Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

Without external apparatus (say, a mirror) an eye cannot see itself.

You said yourself that is an assertion without evidence.

And if you haven't a clue how I came up with dualism, you haven't been paying attention. Dualism - that is, some mind or conscious awareness that exists external of organic matter, whether it's a "soul" or "god" or something else - seems to be the crux of your argument. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I will be happy to stand corrected on that.

Then stand corrected. I said, and you even quoted me, "The hitch is, there is no separation."

What you called "meaningless gobbledygook" is physics. That you don't like what the evidence points to is irrelevant.

The abstract of the link reads, "Brain circuits can tune into the frequency of other brain parts relevant at the time." (emphasis added)

"Frequency" implies field. Maybe you think think your brain receptivity is as limited as that of a mouse, but there's no reason to think so poorly of yourself. Whatever you believe or don't believe, there is no doubting the power of religion.

The Brain on God

[Sy Borg]

Greta:

You said, “What physics are occurring in consciousness I do not know.”

The Physics of Consciousness by Evan Harris Walker seeks to answer that very question. (Note: I’ve only read enough to know that Spectrum would burn it.)

Cheers. A few practitioners are giving it a go. Generally, those who promote "quantum woo" are not terribly reliable in their details but I think that is the nature of the beast and not really the point (the point being the general ideas, unless they hinge on problem details). Creatives with a speculative turn of mind are always either ignored or criticised by the detail-minded, as you may have noticed :)

From what you have said, my main disagreement is with your certainty; what you say might be real. As I say, I am fascinated by the idea that the quantum and relativistic worlds are truly separate with a TOE not possible - possibility suggested by recent experiments but obviously not "proven" at this stage, if ever. That could mean reality is actually physically dual, a notion that would worry many a modern philosopher promoting monism.

Monism is logical enough - a universe (or multiverse) being all one thing at a fundamental level. Yet dualism is everywhere in our lives - physicality and thought, hardware and software, energy and information, a substance and its order, etc. Maybe it's a perspective effect? Or maybe the quantum realm is information (effectively spirit for those so inclined) that orders and shapes the relativistic world?

Many of you take one side or the other but there are so many mysteries regarding fundamental things in reality that I could not justify certainty one way or another. While our advancements are extraordinary, there's still much more that we don't know than we do know. There is also the possibility that our physical and sensory limitations has thrown us completely off course and everyone is wrong.

No doubt 1,000 years ago some believed that their society had the knowhow and tools to understand reality. Today we'd see that notion as absurd, perhaps as absurd as our descendent 1,000 years hence may see our capacity to deeply understand the nature of reality.

[Namelesss]

is not testable at all. That doesn't mean it is false, just that it is a bad theory.

Truth/Reality is NOT falsifiable! Perhaps because it IS ALL inclusive! Omni-!
So, it's a "bad theory"?

[Dark Matter]

Your posts are a a welcome change from those that put little thought into their criticisms, Greta.

I try to think in terms of relationships and qualitative variations rather than in the concrete. So, for me, while the sciences are critical for our growth as human beings, the set of classical "laws" is the average of conscious observation. Nature does not have a definite form, but is formed by the interference patterns created by the act of conscious observation on various levels. What I'm suggesting self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness: the local and non-local, part and the whole, creature and Creator.

I don't see this as disagreeing with the OP.

Critics, of course, are going to complain that it is speculative (it is) and that there is no evidence -- nevermind that it is not unreasonable to interpret empirical observation as pointing in that direction. But then, someone who complains that there is no evidence for the simple observation that the observer cannot be the thing observed cannot be taken seriously.

[Spectrum]

Critics, of course, are going to complain that it is speculative (it is) and that there is no evidence -- nevermind that it is not unreasonable to interpret empirical observation as pointing in that direction. But then, someone who complains that there is no evidence for the simple observation that the observer cannot be the thing observed cannot be taken seriously.

Note the observer's effect.

In physics, the observer effect is the fact that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.

The above is a clue that the observers and what is supposedly 'observed' are interdependent to enable reality to emerged within the cognition and consciousness of humans.

Then we have the observer-observed interaction in the following;

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate (by "observation")

The ultimate of reality is there is no 'thing-in-itself [Kant] standing out there independent of the observer awaiting to be observed. The ultimate reality is there are only things-by-ourselves emerging as reality.

As such there is no God-by-itself that is self-sufficient existing by itself and independent of humans.

Why the idea of God [illusory and impossible] emerged as thought only is due to psychological factors. It is like children imagining imaginary-friends to talk to, i.e. psychologically desperate adults -suffering from an existential crisis- are clinging to the idea of an illusory God.

[Sy Borg]

Cheers DM. It's nice to just chat about things.

Nature does not have a definite form, but is formed by the interference patterns created by the act of conscious observation on various levels. What I'm suggesting self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness: the local and non-local, part and the whole, creature and Creator.

Based on the quantum idea of consciousness affecting reality, my impression is that we create our own reality through our sensory and mental filters. So the reality we create via observation won't be the same reality that an insect will create. I sometimes look at my garden and try to imagine the veritable neon lit wonderland of "sexy" plants waving their UV-lit genitalia around for excitable insects :)

I don't see this as disagreeing with the OP.

Critics, of course, are going to complain that it is speculative (it is) and that there is no evidence -- nevermind that it is not unreasonable to interpret empirical observation as pointing in that direction. But then, someone who complains that there is no evidence for the simple observation that the observer cannot be the thing observed cannot be taken seriously.

I will only challenge if speculation is presented as a certainty, as opposed to a statement of belief.

Was the first perturbation of inflation caused by chaos or order? I don't know.

[Chester]

The hitch for me is, yes, my own solipsist existence is the only absolutely certain thing to me. Yet, how can I paint physical reality as an illusion when my perceptions are largely shared by a multitude of other people and animals?

If so many shared perceptions exist, what is the simplest explanation?

1. We perceive a subset of actual reality, or

2. we are subject to a shared illusion created by thought?

Hi ,sorry for the delay.

It is not necessary for a reality involving thought alone to be illusory... reality arises from rules rather than a requirement for something beyond what can be stimulated from thought. In other words, laws make reality.

It is simpler to construct a theory about what reality is from thought dependence alone rather than thought and non-thought dependence.

[Chester]

Welcome, Chester. What you said is something materialists hate to hear or seriously consider.

Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as a creator and governor of the realm of matter. -- Sir James Hopwood Jeans, British professor of physics, astronomy, and mathematics

Hi, thanks , the "reality is thought dependent only" theory also helps us understand problems that are insurmountable in the materialist theory ...eg, what is beyond the physical Universe becomes what is beyond thought , ie, the "problem" becomes meaningless.

[Chester]

An explanation of God.

Oh the hubris! *__-

God is the encompassment of all thought, everything else that thinks is a subset of Him, dependent on HIm, though not necessarily controlled by Him.

One Thought, many Perspectives.
Thought/ego is not manufactured in the brain, it is perceived.
No 'thinker', just 'thought/ego'.
Gotta Love Occam! *__-

The simplest explanation is that thought is a process of interaction and self realisation, it does not require a physical brain. The brain we perceive is also a product of thought that due to the laws of nature correlates in a seemingly physical way to our thoughts...but it need not be the cause of them.

[Chester]

Occam's razor demands
... ...

God is the encompassment of all thought, everything else that thinks is a subset of Him, dependent on HIm, though not necessarily controlled by Him.

You cannot simply rely solely on Occam's razor without subsequently proving your thesis. E = MC2 is merely a simple equation but it is proven empirically.
Note I have proven 'God is an Impossibility' thus no matter how you argue, it is impossible for God to exist as real.

In your 'God is the encompassment of all thought' you assumed God exists without verifiable and sound proofs.

It is generally accepted a belief in God is based on faith, i.e. without proofs nor sound reasons, and the basis is psychological. So it is a waste of time trying to proof or justify God exists as real.

In reality, 'God' is NOT the encompassment of all thoughts, rather the idea of God is thought-of as driven by some inherent psychological existential crisis.
God is an individual thought and shared-thought by the majority of theists infected by some 'zombie parasite' and causing theists to suffer an active psychological existential crisis.

Assuming if you can prove all of reality is reduced to thoughts, the more likely empirical-based speculation is such thoughts could be controlled by human-liked aliens doing the 'Matrix'. It is also possible what is reality to us is merely Reality-TV to some human-liked aliens existing billions of light-years away. In this case, it is nevertheless empirically possible, but you have to consider the probability of such a speculation being real is likely to be 0.0000...1%. To conclude such speculations are 99% [no 100%] real, all one need is to bring the evidence.

As for the idea of God, God is an impossibility to be real to start with. Therefore there is no need find any proofs for God at all.

-- Updated Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:40 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


Even in mice, the brain works like a radio receiver[/url]

It is a fact all information [senses] received by the human mind is based on waves from an external source, e.g. seeing an apple is based on waves, of color, patterns from an 'apple' and processed by the cognition processes to enable an apple to our consciousness.

Note my point above, "Assuming if you can prove all of reality is reduced to thoughts ..." it is more likely we are in a TV-Reality-Show done by some human-liked aliens in a Matrix method.

The idea of God is driven by the internal psychology of the theists who need such an 'idea' [like little children imagining their little friends] to soothe the rising and pulsating existential angst.

-- Updated Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:00 pm to add the following --

(And please don't use the tired old example of something like wetness "emerging" from H2O.)"

I claimed reality is a Spontaneous Emergent Reality.
One small clue of emergent is this;

In the above experiment, the question is how did an actual concaved mask 'emerged' into your [and all normal humans] consciousness as a 'convex' mask??
The reality we are in also emerged in a similar way but it is very complex to explain.
The philosophical argument is there is no independent reality out there waiting for humans to perceive it and realize its truth via correspondence of 'perception' with 'reality'. Note Philosophical Realism which is not tenable as a really real.

Besides, if Einstein was wrong about "spooky action at a distance," why can't he be wrong about the moon not being there when no one is looking? Countless experiments verify both (but people refuse to consider the implications of those experiments).

I am not sure Einstein claimed "the moon not being there when no one is looking."

But it is ULTIMATELY* true, there is no moon out there when no one is looking nor cognitively interacting with it [whatever that is].
* ultimately among many other valid perspectives.
It is the same with the above Einstein Mask illusion [actually it is reality], the 3D-convex Mask only emerged when you are looking at it because in this case we know it is a concave Mask from another perspective. This is akin to the Wave-Function-Collapse phenomena in Physics.

I can not prove that God exists anymore than you can prove the Universe is the cause of itself, however God is a natural "by-product" of the concept that the whole of reality is constructed by thought. The idea that reality is thought dependent is the simplest explanation of reality given that we know for sure that thought exists. Therefore Occam's razor should incline us to believe in God.

I am not a solipsist because I sense that not all ideas are my own.

[Chester]

Occam's razor demands that the simplest explanation should be accepted as truth unless there is sound reason for believing that it isn't the simplest explanation. It therefore stands to reason that thought should be seen as the only ingredient within reality...there is no such thing as thought independence, so called material reality can be dismissed as an unnecessary theory.

If that were the case, the name Occam wouldn't have any objective value, it would be just another thought you have found in your mind. There wouldn't be either any real demands imposed from a process independent of your res cogitans. And invoking reason, of course, would be useless, since there wouldn't be an objective realm in which to validate that things happen because of their particular relations with the world, independent of your mind. Everything, according to you, is happening in your mind, it is all that exists. Since it can't be caused by something else, any thought structure would be arbitrary, and yet remain legitimate for your own mind. It welcomes the absurd.

God is the encompassment of all thought, everything else that thinks is a subset of Him, dependent on HIm, though not necessarily controlled by Him.

That statement directly contradicts your own previous statement above. If the only reality is your thought, then at best this so called "God" is a product of your thought. If it stood as an independent reality of thought, then you could not say that "thought should be seen as the only ingredient within reality". And if you're now willing to accept a reality independent of thought, why couldn't it be material reality.

In this theory God is Windows 10 (hopefully He's a bit better than that but you see what I'm getting at lol), and me and you are independent programmes within that...so you're Chrome and I'm Internet Explorer. Dependent on windows 10, but independent from each other.

I don't create reality with my thought, I simply witness it from my perspective and interact with it.

[Dark Matter]

I will only challenge if speculation is presented as a certainty, as opposed to a statement of belief.

Was the first perturbation of inflation caused by chaos or order? I don't know.

Whereas most people (it seems) restrict possibilities to either/or, I ask why not both? Chaos and order, it seems to me, are each meaningless without the other.

Every thing, every where, every when, and their every possibility converge in the One. The field of possibilities is too vast for me to be certain about how things are, but not so vast as to know what propositions are false. That is to say, from my circumscribed point of view, Totality has an indefinite but logical structure.

[Namelesss]

The simplest explanation is that thought is a process of interaction and self realisation, it does not require a physical brain. The brain we perceive is also a product of thought that due to the laws of nature correlates in a seemingly physical way to our thoughts...but it need not be the cause of them.

From scientific/philosophical Perspective, I tend to agree with where you are going here; is NOT a 'cause' of them, actually, because 'causality/creation' is not possible. Correlates abound, though, metaphors all! *__-

[Sy Borg]

I am not sure Einstein claimed "the moon not being there when no one is looking."

But it is ULTIMATELY* true, there is no moon out there when no one is looking nor cognitively interacting with it [whatever that is].
* ultimately among many other valid perspectives.
It is the same with the above Einstein Mask illusion [actually it is reality], the 3D-convex Mask only emerged when you are looking at it because in this case we know it is a concave Mask from another perspective. This is akin to the Wave-Function-Collapse phenomena in Physics.

Yet stars, planets and moons obviously existed before biology or humans emerged from it. Now, in terms of mentality, as far as we know, reality was black nothingness. Seemingly, in terms of mentality on the Earth, "the lights came on" with the advent of senses.

Taking another angle, it's also possible that the whole notion of the first cause does not make sense. Still, perhaps aspects of the universe are seemingly eternal, and in that case they might fit the criterion for a god, be it dark energy (if it exists) or the "quantum foam" (if it existed), or perhaps something else interesting over which people might superimpose the God meme.

[Spectrum]

I can not prove that God exists anymore than you can prove the Universe is the cause of itself, however God is a natural "by-product" of the concept that the whole of reality is constructed by thought.
The idea that reality is thought dependent is the simplest explanation of reality given that we know for sure that thought exists. Therefore Occam's razor should incline us to believe in God.

I am not a solipsist because I sense that not all ideas are my own.

Yes, 'God' is a "by-product" of the concept that the whole of reality is constructed by thought.
So 'God' is fundamentally a thought and nothing more.
Theist reify this thought when they are driven and subliminally compelled by their own internal psychological impulses re the existential crisis.

Therefore Occam's razor should incline us to believe in God.

Obviously anyone can believe anything by whatever basis and reify it, but the reified idea of a God which MUST be an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility.

If we speculate human-liked [anthropomorphic] aliens exists somewhere in the Universe and is creating the Universe for human in a Reality-TV show, that is a possibility because these elements are empirical-based. Based on current knowledge, such a possibility is 0.00..001%.

Again, but the reified idea of a God which MUST be an absolutely perfect God is an impossibility because it has no empirical & rational basis.

-- Updated Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:17 pm to add the following --

I am not sure Einstein claimed "the moon not being there when no one is looking."

But it is ULTIMATELY* true, there is no moon out there when no one is looking nor cognitively interacting with it [whatever that is].
* ultimately among many other valid perspectives.
It is the same with the above Einstein Mask illusion [actually it is reality], the 3D-convex Mask only emerged when you are looking at it because in this case we know it is a concave Mask from another perspective. This is akin to the Wave-Function-Collapse phenomena in Physics.

Yet stars, planets and moons obviously existed before biology or humans emerged from it. Now, in terms of mentality, as far as we know, reality was black nothingness. Seemingly, in terms of mentality on the Earth, "the lights came on" with the advent of senses.

Taking another angle, it's also possible that the whole notion of the first cause does not make sense. Still, perhaps aspects of the universe are seemingly eternal, and in that case they might fit the criterion for a god, be it dark energy (if it exists) or the "quantum foam" (if it existed), or perhaps something else interesting over which people might superimpose the God meme.

Greta, the quoted is from mine not Chester.

Greta: "Yet stars, planets and moons obviously existed before biology or humans emerged from it. "

On a finer philosophical analysis;
Who is stating "obviously."
Note the whole statement is made by you [a human] or a group of people [humans] and the above statement cannot exists without humans.
In addition 'before' is a time-based elements which is can only be human-based.
As such there was no absolutely independent moon out there that existed before humans.
This "fact" is always conditioned by human factors and cannot stand alone, but it is real nevertheless. This is what Kant called Empirical Realism in contrast to Philosophical Realism.

As far as reality is concern, the moon exists interdependent and spontaneously with human factors, consciousness and all other relevant human based factors.

'First cause' do not make sense because it is vulnerable to infinite regression. It is very rationally to question and expect there is always something before anything.

"Seemingly eternal" which is without end but why do we need to end [reify] such eternity as a God. Why? Again this is due to psychological factors arising to evolutionary customs and habits.
The most realistic philosophical basis is to resist the psychological instinct to speculate or reify something with an ultimate finitude, i.e. God. But the majority cannot resist such an instinct to reify a God out of nothing and there consequences of its good and evil. Since at present it is impending there is the trend cons are outweighing the pros of theism, we need to address the subject of theism with higher philosophical precision.

Note the core principles of Buddhism and other Eastern spirituality, i.e. living in the "Middle Way" of "nothingness" [sunyata] without beginning nor endings within the command and control of an illusory God. Without God's beginning nor the end, the focus is on the reality of the NOW, i.e. a spontaneous emergent reality.

A spontaneous emergent reality is not a matter of beliefs, but one must work at it to maintain it in a healthy state.