JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Why is it so difficult for people of faith to admit they believe not based on logic or evidence but rather a desire for it to be true?
Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.
- Thread starter Snake_Baker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,877
Organised matter exhibiting consciousness
Disorganised matter, hours later. No consciousness ever exhibited again.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,878
“The greater the gap between self perception and reality, the more aggression is unleashed on those who point out the discrepancy.” ― Stefan Molyneux
So i guess there is no evidence that something tangible can form something intangible like the human mind then? thought so. So how does matter "organises" itself to produce something intangible? stop posting pictures of dead people and show me a peer reviewed study. If you can't you just produced an article of faith, but congrats, see even atheists do the same thing as religious guys.
The guys you worship suggested the other way around, maybe you want to learn more about Copenhagen interpretation and Quantum theory!
The guys you worship suggested the other way around, maybe you want to learn more about Copenhagen interpretation and Quantum theory!
Last edited:
LOL! now an alt right cultist is also an expert in these matters. Have you listened to a few of his podcasts? if not, please do.
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #1,881
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,882
This is a wonderful interview by Sam Harris , a lot of you teleevangelical atheists can learn a lot from a guy like Sam Harris.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sam-harriss-vanishing-self/
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sam-harriss-vanishing-self/
I bet you are,I bet you are!
Not true,most are atheist,most don’t care,god is unimportant in the scientific method,it’s irrelevant and irresponsible in the scientific method and makes those of faith and creator believers go wah wah wah and then they drop bombs and strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent children enjoying concerts!
Harris is more into Buddhist philosophy , i am ok with that, buddhism is spirituality 101..its a good place to start fromThat was a good little read!
There is still no god but!
What i have read of Harris he is against organised religion, but he is a believer in consciousness, so i cannot classify him as an atheist. There goes one of the four horsemen atheists gloat about. As Sagan was once asked are you an atheist he replied "it depends how you define god". Most scientists would acknowledge that, only 17 percent of scientists are atheists.
From Harris himself
Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.
https://samharris.org/killing-the-buddha/
This is what i have been saying all along, its the rotten shells of religion that atheists prey upon. Meditate, its scientific even neuroscientists like Harris prescribes that. I have been saying this for the past 50 pages but if Harris says it, atheists will pay attention. Buddhism is pure science of mind. The only way to find the truth is to look within you, not outside.
Last edited:
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,889
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
Believing in the possibility of consciousness on another level doesn't mean you believe in god.
Besides, believing in God or gods and believing in the scientific method aren't mutually exclusive. Religious dogma & science are mutually exclusive but the belief in in gods itself isn't. Never has been.
The paradox of science is the more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Why wouldn't scientists be susceptible to filling that void with beliefs in things they cannot prove? They are human after all.
Besides, believing in God or gods and believing in the scientific method aren't mutually exclusive. Religious dogma & science are mutually exclusive but the belief in in gods itself isn't. Never has been.
The paradox of science is the more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Why wouldn't scientists be susceptible to filling that void with beliefs in things they cannot prove? They are human after all.
Because I despise Judaism Christianity and Islam and think they are all equally wrong in the same way,which of these gets dibs on my (lol) immortal soul(sfellow) in order to burn and punish me for all eternity?
Righto, so we can safely assume that dead matter can create consciousness and an intangible mind? what would be the hypothesis behind that? the reason why we cannot define consciousness even with all the latest development is cause we think its a "thing", like a "matter", when it's not. Quantum Mechanics suggest reality as we see it is created by our consciousness, not the other way around, several quantum physicists called that god, the universal consciousness is god, god is not a "being" or "matter", god is everything that "is".Many prominent physicists have believed that consciousness is primary and matter secondary. It solves a lot of problems if consciousness is the ultimate constituent of the universe, not matter.
Well, if you can suggest a mechanism whereby consciousness could ever arise from inert matter, I'm sure there would be a lot of scientists who would want to know it.
That fact is nobody ever has, and that's why it's unscientific. The evidence doesn't point towards that at all.
Last edited:
- Feb 24, 2013
- 45,365
- 37,740
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
- Banned
- #1,893
I thought you were fond of graphs n stuff.....Don't they make you feel secure!
Once everything is measured & conceptualised, only then can we all feel safe & secure in our homes.
P.S That wooden spoon should help to measure some doses.
Well that’s easy jeffy,when the brain is young and easily manipulated,abused,controlled,lied to and sleight of handed by books and beliefs by master manipulators from the early stages of your personal life and your connection to the “middle eastern mythology”.
I reluctantly decline that it wasn’t brutal,sexist,racist,identity negative,tribal and at all stages of its development in humanity’s evolution to be moral or that the revelations that were proclaimed are any way to live by.
I challenge any believer to convince me!
It should be easier now than then.
Are you emotion letting with that last post?I thought you were fond of graphs n stuff.....Don't they make you feel secure!
Once everything is measured & conceptualised, only then can we all feel safe & secure in our homes.
P.S That wooden spoon should help to measure some doses.
Are your emotions a spontaneous control or concious unconcious?
Or are they in agreement with my ideas?
One of the main problems is that neuroscience is trying to frame consciousness within a space and time framework but as Einstein once said, "time is an illusion, if but a stubborn one." Since we really have no idea what time or space actually are (independent of consciousness) it is very hard to know how to explain consciousness outside of space and time. Interestingly the very thing that gives us a sense of existence as a separate being is space, and the very thing that gives a sense of a continuous existence is time (i.e. via memory) However (as per Hume and Kant) the very thing that creates the ideas of space and time is our consciousness. So you have a rather circular argument. You have to jump out of this loop in order to think about consciousness, a thing that neuro-scientists in general find hard to do with their limited appreciation of Modern physics.
Consciousness is not something to be logically solved: talking or "thinking" about it does not bring about the answer. It is knowing by "direct experience". The direct experience is through a process that i have discussed here a 100 times and most recently by the likes of Harris above.
Something that stands out to me as an obvious flaw in our attempts at understanding this 'Hard Problem', regardless of whether it is physical or not, is that our language for defining such a concept is inadequate.
Every statement made on the subject invariably uses words like 'feel', 'experience' and 'perceive'.
A credible theory of consciousness would not be dependent on using such undefinable words that are dependent on the condition we are using them to explain for their meaning.
Consciousness is not something to be logically solved: talking or "thinking" about it does not bring about the answer. It is knowing by "direct experience". The direct experience is through a process that i have discussed here a 100 times and most recently by the likes of Harris above.
Something that stands out to me as an obvious flaw in our attempts at understanding this 'Hard Problem', regardless of whether it is physical or not, is that our language for defining such a concept is inadequate.
Every statement made on the subject invariably uses words like 'feel', 'experience' and 'perceive'.
A credible theory of consciousness would not be dependent on using such undefinable words that are dependent on the condition we are using them to explain for their meaning.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,897
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,898
The intellectual cherry picking continues and it's becoming more incoherent with each post.
Neuroscience:
Disputed with a century old theoretical physics musing:
Turned on itself again with 1700's philosophy:
To arrive at:
You frame your reasoning upon ever increasingly bizarre analogies.
Neuroscience:
Disputed with a century old theoretical physics musing:
Turned on itself again with 1700's philosophy:
To arrive at:
You frame your reasoning upon ever increasingly bizarre analogies.
Quality reply yet again. Stop ranting and start posting substance for a change.
Why don't you convince all of us on how dead matter gave rise to an intangible human mind or even lets say a single cell bacteria? What is your hypothesis? convince us as a materialist that dead matter can produce consciousness? i am all ears. Lay down the framework or just accept you have taken a leap of faith, none better than the resurraction of Christ as believed by the Catholics.
You want guys like Bohrs, Planck, Schrodinger to suck your dick cause you think what they say is irrelevant despite their theories being the cornerstone of modern QM (Copenhagen interpretation and QT). Sorry but you don't get to pick and choose what to believe in.
As i said to you before, consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms as its "fundamental".
