Could consciousness pervade the universe ?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Well I don't remember being that being, so I can only speculate, based on my finite subjective perspective, but I know I would be bored and alone.

Which is one of the reasons I and the Buddhists have some differences in philosophy. They are in a rush to get back to that state, which they believe we all came from, but they don't seem to consider for what reason that all knowing being began the physical incarnation cycle in the first place.

If there is a soul and a supreme being that created it, than it could well have had some purpose for creating everything, the creation in all it's finite pieces could very well be the purpose.

The singularity may have indeed had a reason for exploding, but what reason that may be we can only speculate, discuss and debate.

Adding god into this is just mental gymnastics. Which always leads to nothing.  

[+joc]

32 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Exactly. There would be zero point of an immortal soul living within a mortal shell. 

Furthermore...ask any rock you happen to see after a Star goes Supernova...oh wait...yeah rocks aren't immortal either...but if there was an immortal soul...wouldn't a rock be a better place to occupy?  Oh right...rocks are not alive...now why again would a living soul need to occupy a living body when it is already living...the whole thing is about as dumb as a box of rocks...or should I say...it is exactly as dumb as a mind full of Birth Box Rocks.

[+joc]

44 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Well I don't remember being that being, so I can only speculate, based on my finite subjective perspective, but I know I would be bored and alone.

And how would you even begin to speculate the mind of an infinite being who created Billions and Billions, maybe even Trillions of Galaxies...

Considering that if you took off at the speed of light...and traveled for 100,000 years you might be able to exit the Milky Way Galaxy.  And if traveled for another 13 Billion years you might find the furthest Galaxy...but then again you might just find that you have billions of years more to travel before you found the furthest Galaxy.

So how is it again that you have the mindset to consider that God would be bored?  Bored enough to create as stupid life form and occupy it's body?  smh

Edited March 2, 2020 by joc

[XenoFish]

This is just a way to anthropomorphize the universe. Too project our "selves" on to it. 

[WanderingFool0]

31 minutes ago, joc said:

And how would you even begin to speculate the mind of an infinite being who created Billions and Billions, maybe even Trillions of Galaxies...

Considering that if you took off at the speed of light...and traveled for 100,000 years you might be able to exit the Milky Way Galaxy.  And if traveled for another 13 Billion years you might find the furthest Galaxy...but then again you might just find that you billions of years more to travel before you found the furthest Galaxy.

So how is it again that you have the mindset to consider that God would be bored?  Bored enough to create as stupid life form and occupy it's body?  smh

The same way metaphysical and spiritual philosophers have discussed and debated the first cause; ie God since the beginning. By discussing and debating the core axioms that make up the idea of a supreme being or God.

Most people would agree the idea of a supreme being must have at least four qualities or axioms to be considered or called a supreme being. Those four core qualities are it must be; eternal, all knowing, all powerful and ever present. Now to those the Kabbalists and other spiritual philosophers added their own qualities and axioms. That iis that it must be whole/complete/without division and lacking in nothing.

Now if those axioms are agreed upon as being necessary to qualify for being the a supreme being, than any idea or thing, can be weighed and judged. If it violates any of those core axioms it can not be a supreme being.

Now if one agrees on those core axioms, there exists within it a fatal flaw, one that would urge that supreme being into action to create such a system of everything as the universe.

If it is whole, complete, without division it must be alone. If it is alone, it can not experience others. If it can not experience others, it would be lacking in something and incomplete; it can no longer be a supreme being. Such a being would be instantly urge into action to create a system in which it can experience others in order to maintain and complete it's ability to qualify as a supreme being.

Now one can always argue over the core axioms of the idea of a supreme being, but until a set of core axioms for that idea is set and agreed upon, the idea can not be discussed, debated or speculated upon.

Edited March 2, 2020 by WanderingFool0
correction

[WanderingFool0]

27 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

This is just a way to anthropomorphize the universe. Too project our "selves" on to it. 

Actually I have solid reasoning and thought upon why I believe that god would be alone and urged to create. But you are correct my opinions based on my reasoning are my opinion and could be projections.

[+joc]

12 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

The same way metaphysical and spiritual philosophers have discussed and debated the first cause; ie God since the beginning. By discussing and debating the core axioms that make up the idea of a supreme being or God.

Most people would agree the idea of a supreme being must have at least four qualities or axioms to be considered or called a supreme being. Those four core qualities are it must be; eternal, all knowing, all powerful and ever present. Now to those the Kabbalists and other spiritual philosophers added their own qualities and axioms. That iis that it must be whole/complete/without division and lacking in nothing.

Now if those axioms are agreed upon as being necessary to qualify for being the a supreme being, than any idea or thing, can be weighed and judged. If it violates any of those core axioms it can not be a supreme being.

Now if one agrees on those core axioms, there exists within it a fatal flaw, one that would urge that supreme being into action to create such a system of everything as the universe.

If it is whole, complete, without division it must be alone. If it is alone, it can not experience others. If it can not experience others, it would be lacking in something and incomplete; it can no longer be a supreme being. Such a being would be instantly urge into action to create a system in which it can experience others in order to maintain and complete it's ability to qualify as a supreme being.

Now one can always argue over the core axioms of the idea of a supreme being, but until a set of core axioms for that idea is set and agreed upon, the idea can not be discussed, debated or speculated upon.

Axioms relate to Truth.  God is a concept...not Truth...so no axioms.  How can you Axiomize a concept?  

[WanderingFool0]

Just now, joc said:

Axioms relate to Truth.  God is a concept...not Truth...so no axioms.  How can you Axiomize a concept?  

God and the universe are two axioms of metaphysical philosophy. One may not like metaphysical philosophy, but it would seem strange for a person who doesn't like it to begin to engage in a debate upon one of it's prime subjects.

[+joc]

2 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

God and the universe are two axioms of metaphysical philosophy. One may not like metaphysical philosophy, but it would seem strange for a person who doesn't like it to begin to engage in a debate upon one of it's prime subjects.

Metaphysics does not relate to truth.  Axioms do not relate to Metaphysics .  Connect those two dots...what do you have...Nothing!

Edited March 2, 2020 by joc

[WanderingFool0]

11 minutes ago, joc said:

Metaphysics does not relate to truth.  Axioms do not relate to Metaphysics .  Connect those two dots...what do you have...Nothing!

Well I can't believe we have to have this discussion on the merit of metaphysical philosophy and what axioms are.

Quote

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'^[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.^[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.^[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Quote

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom")^[1][2][3][4] is the study of general and fundamental questions^[5][6][7] about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems^[8][9] to be studied or resolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Quote

Metaphysical philosophy ("logic") was the study of existence, causation, God, logic, forms and other abstract objects ("meta ta physika" lit: "After [the book] the Physics").[30]

As, I said, one may not like metaphysical philosophy but it to has axioms or accepted truths within it's field of study, of which the abstract idea of a first cause; ie God is a part.

Edited March 2, 2020 by WanderingFool0
correction

[+joc]

26 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Well I can't believe we have to have this discussion on the merit of metaphysical philosophy and what axioms are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

As, I said, one may not like metaphysical philosophy but it to has axioms or accepted truths within it's field of study, of which the abstract idea of a first cause; ie God is a part.

I don't like Metaphysical Philosophy because it has nothing to do with the actual Truth.  If there is no basis for Truth to begin with...where is the Axiom exactly?  God isn't Truth.  It's a concept.  Make up what ever you want...call it whatever you want..I don't care.  The truth just is.

Here is the only Axiom you need to know:

The First Axiom of Dan

Belief is irrelevant with regards to truth.  The truth just is. The truth is not incumbent upon belief in order to be.  It just is.  Belief finds relevancy in how one lives one's individual life.

[WanderingFool0]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

I don't like Metaphysical Philosophy because it has nothing to do with the actual Truth.  If there is no basis for Truth to begin with...where is the Axiom exactly?  God isn't Truth.  It's a concept.  Make up what ever you want...call it whatever you want..I don't care.  The truth just is.

Here is the only Axiom you need to know:

The First Axiom of Dan

Belief is irrelevant with regards to truth.  The truth just is. The truth is not incumbent upon belief in order to be.  It just is.  Belief finds relevancy in how one lives one's individual life.

Well you can dislike it and we will just have to agree to disagree.

But, in the end truth itself is just an idea; an abstract concept dreamed up by philosophers at some point. All ideas and everything that comes from them comes from philosophy which is the study of ideas and without that fundamental first study you would have no later philosophies at all; like even science, which is a collection of abstract ideas and theorems that are used to study another metaphysical concept; the physical universe.

I personally like science too and I find it to be practical and useful, but it isn't the only philosophy in the bag and I happen to personally like some of the others as well.

Anyway we can agree to disagree and thanks for the reply.

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Well you can dislike it and we will just have to agree to disagree.

But, in the end truth itself is just an idea; an abstract concept dreamed up by philosophers at some point. All ideas and everything that comes from them comes from philosophy which is the study of ideas and without that fundamental first study you would have no later philosophies at all; like even science, which is a collection of abstract ideas and theorems that are used to study another metaphysical concept; the physical universe.

I personally like science too and I find it to be practical and useful, but it isn't the only philosophy in the bag and I happen to personally like some of the others as well.

Anyway we can agree to disagree and thanks for the reply.

Science isn't a philosophy!   One plus one actually does equal two.  Two atoms of Hydrogen and One atom of Oxygen actually do make one molecule of water.  There isn't anything philosophical about that!  The speed of light is approximately 186,232 mph...not a philosophical statement.  Truth isn't an idea...abstract or otherwise.

[WanderingFool0]

13 minutes ago, joc said:

Science isn't a philosophy!   One plus one actually does equal two.  Two atoms of Hydrogen and One atom of Oxygen actually do make one molecule of water.  There isn't anything philosophical about that!  The speed of light is approximately 186,232 mph...not a philosophical statement.  Truth isn't an idea...abstract or otherwise.

Okay, if that is true than, science is the only discipline that somehow does things without incorporating something known as ideas. If it incorporates something known as ideas, than like it or not, it is a branch of philosophy, which is the study of ideas. You do realize that even algebra and geometry are branches of philosophy, don't you?

[+joc]

9 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Okay, if that is true than, science is the only discipline that somehow does things without incorporating something known as ideas. If it incorporates something known as ideas, than like it or not, it is a branch of philosophy, which is the study of ideas. You do realize that even algebra and geometry are branches of philosophy, don't you?

Realize this:

 

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I'm sorry to see you've got anger issues. I know how it feels. 

No you don't. I don't have anger issues. I call it as I see it. Perhaps your personal baggage is why incorrectly pigeonhole others to project your own superiority? Just a guess of course. 

Quote

But taking your frustration out on the Internet won't help you feel better. 

I don't know. I don't have the issues you assumed so it's more than possible your assumptions there might be wrong too.

Quote

My opinion is evidently different than yours, in short, I don't think current theories about the Universe, consciousness and related questions are cast in stone or particularly convincing. It doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding them or have something against them. When you're attempting to mock me, you're only showing you're frustrated for some reason. 

With all due respect, I don't care about your opinion. Like armpits aren't they

Wether you accept the most likely conclusions based on facts is of no consequence. I could go read a dozen such mindfarts in a couple of minutes here. What your opinion can't dent are the known facts that prove your opinion incorrect. All of who hold these childish spiritual fantasies don't have any comment on those facts. As such, it's quite obvious that spiritual proponent don't understand the sciences they deny for old superstitions. Going by what you have posted in way of responses, there's no good reason to think you understand them either. 

Quote

I do understand that you're trying to explain that you're frustrated with stupid people who can't see the superiority of your opinion. 

I've got the guts to face claimants with solid evidence. I support what I state.

And it's not my opinion. It's the hard work of centuries of great minds. Yet stupid people think that's all not worth considering because some old story sounds really good. 

Quote

Can you understand that basing your opinion in currently most popular scientific theories does not give you the right to treat people like garbage? 

If someone says something stupid, I can't say it's stupid? Why? You labelled me without second thought. 

Quote

In my opinion, science and spirituality do not exclude each other. 

Your opinion is clearly and rather obviously incorrect. 

Quote

We can talk about that like sane people, or you can go burst a vein over that. Your choice. 

Perhaps you could explain to me how known physics is my opinion? 

[Helen of Annoy]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No you don't. I don't have anger issues. I call it as I see it. Perhaps your personal baggage is why incorrectly pigeonhole others to project your own superiority? Just a guess of course. 

I don't know. I don't have the issues you assumed so it's more than possible your assumptions there might be wrong too.

Oh, yes, you do. You're using foul language that is absolutely not called for and you're literally having fits because there are people who don't obey your command to start thinking the way you do.

You're obviously here to enjoy your chance to be hostile while protected with anonymity.

As you will hopefully notice in relatively close future, you've picked the wrong person to bully.

 

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

With all due respect, I don't care about your opinion. Like armpits aren't they

Why are you in a forum then?

 

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Wether you accept the most likely conclusions based on facts is of no consequence. I could go read a dozen such mindfarts in a couple of minutes here. What your opinion can't dent are the known facts that prove your opinion incorrect. All of who hold these childish spiritual fantasies don't have any comment on those facts. As such, it's quite obvious that spiritual proponent don't understand the sciences they deny for old superstitions. Going by what you have posted in way of responses, there's no good reason to think you understand them either. 

I've got the guts to face claimants with solid evidence. I support what I state.

And it's not my opinion. It's the hard work of centuries of great minds. Yet stupid people think that's all not worth considering because some old story sounds really good. 

One more time: you're acting like you can't understand that I'm not against science. Like my personal opinion that the existence is not random is somehow - magically, perhaps? - making me unable to appreciate science. 

And one more time: no one has to choose between intuition and facts. As actual scientists often confirm, yes, intuition is valuable addition to knowledge.  

 

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If someone says something stupid, I can't say it's stupid? Why? You labelled me without second thought. 

You accuse others of stupidity while being unable yourself to notice that not everyone who allows the possibility of the spiritual is automatically against science.

Personally, I appreciate both science and spirituality.

Claiming that one must choose one or other is false dichotomy.

 

Am I calling you stupid? According to your logic, I should, since you peddle false dichotomies around. But I don't. You're not stupid, you simply have very dogmatic opinion. Which is stup... kidding

 

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Your opinion is clearly and rather obviously incorrect. 

You're not the authority that can say whose opinion on the consciousness is correct or not. Because actual science has theories, but no sane scientist claims they're final or incontestable.

 

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Perhaps you could explain to me how known physics is my opinion? 

You think your opinion is the exact known physics (grandiose much?), but it's not.

I've never seen an actual physicist acting like a religious extremist, claiming they've got it explained, throwing insults around in hope they can bully their dogmas onto others.

As a huge fan of physics, you must be huge fan of Dirac, right? Coincidentally – nothing's ever a coincidence - I was listening something else yesterday and people mentioned him. Well, he was gathering courage for three years to admit to himself that his equation implies existence of anti-matter. If he was dogmatic like you are, we'd have to wait for someone else to make the idea of anti-matter public. I'm not saying we wouldn't have it in the end, I'm saying that dogmatic minds are not scientific. So it's utterly ironic that you've found science to attempt bullying people with.

 

 

We just don't know yet if the Universe is conscious, what form consciousness it could be, since we can't even imagine yet what other sentient beings really perceive the existence.

It's so intriguing, so unfathomable, so inexhaustible and you... you've got your angry religion that consist of working theories you've mistook for dogmas.

[psyche101]

18 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Oh, yes, you do. You're using foul language that is absolutely not called for and you're literally having fits because there are people who don't obey your command to start thinking the way you do.

That's a silly emotional outburst. 

It's not my thinking. It's fact. Go ahead, refute it instead of playing an emotional victim.

Quote

You're obviously here to enjoy your chance to be hostile while protected with anonymity.

Are you here to play poor me games and sook, or support your claims? 

Quote

As you will hopefully notice in relatively close future, you've picked the wrong person to bully.

Quote

Why are you in a forum then?

To have sensible discussions with intelligent people. Learn. You know. Stuff like that.

Quote

One more time: you're acting like you can't understand that I'm not against science. Like my personal opinion that the existence is not random is somehow - magically, perhaps? - making me unable to appreciate science. 

You don't seem at all interested with discussing the science I'm talking about though. You're too interested in chastising me for calling it as I see it.

Quote

And one more time: no one has to choose between intuition and facts. As actual scientists often confirm, yes, intuition is valuable addition to knowledge.  

Of course they do. And that's what I commented on and caught your attention with. Science does not support creationist philosophies, there's nothing to suggest a universal consiouness exists, and what I initially commented on is that we do know physics refutes the life after death concept. 

They are different conclusions. One can choose to understand the information we do have and continue to follow the cutting edge of science, or one can ignore that and make up stuff and small it spiritual. That's a the choice. Nobody can say which and individual must make, but it's not bullying to print out really silly statements that completely ignore what we do know.

Quote

You accuse others of stupidity while being unable yourself to notice that not everyone who allows the possibility of the spiritual is automatically against science.

Where's the science talk other than what I've said?

Energy leaking from the body at death could be an afterlife idea is science? Is that what you're saying? 

Quote

Personally, I appreciate both science and spirituality.

How about money where your mouth is? Can you refute the physics that denies life after death? 

Quote

Claiming that one must choose one or other is false dichotomy.

No it's not. It's a default position. They arrive at different conclusions. Please explain how contradictory conclusions can harmonise.

Quote

Am I calling you stupid?

Of Course not. That would be stupid.

Quote

According to your logic, I should, since you peddle false dichotomies around.

As you can see, I disagree. 

Quote

But I don't. You're not stupid, you simply have very dogmatic opinion. Which is stup... kidding

How can you make that conclusion without even knowing the evidence I have to support that position?

The science stuff you claim to like so much?

Quote

You're not the authority that can say whose opinion on the consciousness is correct or not. Because actual science has theories, but no sane scientist claims they're final or incontestable.

No, I'm not an authority by any means, you're right there. Science has made great inroads into understanding the mind, the brain, and yes consiouness. The attention schema theory is opening up a great deal of understanding there. No practising notable scientist considers consiouness as seperate from the brain, or as a universal entity as far as I know.

That outweighs anyone's opinion I'd say. 

Quote

You think your opinion is the exact known physics (grandiose much?), but it's not.

Because you say so? Gosh you're a bully aren't you.

Quote

I've never seen an actual physicist acting like a religious extremist, claiming they've got it explained, throwing insults around in hope they can bully their dogmas onto others.

Don't read much? Looking for after death isn't considered viable by the best minds at CALTECH. 

Disagreeing with you, or pointing out the contradictory conclusions imagined is an insult according to you isn't it?

Quote

As a huge fan of physics, you must be huge fan of Dirac, right? Coincidentally – nothing's ever a coincidence - I was listening something else yesterday and people mentioned him. Well, he was gathering courage for three years to admit to himself that his equation implies existence of anti-matter. If he was dogmatic like you are, we'd have to wait for someone else to make the idea of anti-matter public. I'm not saying we wouldn't have it in the end, I'm saying that dogmatic minds are not scientific. So it's utterly ironic that you've found science to attempt bullying people with.

Bwahahaha, we've come s long way in the last 50 years. Now we prove things, like the Higgs. Basics of physics are established on a massive scale. Supporting evidence is overwhelming. Where's the forward thinking in dismissing that for old superstitions? Science now answers the questions philosophy ponders.

Quote

We just don't know yet if the Universe is conscious, what form consciousness it could be,

That's what I said isn't it?

It's a made up idea people ponder about with nothing to suggest it is at all valid. 

Quote

since we can't even imagine yet what other sentient beings really perceive the existence.

What in the universe? Life is likely to be quite familiar. What makes you think otherwise?

Quote

It's so intriguing, so unfathomable, so inexhaustible and you... you've got your angry religion that consist of working theories you've mistook for dogmas.

Really? Do you even know what I am referring to?

Don't burst a vein or anything, but the physics is still more convincing than your chastising. 

And science isn't religion. I thought you said you were a fan? I'd say not going by that comment. 

[Helen of Annoy]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You don't seem at all interested with discussing the science I'm talking about though. You're too interested in chastising me for calling it as I see it.

All right, I'll give you attention one more time, because I understand your state of mind is actually very painful. 

There's minuscule chance you - or a lurker who's sharing your host of issues - will notice that your behaviour is not healthy and seek help instead of negative attention on the Internet. 

There's no science to discuss in this particular thread, because science has no means to determine if there's any form of consciousness pervading the Universe. 

At this moment in human development, it comes down to personal opinions that are based in intuition and logic (there's just too much order in the Universe for it to be just a meaningless, senseless chaos). 

 

Quote

Of course they do. And that's what I commented on and caught your attention with. Science does not support creationist philosophies, there's nothing to suggest a universal consiouness exists, and what I initially commented on is that we do know physics refutes the life after death concept. 

Physics doesn't refute life before or after death, because it doesn't deal with life at all. 

 

Quote

They are different conclusions. One can choose to understand the information we do have and continue to follow the cutting edge of science, or one can ignore that and make up stuff and small it spiritual. That's a the choice. Nobody can say which and individual must make, but it's not bullying to print out really silly statements that completely ignore what we do know.

You're attempting to sound like you can aggressively mock people into agreeing with you. 

That's bullying and it's not working, since you're not particularly impressive at it. 

 

Quote

Where's the science talk other than what I've said?

Energy leaking from the body at death could be an afterlife idea is science? Is that what you're saying? 

No, that is not what I'm saying. 

Do you have to resort to lying about my words or you managed to misunderstand me so hilariously? 

 

Quote

How about money where your mouth is? Can you refute the physics that denies life after death? 

Physics is not refuting life after death. You misunderstood the fact that physics is not offering any conclusions on concepts that are not within its scope for a final proof of non-existence.  

 

Quote

Don't read much? Looking for after death isn't considered viable by the best minds at CALTECH. 

Why are these people the authority on possible life after death for you? 

And why do you cling on after death so much? Is the life before death explained? I wouldn't say so. We don't even know how this life truly works. 

 

Quote

Where's the forward thinking in dismissing that for old superstitions? Science now answers the questions philosophy ponders.

Dismissing old superstitions is very desirable, in my opinion. But it would be plain stupid to just switch them with new superstitions. 

Your unlimited trust in what you've misunderstood science for is a nice example of superstitious attitude. 

Science is very far from having answers to the 'eternal' questions. They were called like that because no one ever had answers to them, that would stand the test of time and universal acceptance. 

 

Quote

What in the universe? Life is likely to be quite familiar. What makes you think otherwise?

Likely, yes, but do we really understand how a cat, for example, perceives the existence? Let alone how a life form that developed in totally different environment does, or what consciousness that is not similar to human feels like? 

Science can't answer that yet. But science isn't the only means of progress.

And - this is important - science and intuition are not in any way opposed. They work perfectly together.  

 

Quote

And science isn't religion. I thought you said you were a fan? I'd say not going by that comment. 

You are mistaking science for religion. 

Your aggressive, scornful preaching is not different than preaching of any average fire and brimstone psycho. They blindly trust their misinterpretation of their scriptures, you blindly trust your misinterpretations of scientific theories. And I would be fine with that, but you have to insist no one disagrees with you.  

Well, I disagree with you. 

Possibility of consciousness pervading Universe cannot be proven and especially not disproved by science today. 

It's extremely intriguing possibility, but it's almost certain we won't live to hear universally convincing theory about it. It's up to each one of us to have own opinion about and - if possible - not pester others with their messianic urge to tell everyone they've got it all explained.  

Edited March 4, 2020 by Helen of Annoy

[+joc]

8 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

All right, I'll give you attention one more time, because I understand your state of mind is actually very painful. 

There's minuscule chance you - or a lurker who's sharing your host of issues - will notice that your behaviour is not healthy and seek help instead of negative attention on the Internet. 

There's no science to discuss in this particular thread, because science has no means to determine if there's any form of consciousness pervading the Universe. 

At this moment in human development, it comes down to personal opinions that are based in intuition and logic (there's just too much order in the Universe for it to be just a meaningless, senseless chaos). 

 

Physics doesn't refute life before or after death, because it doesn't deal with life at all. 

 

You're attempting to sound like you can aggressively mock people into agreeing with you. 

That's bullying and it's not working, since you're not particularly impressive at it. 

 

No, that is not what I'm saying. 

Do you have to resort to lying about my words or you managed to misunderstand me so hilariously? 

 

Physics is not refuting life after death. You misunderstood the fact that physics is not offering any conclusions on concepts that are not within its scope for a final proof of non-existence.  

 

Why are these people the authority on possible life after death for you? 

And why do you cling on after death so much? Is the life before death explained? I wouldn't say so. We don't even know how this life truly works. 

 

Dismissing old superstitions is very desirable, in my opinion. But it would be plain stupid to just switch them with new superstitions. 

Your unlimited trust in what you've misunderstood science for is a nice example of superstitious attitude. 

Science is very far from having answers to the 'eternal' questions. They were called like that because no one ever had answers to them, that would stand the test of time and universal acceptance. 

 

Likely, yes, but do we really understand how a cat, for example, perceives the existence? Let alone how a life form that developed in totally different environment does, or what consciousness that is not similar to human feels like? 

Science can't answer that yet. But science isn't the only means of progress.

And - this is important - science and intuition are not in any way opposed. They work perfectly together.  

 

You are mistaking science for religion. 

Your aggressive, scornful preaching is not different than preaching of any average fire and brimstone psycho. They blindly trust their misinterpretation of their scriptures, you blindly trust your misinterpretations of scientific theories. And I would be fine with that, but you have to insist no one disagrees with you.  

Well, I disagree with you. 

Possibility of consciousness pervading Universe cannot be proven and especially not disproved by science today. 

It's extremely intriguing possibility, but it's almost certain we won't live to hear universally convincing theory about it. It's up to each one of us to have own opinion about and - if possible - not pester others with their messianic urge to tell everyone they've got it all explained.  

Let me make this as simple and painless as possible for you:

Physics = Science 

Belief = Opinion

Biology =  Science

Chemistry = Science

Math = Science

Belief = Anything that has anything to do with not knowing anything about anything that isn't covered by Physics...which = Science.

You are Welcome!

[psyche101]

18 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

All right, I'll give you attention one more time, because I understand your state of mind is actually very painful. 

I've noticed you find facts and learning painful. I'll try to go easy on you from here on. 

Quote

There's minuscule chance you - or a lurker who's sharing your host of issues - will notice that your behaviour is not healthy and seek help instead of negative attention on the Internet. 

Please explain how being aware of the cutting edge of science and dismissing failed superstitions is unhealthy. 

Are you sure it's not you who needs some council? You seem overly sensitive. You seem somewhat delusional about your threatening ability as well. 

Quote

There's no science to discuss in this particular thread, because science has no means to determine if there's any form of consciousness pervading the Universe. 

Why not? We found the Higgs. You think that bosons are just laying on the ground all over the place to trip over? 

You're not making any sense at all. If something exists, it can be observed and understood. What's this cop out of beyond science? Explain how it is beyond science. 

I'd say your imagining concepts that have nothing to do with reality and upset that they actually make no sense at all. 

Quote

At this moment in human development, it comes down to personal opinions that are based in intuition and logic (there's just too much order in the Universe for it to be just a meaningless, senseless chaos). 

Why does there have to be meaning? I don't get how that's required. That's a human concept. 

Chaos is your interpretation. That's how things like the quantum world look to us as creatures who look for patterns. As for chaos and random, d debate that point. Again, physics sets parameters. Physical objects obey those laws. All randomness must sit within those confines. Entropy is a much bigger picture that implies these rules do instigate an order. If a baseball player hits a foul ball is it random? It's not intended, but that's not the same thing is it. The ball travels a trajectory based upon many factors, angle thrown, spin, strike angle , kinietic energy. Is that random? 

And you do get his entropy works yeah? Milk doesn't come back out of coffee and all that? 

Quote

Physics doesn't refute life before or after death, because it doesn't deal with life at all. 

It deals with matter. We are matter 

As you seem to be completely clueless about what I am referring to, here's a quick synopsis:

The mind is the brain

The brain is made of atoms

We know how atoms work

The mind is extremely complex

There is no force or other means of continuing that complexity after death occurs

If such a force existed, and acted directly with the brain, we would have detected it by now, if it is too weak to detect, it could not maintain that complexity.

 

It's pretty simple really. 

 

Quote

You're attempting to sound like you can aggressively mock people into agreeing with you. 

I don't care if one agrees or not, bit if someone says something pretty stupid, in going to say, well that's pretty stupid and explain why. 

That's discussion. Agreeing with nonsense for the sake of people's feelings is self validation. 

Quote

That's bullying and it's not working, since you're not particularly impressive at it. 

If you say so. I think you just like to cry poor me when you are trounced in a debate. Your not particularly impressive at all. All this talk of liking science, yet you look like an enemy of reason to me. 

Quote

No, that is not what I'm saying. 

Do you have to resort to lying about my words or you managed to misunderstand me so hilariously? 

It's what another poster said, and that's where you jumped in on my comment. 

So where's the lie? I didn't say you said it, I said that's the childish nonsense I'm talking about when I made that post which seems to have impressed you so much.

Do you read these threads are are you like a skeptic hunter or some such BS? 

Quote

Physics is not refuting life after death. You misunderstood the fact that physics is not offering any conclusions on concepts that are not within its scope for a final proof of non-existence.  

Yes it does 

Watch and learn.

Quote

Why are these people the authority on possible life after death for you? 

Because they are the best in their field, have devoted lifetimes of study, have the best resources and are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Seems more sound than random the internet rehashing superstition. Maybe that's just me. I really don't think so though. 

Why do you think imaginative ramblings based on old superstitions are valid? 

Quote

And why do you cling on after death so much? Is the life before death explained? I wouldn't say so. We don't even know how this life truly works. 

LOL, I would say so. Mummy and Daddy have special cuddles and life begins. Before that, it's two seperate components. 

Never got 'the talk"? 

I had personal reasons to pursue life after death ideas. After a decade I could admit to myself it's a silly fairy tale and a definite human creation history. It's crap we made up and cling too. Nothing in nature hints at life after death. Plenty illustrates a natural universe and that death is final. 

Quote

Dismissing old superstitions is very desirable, in my opinion. But it would be plain stupid to just switch them with new superstitions. 

Indeed, yet that's what in complaining about, and you are defending. 

Quote

Your unlimited trust in what you've misunderstood science for is a nice example of superstitious attitude. 

That's just dumb. 

I can provide evidence for any one of my claims. Heck, you didn't even know physics refutes life after death, and you're offering advice on understanding science?

You are joking I take it? Strange sense of humour you have there. 

Quote

Science is very far from having answers to the 'eternal' questions. They were called like that because no one ever had answers to them, that would stand the test of time and universal acceptance. 

That's rubbish. When is the last time you read anything related to science? Like 50 years ago? 

Why do some people get so annoyed if someone knows an answer they don't want to know the answer too? It's simple. We know enough to say there is no life after death. It's not a maybe, it's like 2+2=4. It's just how matter and entropy work. 

Quote

Likely, yes, but do we really understand how a cat, for example, perceives the existence? Let alone how a life form that developed in totally different environment does, or what consciousness that is not similar to human feels like? 

Science can't answer that yet. But science isn't the only means of progress.

That's exactly where the attention schema theory goes. Other animals show how evolution has shaped it, why certain areas have developed to fit certain niches. Consciousness is a set of complex evolved responses evolved over billions of years as the species split into predator and prey. Jane Goodall has observed what she describes as spiritual behaviour in chimpanzees, Darwin's finches show us species will adapt to fit all niches regardless. 

We know a hell of a lot more than you're making out. 

Quote

And - this is important - science and intuition are not in any way opposed. They work perfectly together.  

You're not a great example of that. You're about as credible as Pappageorge I reckon. 

Quote

You are mistaking science for religion. 

No I'm not, you might have just said that you don't understand  but pretend to, that's all I'm getting from your whining and whinging.

Quote

Your aggressive, scornful preaching is not different than preaching of any average fire and brimstone psycho.

I don't think so. I think your just a thin skinned cry baby playing your pity card. 

Quote

They blindly trust their misinterpretation of their scriptures, you blindly trust your misinterpretations of scientific theories. And I would be fine with that, but you have to insist no one disagrees with you.  

Well, I disagree with you. 

No you don't, I said, it's not me. I've laid out the basic points above, and offered you a lecture by one of the world leading physicists explaining what you are obviously completely oblivious to.

Go ahead and prove that information wrong. I'd be impressed if you can even discuss it rationally. 

Quote

Possibility of consciousness pervading Universe cannot be proven and especially not disproved by science today. 

What warrants it as a valid possibility? 

Quote

It's extremely intriguing possibility, but it's almost certain we won't live to hear universally convincing theory about it. It's up to each one of us to have own opinion about and - if possible - not pester others with their messianic urge to tell everyone they've got it all explained.  

Seems pretty silly to me. I don't see what's so intriguing about it, in fact, what's so intriguing about it? It's just an ambiguous god rehash isn't it?  ID anyone?

 

[Helen of Annoy]

@psyche101 Oh, you're way too verbose. And so angry. Let me guess: another traumatised one. My god, is there anyone left in the West who can overcome their traumas? 

Is there anything worth reading? Copy and paste me that part, please. Because I find your frustrated meltdowns too boring to read.    

 

Meanwhile, no sane physicist would suggest their profession gives them any chance to explain the Universe, in the form of final theory, let alone the existence itself, in the form of incontestable dogma. 

Science does have theories about the current shape of that what we perceive as the Universe, but it doesn't have means yet to theoretize seriously on what was before Big Bang, for example, or is the Big Crunch the real thing. All we've got is logic and intuition, but nothing an ultra-orthodox science could remotely accept as valid proof of anything. 

So the Universe might as well be conscious, or not, and any physicist is as called to ponder about it as any plumber is too. 

[Helen of Annoy]

13 hours ago, joc said:

Let me make this as simple and painless as possible for you:

Physics = Science 

Belief = Opinion

Biology =  Science

Chemistry = Science

Math = Science

Belief = Anything that has anything to do with not knowing anything about anything that isn't covered by Physics...which = Science.

You are Welcome!

 

Claiming physics has the final answer to the eternal questions = misunderstanding the physics.

Believing physics has means to find answers to the eternal questions = misunderstanding the physics. 

Mistaking your own opinion for the implied meaning that should be read into the actual theories = misunderstanding the very concept of science. 

Attacking people for not accepting your misconceptions = possible psychological problems. 

 

[WanderingFool0]

14 hours ago, joc said:

Let me make this as simple and painless as possible for you:

Physics = Science 

Belief = Opinion

Biology =  Science

Chemistry = Science

Math = Science

Belief = Anything that has anything to do with not knowing anything about anything that isn't covered by Physics...which = Science.

You are Welcome!

Well Joc, you know we disagree on this, since I am a philosopher at heart.

I do want to say a couple of things about philosophy; the study of ideas and it's sibling relationship with science; the study of things and Philosophy's importance even though it lays outside of the materlistic box of Physics.

Science was born out of and walked hand and hand with philosophy and still does today.

Quote

The connection between science and philosophy has endured for thousands of years. In present-day conditions it has not only been preserved but is also growing substantially stronger. The scale of the scientific work and the social significance of research have acquired huge proportions. For example, philosophy and physics were at first organically interconnected, particularly in the work of Galileo, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, Lomonosov, Mendeleyev and Einstein, and generally in the work of all scientists with a broad outlook.

 

At one time it was commonly held that philosophy was the science of sciences, their supreme ruler. Today physics is regarded as the queen of sciences. Both views contain a certain measure of truth. Physics with its tradition, the specific objects of study and vast range of exact methods of observation and experiment exerts an exceptionally fruitful influence on all or nearly all spheres of knowledge.

Philosophy may be called the "science of sciences" probably in the sense that it is, in effect, the self-awareness of the sciences and the source from which all the sciences draw their world-view and methodological principles, which in the course of centuries have been honed down into concise forms.

 

As a whole, philosophy and the sciences are equal partners assisting creative thought in its explorations to attain generalising truth. Philosophy does not replace the specialised sciences and does not command them, but it does arm them with general principles of theoretical thinking, with a method of cognition and world-view. In this sense scientific philosophy legitimately holds one of the key positions in the system of the sciences.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection

Quote

As universities and academia are increasingly faced with budget cuts, even famous scientists have started to bash philosophy, the supposed king among the humanities. Now, philosophy is a quite diverse discipline so the philosopher and cognitive scientist, Daniel Dennett, is right to point out that much philosophy is, in fact, pretty embarrassing, but this is by no means unique to philosophy. The same claim could easily be made for much of science. Good philosophy and good science often distinguish themselves by being hardly distinguishable from each other. Both Einstein and Newton were very concerned with philosophical issues, and the most successful philosophers were quite concerned with the scientific work of their time (from Aristotle to Descartes and Hume to W.V.O. Quine).

Nowadays science and philosophy are often defined with strict boundaries, scientists engaging in philosophical questions get accused of overstepping the boundaries of their discipline and philosophers talking about scientific issues are largely ignored, sometimes justifiably for a lack of insight into the scientific work that has been done already. This, however, is a mistake. What we call science has historically been called natural philosophy. This is something we should not forget as psychology has only recently detached itself from philosophy. Instead, philosophy should be seen as a form of highly abstract science. This is similar to Wilfried Sellars (1962) definition of philosophy as the striving for an understanding of "how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term." Science without philosophy, then, would really just be a restricted, stale and instrumental form of science, lacking a fundamental part of what it means to understand the world we live in.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-and-philosophy/201904/science-and-philosophy

Quote

The distinction between philosophy and science is very slim, but there are some differences nonetheless. Many people assume that science and philosophy are concepts contradictory to each other, but both subjects share a more positive relationship rather than an animosity.

Science can be defined as a study and understanding of natural phenomena. It is concerned with empirical data, meaning data that can be observed, tested, and repeated. It is systematic in nature, and there is a specific course of action used called the scientific method. Science bases its explanation on the results of experiments, objective evidence, and observable facts.

“Science” comes from the Latin word “scientia,” meaning “knowledge.”
There are many branches or fields of science. These branches can be classified under various headings: pure and applied sciences, physical and life sciences, Earth and space sciences. Also included in these classifications are exact science and descriptive science.

Science started out as a part of philosophy. It was then called natural philosophy, but science deviated from philosophy in the 17th century and emerged as a separate study or domain.
Science involves objective types of questions. As a study, it tries to find answers and prove them to be objective fact or truth. In its method, the experiment creates certain hypotheses that can be proven or validated as fact. In the same manner, hypotheses can also be wrong or falsified. By observing and undertaking an experiment, science produces knowledge through observation. Science’s main purpose is to extract the objective truth out of existing or naturally occurring ideas.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

There is also a new york times opinion piece that I think some relevant thoughts about sciences intertwining relationship with philosophy, but I couldn't copy to quote so I will just leave a link for it.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/philosophy-is-not-a-science/

I know you have the stance of supporting only nuts and bolts hard science, but I think even those sciences, have a lot of philosophy in them and good philosophy has a lot of science in it. And together, they could advance our understanding of the universe and answer all the questions that neither of them can answer without aid of the other.

We can agree to disagree though and I will just leave this quote.

Quote

A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.”

Albert Einstein, Letter to Robert Thornton, 1944

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by WanderingFool0
addition

[+joc]

5 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

 

Claiming physics has the final answer to the eternal questions = misunderstanding the physics.

Believing physics has means to find answers to the eternal questions = misunderstanding the physics. 

Mistaking your own opinion for the implied meaning that should be read into the actual theories = misunderstanding the very concept of science. 

Attacking people for not accepting your misconceptions = possible psychological problems. 

 

I have attacked no one Sweet Cheeks!  That's your department...

I have a question...Why are there 'eternal questions'?

Edited March 5, 2020 by joc