Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

oh one of my egghead friends, just corrected me and said, "well technically, it's not anti-gravity but rather amplified gravity"

What do you think of some of the ideas put alluded to by Develo, Undo? Know much about the Penrose/Hammeroff explanation for consciousness?

I have a lot of respect for Penrose as a scientist. I have heard other scientists refer to it as a "pixie dust" explanation (which I think is possibly a bit unkind). Penrose readily admits it has more than a few holes, he seems a very humble man. Apart from the difficulty in being able to review the two subjects in great depth (quantum physics/neuroscience) it seems that one big objection is that it allows the possibility for consciousness to exist independently. So I don't think it will be taken seriously until repeatable experiments verify this.

Though I think it is at least a start in trying to understand what consciousness is. Not necessarily the mechanics of it which is reasonably well understood, but the subjective cognisant experience of it, which seems not understood at all.

I'm open to possibilities here. That the "mystical experience" can be explained mechanically, doesn't necessarily rule out something more to it. The explanations by neuroscientists are most likely correct and certainly worth taking seriously. Yet the experience itself can be so profound (I have had such experience) that I can understand people at least holding the possibility of there being something far more to it.

I have often thought of this, the experience often involves merging with, or being part of a great light that is timeless and infinite. If you look from the perspective light itself this could make some sense. Afaik, for a particle of light there would be no distance (in the direction of travel) because all distance shrinks to 0 and there would be no time elapsed. If you can imagine a light shining equally in all directions at once...

Something about the feeling associated with such experience also. I can understand that notions such as "love" are easily explainable via evolution and agree when people say that no such thing really exists (other than a complex mixture of thoughts and emotions that are explainable). Though I can see where this term is completely inadequate in explaining the utter simplicity of the feeling associated with such mystical experience.

It's all fascinating and though I'm not swayed that there really is more to it, I'm open that there could be. A shame so many charlatans, new age gurus and religions have claimed such a thing and used it as a basis for doctrines.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo

Hey if you want to be hostile now, we don't have to continue talking. I get enough hostility when I jump into politics. I was actually enjoying our conversation. Unfortunately we've had a breakdown in communication and you have become hostile. Oh well, c'est la vie.

Says the guy who has been assuming about me for pages despite all my calls to ask him to stop thinking everyone who believes in spirituality is a fundie.

welcome to the party, where people have confirmation biases, claim that only other people do, while proving that they do as well. i'd say it was lonely here but unfortunately, all this is part of human nature and as a result, its actually crowded, perhaps even overpopulated.

at least you're not alone.

Yeah that was good irony

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

i.can't.believe.you.asked.me.that.question!
no, i do not agree with putting my brain into a machine. freakin' darth vader # there.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

i.can't.believe.you.asked.me.that.question!
no, i do not agree with putting my brain into a machine. freakin' darth vader # there.

It's not what Penrose's theory is about

Google orch or

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

i.can't.believe.you.asked.me.that.question!
no, i do not agree with putting my brain into a machine. freakin' darth vader # there.

It's not what Penrose's theory is about

Google orch or

oh! whew. reading now.

a reply to: undo

To be honest, I've yet to call him a "fundie" derogatory or otherwise.

a reply to: Develo

I never called you a fundie. I DID say that belief in god requires SOME fundamentalist opinions though. There is a difference there.

So in any case, after we stopped talking I went back and rethought about your link that I didn't address yet (I really just needed time to think it over and consider it). It certainly isn't PROOF that consciousness comes from elsewhere, but you are correct that it opens up the possibility of that being the case. We need more research and evidence to make a sound decision in that regard though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you added scales to your ET in your avatar! those weren't there yesterday. lol

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo

I never called you a fundie. I DID say that belief in god requires SOME fundamentalist opinions though. There is a difference there.

My problem isn't that you (didn't) call me a fundie. My problem is that you automatically assume that anyone using the term "god" means "supernatural being similar to Yahweh in the Bible or Greek gods or whatever". The god of a fundamentalist.

God is a concept with many definition.

You laughed about calling the universe god, and I told you it's one of the various definition of god (pantheism).


It bothers you that I use the term god to talk about non-supernatural things, but to be honest it's mostly you that it bothers. Plenty of scientists (newton, einstein, hawkings) used the same term to describe non-supernatural thing.


That's my only problem with you. In all my posts I kept repeating my vision of god is not supernatural and not "classical", and yet all your responses were to dismiss that vision as "non scientific" (but it is!). I don't know why this word bothers you so much. If you prefer I'll use other terms but clearly, you were the one who kept assuming again and again about my vision despite all my attempts to tell you to stop thinking about the classical and naive vision of god.

I understand what you talk about, but you don't make the effort of understanding what I talk about from my perspective, so the discussion with you was locked in a single direction.

originally posted by: Develo
My problem isn't that you (didn't) call me a fundie. My problem is that you automatically assume that anyone using the term "god" means "supernatural being similar to Yahweh in the Bible or Greek gods or whatever". The god of a fundamentalist.

Well when those are the people you end up debating with all the time, it kind of just starts becoming a default position. Generally, when someone fails to understand your argument, you try to explain it in different terms because they may understand that better instead of becoming impatient and frustrated then hostile.

God is a concept with many definition.

You laughed about calling the universe god, and I told you it's one of the various definition of god (pantheism).

I didn't laugh at that. I said that you should have just came out and said it to begin with. It certainly would have helped me understand your position better.

It bothers you that I use the term god to talk about non-supernatural things, but to be honest it's mostly you that it bothers. Plenty of scientists (newton, einstein, hawkings) used the same term to describe non-supernatural thing.

That is an assumption.

That's my only problem with you. In all my posts I kept repeating my vision of god is not supernatural and not "classical", and yet all your responses were to dismiss that vision as "non scientific" (but it is!). I don't know why this word bothers you so much. If you prefer I'll use other terms but clearly, you were the one who kept assuming again and again about my vision despite all my attempts to tell you to stop thinking about the classical and naive vision of god.

And you kept repeating yourself over and over despite me not getting it without trying a new way to explain yourself.

I understand what you talk about, but you don't make the effort of understanding what I talk about from my perspective, so the discussion with you was locked in a single direction.

More like you just suck at explaining yourself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
More like you just suck at explaining yourself.

If you think so. There are plenty of people who have no problem to understand me. I clearly and plainly said "non-supernatural" many times but it's like you didn't even see it.

Probably the habit of debating fundies like you said, at least more than me not explaining myself clearly.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

i.can't.believe.you.asked.me.that.question!
no, i do not agree with putting my brain into a machine. freakin' darth vader # there.

Sorry if I gave you that impression Undo.

It's a collaborative effort between an anaesthesiologist (Hammeroff) and one of the worlds pre eminent mathematical physicists/ science philosophers (Penrose) to attempt an explanation for consciousness. Though unlike the pure pseudo science of people like Deepak Chopra and the "what the bleep do we know" nonsense, this one actually contains some genuine science. Not very well received amongst the scientific community though.

I notice in recent times some of the objections to it might be already happening in nature. I seem to remember one of them being the conditions in the nervous system aren't conducive enough for the quantum effects ie. decoherance (generally needing near absolute zero temperatures in laboratories to happen for long enough). A while back there were a few promising papers on the "avian compass" (the ability of certain migrating birds to know where to go), that claimed a process where quantum entangled electron pairs in the birds eye allowed it to see/ sense the earth's magnetic field. Similar objections of re decoherance were raised, but looked like nature had found a way around this. Experiments were promising.

a reply to: Develo

Alright, whatever. Are we going to continue our discussion or do you plan on just continuing this pissing match? Because I have better things to do than that and I'd like to know so I can know if I should stop responding.

If you completely and utterly lack faith of any kind in a higher being, then your default stance should be agnosticism.

Atheism is taking the stance that there is no god. Period.

There is no proper scientific evidence for OR against the existence of any god. Therefore, atheism requires just as much faith as Christianity or any other deistic religion.

And I would further argue that since Christians almost universally claim to have experienced a personal, specific God on a spiritual level, that there is a TYPE of evidence in favor of His existence. And in light of that, one might say that atheism requires MORE blind faith than Christianity.

originally posted by: Farlander
If you completely and utterly lack faith of any kind in a higher being, then your default stance should be agnosticism.

Doubt that. I doubt there is really such a thing as agnosticism regarding the gods as proposed by christianity. Hard to imagine someone being undecided on whether there is an invisible ol' nutter god of the bible/old testament in the sky. At any rate, that would be about as unrealistic as actually believing it.

Atheism is taking the stance that there is no god. Period.

Atheism is taking a stance that there is no evidence to indicate a god. Period. Provide some and watch the atheists convert.

There is no proper scientific evidence for OR against the existence of any god. Therefore, atheism requires just as much faith as Christianity or any other deistic religion.

Lol.

What do you think might constitute scientific evidence for the non existence of god? That isn't the way it works. If something exists, there should be evidence of it. There isn't and the claims are so unrealistic that (they have easier explanation)it appears that it doesn't (exist).

And I would further argue that since Christians almost universally claim to have experienced a personal, specific God on a spiritual level, that there is a TYPE of evidence in favor of His existence. And in light of that, one might say that atheism requires MORE blind faith than Christianity.

Yes, but that's the same evidence we have for fairies, bigfoot (well not really, we at least have some fake evidence for him), reptilian aliens, leprechauns, unicorns etc.

Though if it makes you feel more secure about it all, keep convincing yourself of that.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

i thought i had discovered an argument in favor of quantum entangled memory (of an individual human), when i watched this video and realized his brain had rewired itself and he was accessing something significant that the rest of us don't seem to have access to, and that would be a genetic device for recording and retrieving data in a purely mathematical format. it wasn't like normal synthesthia. and it was very mechanical, like the area it was retrieved from had the sole purpose of recording and storing data in mathematical format, and nothing else. i theorized he was actually seeing the molecular shape the numbers were being stored as in some special part of his brain, meant specifically for recording every moment of his life but because of his savant status, he was accessing it directly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo

Alright, whatever. Are we going to continue our discussion or do you plan on just continuing this pissing match? Because I have better things to do than that and I'd like to know so I can know if I should stop responding.

Lol, who's hostile again?

You do what you want, man. I'm sharing my beliefs here, if you don't agree, fine for you. If you don't care, fine for you. If you want to know more, just ask.

We are not having an exchange, you just want to prove me my belief is not rational. I never forced you to answer my posts in this thread.

a reply to: Develo

Well see I already tried to get the conversation back on track when I first started responding to you again this morning by addressing your study and even agreeing with you, but you ignored all that in favor of talking about my beliefs and assumptions again. So the ball has been in your court all morning to restart the conversation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Develo

Well see I already tried to get the conversation back on track when I first started responding to you again this morning by addressing your study and even agreeing with you, but you ignored all that in favor of talking about my beliefs and assumptions again. So the ball has been in your court all morning to restart the conversation.

I don't have any question to you. I know what you believe in.

I tried to explain you what I believe in I doubt it will change anything if I explain more.


I don't know what you expect from me regarding "restarting this conversation"? I have zero intention in convincing you about anything, I just really disliked how my words were always misunderstood and twisted, but I have clarified this more than enough IMHO.


You said the study is interesting and that we need more researches in the future. I can only agree as all my posts have been about a desire for mankind to shed light where there is still darkness. I never was in a contradicting position toward you. You assumed that position against me all by yourself, thinking I was talking about a religious god despite me saying no.


Let me repost against this quote from my priest-buddy who theorized the creation of the universe ;p