there is to know in our cosmos." Me too, but until we can, it seems to me that we have to allow for the possibility that either David or George might be right with their subjective explanatory theories.

3723 views


> 
> 
> > However, if your answer is design, it opens up vast new avenues of thought, all of which can be subsumed under the one question: what is the nature of the designer? I won't go into the rest, because it constitutes theology ... the "study of divine things", which is almost a contradiction in terms if you follow the line of thought that proclaims God is unknowable! But that's what the explanation "does". In David's case (sorry, David, only I need to refer to you as our only committed theist), it leads to panentheism. 
 
> 
> I'm not very concerned with detailing the aspects of a creature that we don't know exists, because I really think doing so beforehand causes more problems than they solve.-Your second paragraph follows my thinking completely. The only thing one can attempt to assume about God is that He is the creator and designer, but even that is suspect. Perhaps He was created and designed by a greater being to then do the creating and designing, or to simply be part of the created and designed as a 'moral' leader. We just don't know and can never know. So thinking is best stopped and do no further seeking, because it is like my poodle chasing his tail. Satisfying, no! Reasonable stopping point, yes. As all of us know, I choose God because the chance inference is impossible, despite Matt's rather mathematically stretched objections.

3713 views

DHW: If atheists have faith that the machine can be built, and theists have faith that it can't, good for them. I prefer to wait for the evidence before I make a decision.-DAVID: It is going to be a very, very, very long wait. George took his leap of faith, I've taken mine. There is no other way. God is concealed, will always be, and His presence will always be inferred, with stronger and stronger inference as biologic science continues to demonstrate an ever increasing complexity that underlies life. Join George, Pascal, and me!-Pascal's wager has always seemed to me one of the silliest arguments for God that anyone could possibly offer. You can't force yourself to believe something. The fact that you can't lose if you opt for God does not shed even a sliver of light on the question of God's existence, let alone his attitude towards his creations.-I have the utmost respect for your faith and for George's, and I would not have launched this forum in the first place if I hadn't been looking for answers. But in all honesty, I don't feel the need to take a decision. If God doesn't exist, or does exist but doesn't care, I shall die and that will be the end of me. If he does exist and does care, I may find out a bit more when I've shuffled off this mortal coil, and I just hope he'll be more tolerant than many of his devotees here on Earth. If he's not, I could be in trouble, but fear is not a basis for belief (as you make clear in your response to Matt).
 
The question I do have to ask myself is whether I'm now so comfortable with my ignorance that I'm subconsciously resisting the very good reasons that you have for believing and George has for not believing. These include on the one hand the enormous complexity of life's mechanisms, and on the other the absence of evidence for the presence of any divine being ... let alone one that shows interest in and concern for us and our fellow creatures. At present I can see no way round these two obstacles. They simply cancel each other out, and so I don't think my agnosticism is just an easy solution. But unlike the logical ass with his two identical bags of hay, I shan't starve to death. You say: "There is no other way". I say there is: to keep looking, but to accept the unlikelihood of ever knowing. On the way, though, I'm learning all the time, thanks to you, George, BBella, Matt, and the many others who have joined us and then left us again.

3685 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum