Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Snake_Baker]

Quality reply yet again. Stop ranting and start posting substance for a change.

How many unrelated fields of study would you like me to draw from?

How about a blend of chemistry, spruced up with some plumbing and a little bit of interior design?

 

[Total Power]

How many unrelated fields of study would you like me to draw from?

How about a blend of chemistry, spruced up with some plumbing and a little bit of interior design?

Unrelated LOL. Do you even understand a thing when i said "consciousness" is fundamental as Schrodinger said? "Matter" is a product of consciousness not the other way around, the problem with consciousness and locality as defined by neuroscientists is that is assumes it can be defined in such a way, when its completely opposite. Everything we experience is a result of consciousness. Neurologists will do well to accept the fact that consciousness is beyond science, which even Harris accepted.


"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

-Schrodinger.

 

[skilts]

Unrelated LOL. Do you even understand a thing when i said "consciousness" is fundamental as Schrodinger said? "Matter" is a product of consciousness not the other way around, the problem with consciousness and locality as defined by neuroscientists is that is assumes it can be defined in such a way, when its completely opposite. Everything we experience is a result of consciousness. Neurologists will do well to accept the fact that consciousness is beyond science, which even Harris accepted.


"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

-Schrodinger.

On the other hand, unconsciousness is where? Or doesn't that 'matter'?

 

[Total Power]

On the other hand, unconsciousness is where? Or doesn't that 'matter'?

Finally someone with a sense of humour, i admire your posts

 

[Snake_Baker]

Unrelated LOL. Do you even understand a thing when i said "consciousness" is fundamental as Schrodinger said? "Matter" is a product of consciousness not the other way around, the problem with consciousness and locality as defined by neuroscientists is that is assumes it can be defined in such a way, when its completely opposite. Everything we experience is a result of consciousness. Neurologists will do well to accept the fact that consciousness is beyond science, which even Harris accepted.


"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

-Schrodinger.

Wow.

Now you're quoting atheists.

 

[Total Power]

Wow.

Now you're quoting atheists.

I am an atheist too when it comes to organised religion, i am more like Harris, actually, i call myself a Gnostic or a Buddhist, i have been criticised by religious people here too for this reason cause i dont support their notion of god.

 

[Procrastinator35]

On the other hand, unconsciousness is where? Or doesn't that 'matter'?

In my day, it was found in the bowels of Victoria Park, Windy Hill & Moorabbin.

 

[chelseacarlton]

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".

Lol
Answering a question with a question,wrong!
God does not exist,it’s just that simple,why should I present evidence for something that does not exist?
Anyone that believes is a primitive mind and needs reprogramming!
Take the first step,it’s easy,forget your pathetic past of supernatural superstition and preconceived mental numbness and grow up,be an adult,your fantasy grown up Santa in the sky,outside of space and time being does not exist,it’s time to let go!
Here,take my hand,I’ll guide you.....

 

[Total Power]

Lol
Answering a question with a question,wrong!
God does not exist,it’s just that simple,why should I present evidence for something that does not exist?
Anyone that believes is a primitive mind and needs reprogramming!
Take the first step,it’s easy,forget your pathetic past of supernatural superstition and preconceived mental numbness and grow up,be an adult,your fantasy grown up Santa in the sky,outside of space and time being does not exist,it’s time to let go!
Here,take my hand,I’ll guide you.....

I have answered your question, but its not the answer you wanted to hear or approve of. I said consciousness produces matter, most physicists would tell you that reality is an artificial construct. It doesn't exist. Consciousness cannot be defined by neurologists that they operate under the assumption that it is "matter" when its not "matter". Consciousness is fundamental! The consciousness that is fundamental to us all is what we call "god" or in naive atheist terms "spaghetti monster" which has become a term of ridicule due to lack of understanding in science and also mysticism


On the other hand you are claiming matter produces consciousness, i asked for evidence, but you are not willing to provide any, so its safe to assume there is no difference between you and catholics

 

[Snake_Baker]

Jesus H Christ, not only do you continually misrepresent physics, you also believe that you can now lecture neuroscientists.

I'm beginning to have real concerns about your welfare.

consciousness produces matter,

As in matter originated from consciousness? If so, bullshit.

most physicists would tell you that reality is an artificial construct.

Bullshit.

It doesn't exist.

Bullshit.

Consciousness cannot be defined by neurologists

Bullshit.

that they operate under the assumption that it is "matter" when its not "matter".

Bullshit.

Consciousness is fundamental!

Puzzled.

The consciousness that is fundamental to us all is what we call "god" or in naive atheist terms "spaghetti monster" which has become a term of ridicule due to lack of understanding in science and also mysticism.

and finally.............bullshit.

On the other hand you are claiming matter produces consciousness, i asked for evidence, but you are not willing to provide any, so its safe to assume there is no difference between you and catholics

I have offered to decapitate you in order to challenge your claims, but you are yet to take me up on that offer.

 

[JeffDunne]

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.

Why would you assume that from my post you quoted?

I didn't make any comment remotely implying that.

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.

Yeah, again, not sure what you're arguing with here.

In fact you're elaborating on a reason some scientists believe in a god or gods. I'm not disputing that some do believe.

That isn't believing in religious dogma though. Unless of course I missed an update to the Bible or Koran that now includes quantum physics.

All I'm saying is religious dogma and the scientific method are mutually exclusive. Believing in the possibility of god or gods & the scientific method isn't.

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.

Not being able to explain something is unscientific?

What utter nonsense. Not being able to explain things is the very nexus of science.

As I said earlier, the paradox of science is that the more you know, the more you know you don't know. Every answer leads exponentially to more questions.

I'm thinking you really don't understand the meaning of science or in your desperation to defend something that cannot be logically defended you're being led down intellectual cul-de-sacs.

Either way you'd be better off acknowledging your faith is based on a desire for it to be true rather than any actual evidence.

If the best proof you have is the absence of alternative evidence then you have no proof at all.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Jesus H Christ, not only do you continually misrepresent physics, you also believe that you can now lecture neuroscientists.

I'm beginning to have real concerns about your welfare.

As in matter originated from consciousness? If so, bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Puzzled.

and finally.............bullshit.

I have offered to decapitate you in order to challenge your claims, but you are yet to take me up on that offer.

This is not really an argument, but I believe you are reliant here in your presuppositions upon the Aristotelian notion of the eternity of matter.

Carry on.

 

[Total Power]

Bullshit.



Bullshit.

Quality reply LOL the whole argument of "local" conscious is based on the idea that brain=consciousness, which means consciousness is matter, are you saying this is not the case?

And matter didnt give rise to consciousness? cool, we are again in agreement then.

And consciousness can be defined? lets defined what it is then and where it comes from etc? i am all ears.

 

[Total Power]

Not being able to explain something is unscientific?

What utter nonsense. Not being able to explain things is the very nexus of science.

As I said earlier, the paradox of science is that the more you know, the more you know you don't know. Every answer leads exponentially to more questions.

I'm thinking you really don't understand the meaning of science or in your desperation to defend something that cannot be logically defended you're being led down intellectual cul-de-sacs.

Either way you'd be better off acknowledging your faith is based on a desire for it to be true rather than any actual evidence.

If the best proof you have is the absence of alternative evidence then you have no proof at all.

Huh? what on earth are you on about? i have made no unscientific statements here, you are having a fit cause i dare mentioned the word god. But i didnt use the word god in traditional sense of the way, lets cut the word god out and see what statement have i made "out of faith" here? The traditional argument here in favour of materialism is brain produces consciousness which is local in nature. I said that is bullshit, consciousness is non-local in nature and is a fundamental property of the universe as argued by the likes of Planck, Bohm, Bohrs, Schrodinger, Born etc, which produces reality not vice versa. You find this unscientific? i have posted half a dozen peer reviewed papers about it and several scientists saying this is the case in this very thread, but apparently this is unscientific cause you dont want to hear about it?

I have offered plenty of evidence here, all of them have been pretty much swept under the carpet here saying "you are taking it out of context".

Bohrs, Bohm, Schrodinger et all said consciousness is fundamental which gives rise to matter not the other way around. We have come a long way since then.There are studies out there that suggest that our own consciousness is just a combination of many (infinite?) different consciousnesses. this article describes how consciousnesses can be connected together and multiple beings can share one consciousness of collective knowledge and reasoning. This is not a hypothesis, it actually happens as you can read in the article.

This all suggests to me that it is much more reasonable to think of consciousness as a fundamental property of our universe, and just like matter looks and behaves differently with different complexities and arrangements, there is all the reason to believe consciousness behaves the same. When we die, the complexities that our consciousness was subject to seize to exist, but the fundamental conscious property is still there.

Another example:

Scientists in the US have successfully linked the brains of six people, allowing one person to control the hands of another using just their thoughts.

This is ****ing science, not pseudo science. Consciousness is not local its non-local.

The point above is just an illustration on how brain doesnt produce consciousness, but consciousness is fundamental in nature. There is nothing about a brain that suggest that consciousness should exist. Scientifically, there is absolutely nothing connecting matter to consciousness. It's more like the reverse

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528841-000-reality-how-does-consciousness-fit-in/

This is the central question in quantum mechanics, and has spawned a plethora of proposals, or interpretations. The most popular is the Copenhagen interpretation, which says nothing is real until it is observed, or measured. Observing a wave function causes the superposition to collapse.

However, Copenhagen says nothing about what exactly constitutes an observation. John von Neumann broke this silence and suggested that observation is the action of a conscious mind. It’s an idea also put forward by Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, who said in 1931, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? The obvious answer is yes—a tree falling makes a sound whether or not we hear it—but certain experts in quantum mechanics argue that without an observer, all possible realities exist. That means that the tree both falls and doesn't fall, makes a sound and is silent, and all other possibilities therein.

Nothing exists in reality without a conscious observer. This is unscientific? be rational, unlike Snake_Baker above misinterpreting science every second line. QM is impossible without an observer/consciousness which is the central tenant of Copenhagen interpretation.

According to the quantum physicist R.C Henry, the greatest minds in theoretical physics believed that the universe looks more ‘like a giant thought than like a giant machine.’ He went on to say that the mind should not be thought of as “an accidental intruder into the realm of matter” but rather “as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.”

To the critics of the quantum physics model Henry had a very succinct and blunt message; “Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.”

Mind creates matter, not the other way around. This is science, but according to Snake_Baker above i am misquoting scientists. So maybe Snakey with his infinite knowledge of Quantum Physics can explain, where did i misquote R.C Henry or Max Planck above? first when i quoted Planck, they tried to discredit the father of quantum theory saying his theories are no longer valid, when they failed to prove that, now apparently i am misquoting him. People are getting desperate cause i mentioned the word "god". As i said i am willing to replace the word god with consciousness, will that work with materialists? stop being angry at nothing.


What is unscientific about this? nothing is real until measured by what/who? and who creates such reality? The fact that materialists believe matter produced consciousness by accident, when there is no hypothesis saying it is the case, are you saying this isn't the case? so where did consciousness come from if from matter? Whether you say its unscientific or not doesn't matter assuming consciousness is a product of matter have led us nowhere, we cannot define it, not know what is or where it comes from. I have posted several researches here where it said to be non-local, which solves a lot of problem. The universe being in the head is one of them. The world being a simulation as physicists saying it is also falls under this category. But everything is a product of "accident" is the only thing the atheists have to offer, but won't tell us how is it possible.

If i a mystic talks about how this world is an illusion then thats nonsense, if Neil DeGrasse Tyson talks about how this world is a simulation then he is a genius. Have we found the double standards yet? You guys worship science you won't understand the limitations of science as not everything is measurable or defined as human language/perception have limitations, our experiences shape our reality

How could the 1.4kg lump of moist, pinkish-beige tissue inside your skull give rise to something as mysterious as the experience of being that pinkish-beige lump, and the body to which it is attached?" - Why must the physical give rise to the conscious? this is a 'gross' assumption that is the root cause of science's hard problem. Let go of this assumption and you then have a chance to make progress. Unfortunately in the current paradigm, you then become a charlatan and lose your tenure.

How about starting from the opposite point- consciousness gives rise to the physical? As in the universe only manifests physically because there is consciousness...A bit of reading on Buddhist philosophy might help you out here. The writing has been peer reviewed by millions of meditational practitioners all over the world for centuries, but can be dismissed cause you can only experience the anatta, or emptiness, i cannot show you under a microscope. Nevertheless, it's cause of materialists science hasn't made much progress on the human mind problem and psychology still remains quasi-science.

Anticipating Snake Bakers tremendous response of "yes", "no" "bullshit" while multiquoting me again, i won't hold my breath for this fella to produce anything remotely intelligent

 

[Snake_Baker]

Quality reply LOL the whole argument of "local" conscious is based on the idea that brain=consciousness, which means consciousness is matter, are you saying this is not the case?

And matter didnt give rise to consciousness? cool, we are again in agreement then.

And consciousness can be defined? lets defined what it is then and where it comes from etc?

Your mishmash of incoherent drivel isn't entitled to anything better.

I am all ears.

You're all piss and wind.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Your mishmash of incoherent drivel isn't entitled to anything better.

You're all piss and wind.

Ole Snakey echoing the words of the great Jesus Robbo on 360.

 

[Total Power]

Your mishmash of incoherent drivel isn't entitled to anything better.



You're all piss and wind.

Reality is artificial construct is what quantum physicists say, even supporters of simulation theory like Elon Musk, Neil Degrasse Tyson etc say the same thing and i said consciousness cannot be defined by neurologists, and you said bullshit to that, that sums you up. If you know what consciousness is, collect your Nobel, instead of being the Flog of the year on bigfooty . You just love to argue, all positions in QM reverts back to the observer, thats why Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular in QM. I suggest you read up on these things and once you are educated enough we can have another debate. Get well soon Snakey, till then make the best use of the wooden this year.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Reality is artificial construct...........

You are the living example of this fact.

 

[Total Power]

You are the living example of this fact.

#lolnorf fans would really hope i am right though

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[chelseacarlton]

Happy Eostre guys and gals.
The Germanic pagan ritual to celebrate the coming of the spring equinox,the goddesses name was Ostara,a time to celebrate the rebirth of the sun,which had died during the winter but now has arisen!
Sounds familiar don’t it!
Just another Christian stolen ritual!!

 

[Bennett.]

Happy Eostre guys and gals.
The Germanic pagan ritual to celebrate the coming of the spring equinox,the goddesses name was Ostara,a time to celebrate the rebirth of the sun,which had died during the winter but now has arisen!
Sounds familiar don’t it!
Just another Christian stolen ritual!!

Hopefully you’ll be busy at work on Friday then

 

[chelseacarlton]

Hopefully you’ll be busy at work on Friday then

No,I’ll be travelling across the heads by boat with car and spending the morning in The Bellarine,food wine,maybe look at some breaks on the way to Ocean Grove where will be staying at a cool little resort.
I have tickets for Bells Satdy and Sundy,would love to get a look at The Champ in his swan song and cheer a true and humble aussie sporting icon plying his trade with grace and humility,on our best waves(hopefully)!.
You think this belongs to your kind,you are sorely misguided friend,your mob stole it,but we’ve been doing it for hundreds if not thousands of years,before you hijacked it with your blabbering copycat nonsense!
Get over it,”tide comes in,tide goes out,we can’t explain that”.
What ever happened to that jesus Fox shill?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Get over it,”tide comes in,tide goes out,we can’t explain that”.

Mostly the moons gravitational & magnetic pull mate....Solar system not your strong suite then.