Science and the Conscious Force that is in all

Originally posted by jiggerj
Why should science endear itself to the illogical and unprovable? With your way of thinking, then science would have to go searching for consciousness in fire hydrants and dog poo. It's just not logical, and it's a total waste of time.

With your way of thinking, then science would have to go searching for consciousness in thunderstorms and electrical sockets. It's just not logical, and it's a total waste of time.

Let's put it this way: It's logical to 'assume' that consciousness comes solely from the mind, where it is totally illogical to assume that a universal consciousness is making a song play itself over and over and over in my head.

Consciousness has nothing to do (on the experiential level) with the contents of your mind. The mind and body can do whatever it wants but without consciousness, there is no space for it to be observed.

If even the slightest of evidence suggested that we are nothing but receivers for a universal consciousness, all convicted murderers would have to be released from prison. Hey, it wasn't their fault, it was the universal consciousness working through them.

I'd say that all the accounts of out of body experiences and near death experiences, thousands of years of fruitful mysticism, and the utter lack of evidence suggesting that consciousness is neural, is the closest we can get to any sort of proof of a so-called 'universal consciousness'.

As for the convicted murders, whose fault do you think those murders were? The murderer? No, his consciousness would be completely pure were it not for the unconscious society that we live in.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Consciousness cannot first create an environment for consciousness to form in. It's just not logical.

Quantum mechanics in relation to the structure of the Universe would never have been considered rational prior to it having been discovered. For me the idea of an infinite being is possible and I feel that our perspective upon time makes translating Gods perspective on it probably very difficult. But in the context of some grand scheme in so far as a person can contemplate, it is not logical to conclude that God is impossible.

I am sure you feel that consciousness is purely subjective but given the existence of God that could very well be incorrect. And as well with respect to the OP the results support the conclusion that Retrocausality is a factor to consider, with regards to the Phenomenon.

Retrocausality Is apparent with respect to Quantum Mechanics.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by HarryTZ

Just because you say we're something doesn't make it true.

You are absolutely right. What I claim is this is where we exist, in the realm of touch, feel, taste, see, hear... We live in it all our lives. We are bound by the laws of this realm, and we call it somethingness from birth to death. How do we benefit, or what changes, if we start calling it nothingness?

All evidence points towards immateriality.

I'm sorry, it does not. All philosophical evidence may point to immateriality, but try arguing that point while getting hit by a very solid bus.

it is not logical to conclude that God is impossible.

reply to post by Kashai


Depends on what you think a god is. Are you talking about an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible being that created the whole universe, who lives in another dimension called heaven, who was never born and will never die, and is perfect in every way? If so, then yeah, I'm calling it impossible.

But if you think a god is a string of natural (mindless) and unbreakable laws that govern the universe, then I can't argue with that.

reply to post by Kashai

I am sure you feel that consciousness is purely subjective but given the existence of God that could very well be incorrect.

I'm calling it the here and now. Period. We can amuse ourselves with the concepts of nothingness and gods, but I still have to get up and go to work in the morning. These philosophical pursuits don't alter the here and now in any way, shape, or form.

Try telling a man dying in the desert that the sun isn't real, or that it's a god. Doesn't change the fact that he's being burned to a crisp.

reply to post by Kashai

Retro-causality Is apparent with respect to Quantum Mechanics. Any thoughts?

Again, this is an idea that's a lot of fun to play with, but consider the wrong conclusions that mankind has come up with time and time again throughout history: sun god, weather gods, the earth being the center of the universe, ... Conclusions arrived at only because the technology didn't exist to see these things for what and how they truly are.

Now we have this brand new thing called quantum weirdness. Why is it weird? Because we don't have the technology to figure it out yet. Remember Feynman's statement of, If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. This statement will probably be true for the next thousand years.

So, we look at what appears to be retro-causality from the same perspective as when man first looked at the sun and saw how it orbits the earth (and not the other way around). As long as we don't lose our common sense, we'll figure it out. The common sense being that something cannot create something before that something was created. Did I say that right?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

Just because you say we're something doesn't make it true.

You are absolutely right. What I claim is this is where we exist, in the realm of touch, feel, taste, see, hear... We live in it all our lives. We are bound by the laws of this realm, and we call it somethingness from birth to death. How do we benefit, or what changes, if we start calling it nothingness?

You may touch, feel, taste, see, and hear, but what about any of those experiences is graspable, is absolute? They are not, they are just mere byproducts of the activity of the brain. And all matter in that constitutes your brain (and everything else) descends into a void, if you look close enough.

All evidence points towards immateriality.

I'm sorry, it does not. All philosophical evidence may point to immateriality,

Umm... you pretty much just acknowledged that I'm right...

but try arguing that point while getting hit by a very solid bus.

'Me getting hit by a bus' is just another apparent event in a universe described by events. Whether one wants to place a judgment upon such an event has nothing to do with reality.

I'm calling it the here and now. Period. We can amuse ourselves with the concepts of nothingness and gods, but I still have to get up and go to work in the morning. These philosophical pursuits don't alter the here and now in any way, shape, or form.

In your perspective, at issue is the data.

In so far as moments EPR paradox pretty much offers a referent to solidity established by Bells Theorem.

You see in science any action or activity has an effect upon everything created at the same time.

As far a you getting up in the morning and going to work as opposed to "living off the land" ?This is because we all have to eat and need a place to live, today preferably also with electricity, cable and internet. That has to do with how we are ultimately organized today. In so far a how reality Is organized a very important consideration is that what we perceive is entirely based upon internal processes.

If anything you are suggesting that the reason God does not exist is because you have to eat, grow old and die?



Any thoughts?

PS: This is where the rubber hits the road.

reply to post by HarryTZ

'Me getting hit by a bus' is just another apparent event in a universe described by events. Whether one wants to place a judgment upon such an event has nothing to do with reality.

LOL How can you say that? You want to place a judgement that all of this reality is nothing, and yet we have to live in it. In nothingness there can't be any laws, such as, the laws that bind your atoms together, the laws that keep the planets in orbit around the sun...

If we are immaterial, then there's no need to eat or breathe.

reply to post by jiggerj


Well of course I'd probably be scared sh*tless if I were about to be hit by a bus, but that still is irrelevant to the objectivity of the situation.

And your last statement that we wouldn't have to eat in breath doesn't really make sense. This body has needs in order for it to survive, so what? It's just a collection of atoms, and since

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

it doesn't matter.

reply to post by jiggerj


That does not respond to the retrocasual nature of the OP.

Are you implying the data is incorrect?

What evidence do you have to support such a position?

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai

In so far as moments EPR paradox pretty much offers a referent to solidity established by Bells Theorem.

I'm tired so I'll have to delve into this part tomorrow (I love how you and HarryTZ force me to think!).

You see in science any action or activity has an effect upon everything created at the same time.

I can buy that, but there must also be a flipside where an immaterial thing or activity CANNOT have any effect on any immaterial thing. Nothing rubbing up against nothing produces nothing.

If anything you are suggesting that the reason God does not exist is because you have to eat, grow old and die?

No, I'm suggesting that the god of religions does not exist simply because the premise does not stand up to reason.

PS: This is where the rubber hits the road.

Lost me on that, but I like it!

reply to post by jiggerj


You're not even attempting to make any valid arguments it seems. I've provided you with evidence and you're just refuting what I'm saying because it doesn't apply to your life. The fact that our solar system is orbiting a black hole at the center of our galaxy doesn't apply to your life, but does that make it any more or less true?

reply to post by jiggerj


You are suggesting that consciousness is immaterial while nonetheless the OP specifically makes clear that consciousness can be retrocasual.

Materialist models denies the idea that electrons can migrate though time when related to a structure. In other words only free electrons have the capacity to be retrocasual.

The OP's data presents with evidence that this perspective is incorrect.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Well of course I'd probably be scared sh*tless if I were about to be hit by a bus, but that still is irrelevant to the objectivity of the situation.

And your last statement that we wouldn't have to eat in breath doesn't really make sense. This body has needs in order for it to survive, so what? It's just a collection of atoms, and since

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

it doesn't matter.

This body (material) has needs (material) in order for it to survive, so what? It's just a collection of atoms (material),

If it is confirmed that matter is merely vacuum fluctuations, just remember that science once confirmed that you could grow a mouse by placing a bunch of wheat and a sweaty shirt in a bottle. This is the point we are at in the study of quantum weirdness.

reply to post by jiggerj


'Confirmed' means proven with evidence. For some reason I doubt that that was ever confirmed.

Our more recent discoveries, however, are actually being confirmed. Not just made up 'hypotheses'. With that in mind, realism, physicalism, and emergentism... pretty much every form of materialism... can be equated to the science (or more accurately, the lack thereof) of 'growing a mouse by placing a bunch of wheat and a sweaty shirt in a bottle'.

reply to post by Kashai

That does not respond to the retrocasual nature of the OP. Are you implying the data is incorrect? What evidence do you have to support such a position? Any thoughts?

I don't claim to be right or wrong. I'm just saying that the evidence I have to offer is that we have to look at every first step science has ever taken. That first step has historically been wrong almost every time. When we first came into contact with disease we had NO idea the hows and whys of it, so we confirmed that plagues were a curse from god.

Now we are confirming that we don't really exist and that the material world isn't real. We arrive at these conclusions in the incredibly early stages of trying to understand the weirdness of quantum mechanics. I'm just saying it's way too early to trust what we are looking at.

I would love to offer the flaws in the double-slit experiment and the belief in the probability wave function, but I'm off to bed. Hopefully I'll be up to discuss this tomorrow.

Have a good night. Great discussion. Thanks!

reply to post by jiggerj


always nice to have a TITILLATING conversation

Something for you to wake up to:

Originally posted by jiggerj
When we first came into contact with disease we had NO idea the hows and whys of it, so we confirmed that plagues were a curse from god.

This is based on ignorance and superstition.

Now we are confirming that we don't really exist and that the material world isn't real. We arrive at these conclusions in the incredibly early stages of trying to understand the weirdness of quantum mechanics. I'm just saying it's way too early to trust what we are looking at.

This is based on observation and experimentation.

These are two sides of completely different coins.

One last thing. Here are...

The 7 Principles of Biocentrism

First Principle of Biocentrism: What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.

Second Principle of Biocentrism: Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.

Third Principle of Biocentrism: The behavior of subatomic particles –indeed all particles and objects – is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.

Fourth Principle of Biocentrism: Without consciousness, “matter” dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.

Fifth Principle of Biocentrism: The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The “universe” is simply the complete spatiotemporal logic of the self.

Sixth Principle of Biocentrism: Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.

Seventh Principle of Biocentrism: Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.

This theory is the brainchild of Robert Lanza, a notable scientist with a Doctorate in Medicine. He has a book published by the name of Biocentrism, which I have yet to look into. Really interesting stuff, though. Makes sense, doesn't it?