God Discovered!

[badpuppy]

You're not here to learn. And that's cool. tata

 

Out of bounds. No one is here seeking instruction.

Out of bounds? I asked her an open question with few assumptions and she jumped all over me. At least that's how I saw it.

 

I know how pesky those perceptions can be though.

 

Legion, I didn't jump all over you. I'm sorry you perceived it that way. Textual communication can be difficult because it's hard to know the tone being put into words. I also admit that often I use sarcasm not meant as a personal attack but in a description of my perceptions which can "come off as" a personal attack. If it came off to you that way, then I apologize. That wasn't my intention. My intention was merely to explain my perspective and why I disagree with the materialistic assumptions on the nature of reality.

 

I also think one of the problems with a discussion like that is... a materialist is "often" caught up in the strong belief that they are having a discussion about "objective reality" whether or not the other person "accepts that". And so, therefore their discussion is coming from "science" like "science" explains everything. Again, I have a lot of respect for science as a method and do appreciate all the knowledge we have about the consensus reality we all find ourselves in... but... I'm not having a "scientific discussion" with you. If you want to discuss science, that's awesome, but this topic isn't really "about" science. I'm having a philosophical discussion.

 

I think it would help if we were both having a philosophical discussion in this thread.

 

As for science itself, you'll find very few scientific ideas or theories with which I disagree. Again, I just don't think it's the whole story.

[badpuppy]

my personal experience leads me to believe that materialists are not here to learn (at least not anything beyond materialism).

My experience agrees.

 

 

 

I do not deny that materialistic science has value. I simply deny that it is the ground of all being.

I agree. I tend to believe that entailment is the ground of all being.

 

My point is we are ALL working from various assumptions about the nature of reality.

Agreed. But I think your assumptions about my assumptions were off the mark.

 

Can you explain your view of entailment?

 

re: my assumptions about your assumptions... that's a fair assumption haha. If I lumped you in with some homogenic "materialist strawman" then I apologize.

[badpuppy]

I had nothing like that in mind. lol I was hoping to exchange ideas with you.

 

It's not that I'm not here to learn, it's just that my personal experience leads me to believe that materialists are not here to learn (at least not anything beyond materialism). Why is it okay for a materialist to be SO sure of their assumption, but when I am it makes me "unteachable" and "unwilling to learn". Do you not see how arrogant that is?

I might be wrong but I think who Legion was citing was the biologist Robert Rosen. Rosen was part of the fields of complexity sciences in biology. What he was driving at I believe is in fact a challenge to materialism. It is touching on emergent properties. That is not a reductionist approach.

 

I wish I had time to respond to everything. BTW, the things you say I very much find myself aligning with a lot of them.

 

Thanks for that clarification, Antlerman. I interpreted it the opposite way (obviously haha) but without context it was difficult for me to know where the quoted person was coming from. But... we all know what assuming does! (Btw I find it hilarious that here I am going on about assumptions and how we are so convinced they are right, when they are ASSUMPTIONS, meanwhile I make about 42 different random assumptions just inside this thread. One has to sit back and laugh at that.) And thanks, I see a lot of similarities with how you state things as well.

[MagickMonkey]

I had nothing like that in mind. lol I was hoping to exchange ideas with you.

 

It's not that I'm not here to learn, it's just that my personal experience leads me to believe that materialists are not here to learn (at least not anything beyond materialism). Why is it okay for a materialist to be SO sure of their assumption, but when I am it makes me "unteachable" and "unwilling to learn". Do you not see how arrogant that is?

I might be wrong but I think who Legion was citing was the biologist Robert Rosen. Rosen was part of the fields of complexity sciences in biology. What he was driving at I believe is in fact a challenge to materialism. It is touching on emergent properties. That is not a reductionist approach.

 

I wish I had time to respond to everything. BTW, the things you say I very much find myself aligning with a lot of them.

 

Robert Sapolsky has a couple of nice lectures about emergence. I don't see how the concept is counter-materialism, though it does explain the short comings of reductionist perspectives.

[badpuppy]

I have still a somewhat fuzzy understanding of emergence (like, I've heard of it and have heard very basic ideas about it but I don't know about it deeply enough to commentate on it), but from what I understand so far it doesn't seem to contradict the "dream" framework OR the "materialistic" framework, though it does seem to "expand" the materialistic framework out from a parody of itself. And by that, I mean that I think the reductionist perspective feels like the parody. It's almost "overstating the case" of a "physically real" world.

[Legion]

The day has been saved Badpuppy. It's all good.

 

Can you explain your view of entailment?

Um, that might take some doing. In fact I'm not entirely sure I have a full grasp of it myself.

 

It's very similar to the Buddhist concept of "dependent arising".

 

If we ask "why X?" about something then there will generally be answers of the form "because Y." These relations can then be expressed as Y-->X or Y entails X.

 

That's kind of the short of it. I should be able to do better than that though. I'll work on it.

[MagickMonkey]

 

 

Hehehe, I've never quite had a lucid dream before. I've been aware that I've been dreaming, but for whatever reason, when this happens, I have the sudden urge to wake up rather than seize the opportunity. Afterwards, I realize that it is a missed opportunity. I'm sure lucid dreaming could be a lot of fun. Though I don't think I've quite had anything that quite counts as a lucid dream, I have noticed much inconsistencies and logical flaws with my dreams. In any case, even in a lucid dream, you realize you're dreaming, right? You know you're just simulating reality. Perhap if I can get myself to experience a real lucid dream, it would be interesting to devise some experiments to see how it compares to what you call "our dream". (I don't believe it's our dream, but I can't help but think that sounds cool)

 

Hey MM, yes, I know I'm dreaming. But I also know I'm dreaming right now. (Sorry, you HAD to know I was going for that one!)

 

 

Yeah, I pretty much expected it.

 

 

My personal experiences with lucid dreaming makes it impossible to just "assume" that this consensus reality we are both sharing in right now is somehow more "physical and real" than the personal dream world. The dream world has it's own internal logic. It doesn't match this logic. I think Oubouros said something in one thread about how the laws of physics we have aren't the "only" laws of physics that could exist in any universe because creationists like to talk about the special parameters of life without realizing that if that is the ONLY way life can exist that they just ruled out heaven and hell.

 

 

But maybe they are the only laws we can have. I obviously can't say they are, but maybe they are as absolute as mathematics.

 

 

I think it's helpful to think of the dream world like that. We cannot apply the rules "here" to there. It's like falling down the rabbit hole, like Alice's Wonderland. Wonderland has it's own bizarre form of logic, but it IS bizarre. And yet, likewise I find plenty about "this" reality that is bizarre.

 

 

Well, I can't speak for you, but my dreams don't really have an alternate logic, but rather a lack of it. On rare occasion, my prefrontal cortex will activate and say "That can't be. That makes no sense". But generally, it's just a lack of logic.

 

 

Oh... and this is just a side thought... sometimes when I'm having a lower-level lucid dream where all my own logic isn't exactly working, I run up to random dream characters and say: "This is a dream!" I find this hilarious when i wake up. It's like I want them to give me a cookie and a gold star for recognizing it. One of these days a dream character is going to smile at me and say: "No Shit, Sherlock."

 

And I respect that you don't see things the same way. There is a book I think called 30 days to lucid dreaming or something like that. Anyway there are several books and websites about learning to lucid dream and having deeper lucid dream experiences. It's a very cool experience. And even if in the end you still boil it down to some interesting chemical interaction in the brain, it's still a lot of fun. Flying when you're controlling that activity is pretty cool, as well.

 

I think my brain is hungry for that book! I should add it to my book list. I'll see if I can find the exact title. I bet lucid dreaming fucking rocks!!

 

EDIT: Is this it? http://www.amazon.com/Lucid-Dreams-30-Days-Second/dp/0312199880

[badpuppy]

Also, even though I don't believe this reality is as "physically real and objective" as we like to think... for practical purposes I behave as if it is... after all, those ARE the rules of this layer of reality and so I don't think I'm in the Matrix. I don't think I can fly here or suddenly move in slow motion or jump off a building and walk away from it. (I can do that in my personal dreams, but not in consensus reality.) I'm far more deeply connected to "this" level of reality than the very transient experiences of my night time dreams. (That, to me would be another difference between the two dreams besides the linear/logic issues, that there is more "attachment" in this one. The greater feeling of attachment as well as the longer perceptual reality makes it feel more "objectively real".)

 

To me, the existence of the personal nighttime dreamworld as well as altered states is meant to be a trigger to "wake us up" so we don't get so swept up we forget to question the nature and empiricism of the reality with which we're presented. It's like a failsafe.

[badpuppy]

The day has been saved Badpuppy. It's all good.

 

Can you explain your view of entailment?

Um, that might take some doing. In fact I'm not entirely sure I have a full grasp of it myself.

 

It's very similar to the Buddhist concept of "dependent arising".

 

If we ask "why X?" about something then there will generally be answers of the form "because Y." These relations can then be expressed as Y-->X or Y entails X.

 

That's kind of the short of it. I should be able to do better than that though. I'll work on it.

 

Okay. thanks!

[MagickMonkey]

Also, even though I don't believe this reality is as "physically real and objective" as we like to think... for practical purposes I behave as if it is... after all, those ARE the rules of this layer of reality and so I don't think I'm in the Matrix. I don't think I can fly here or suddenly move in slow motion or jump off a building and walk away from it. (I can do that in my personal dreams, but not in consensus reality.) I'm far more deeply connected to "this" level of reality than the very transient experiences of my night time dreams. (That, to me would be another difference between the two dreams besides the linear/logic issues, that there is more "attachment" in this one. The greater feeling of attachment as well as the longer perceptual reality makes it feel more "objectively real".)

 

To me, the existence of the personal nighttime dreamworld as well as altered states is meant to be a trigger to "wake us up" so we don't get so swept up we forget to question the nature and empiricism of the reality with which we're presented. It's like a failsafe.

 

 

I think you were correct that we're at an impasse on this issue. One thing about good about this disagreement is neither of us thinks the other is evil for believing something different. Neither of us is damned to hell for it. Ditto for Antlerman. He may have something he calls religion, but his kind of religion isn't going to cause people to fly planes into buildings and may very well be beneficial.

[Antlerman]

Robert Sapolsky has a couple of nice lectures about emergence. I don't see how the concept is counter-materialism, though it does explain the short comings of reductionist perspectives.

Now apply that to mind being emergent from brain. Again, not separate, but a distinct sphere in itself with its own properties. The way we can approach those are in terms like the physiosphere, the biosphere, and the noosphere. I'll quote someone talking about Ken Wilber's application of these domains (which others prior to him termed): From here: Link

Emphasizing that holonic evolution generates emergent qualities, Wilber divides the Kosmos into four grand domains: physiosphere, biosphere, noosphere and theosphere. The physiosphere includes the non-biological features of the universe, including the stars and planets that arose in the billions of years following the Big Bang. The biosphere, the domain of life, depends upon the much older and much vaster physiosphere, but involves features that transcend the physiosphere. Finally, the biosphere gives rise to the noosphere, which includes complex sentient life such as mammals and humans. Again, the noosphere both depends on physiosphere and biosphere, but also transcends them, by exhibiting emergent characteristics, including self-consciousness, language, and rationality. The theosphere, which both includes and transcends the other three domains, refers to dimensions of consciousness that include what is traditionally understood by God.

 

 

The point is that there are distinct fields and areas of disciplines which have to apply to each domain respectively. You can't use an EEG to "know" another person. You can only know that by dialog, through discourse with one mind talking to another mind and interpreting. You can examine my exteriors, but unless you engage mentally, mind to mind, you will only know things "about me", the surfaces without interiors. Likewise to use philosophy to understand how nature works is the wrong set of tools. Rationality without empirical verification is disastrous. And so forth.

[badpuppy]

 

But maybe they are the only laws we can have. I obviously can't say they are, but maybe they are as absolute as mathematics.

 

 

Maybe, I don't think so, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility even though it doesn't line up for me. Do you accept multiverse theories as legit? It seems a lot of them assume that our laws of physics are not the only laws that can exist, but just the ones in our universe specifically.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I can't speak for you, but my dreams don't really have an alternate logic

 

 

For me, internal logic is far more clear in a lucid dream. There are certain rules that seem to apply in the lucid dream world... not just to "me" and "my lucid dreams" but to the lucid dreams of others. It's one of the ways in which lucid dreamers learn from each other about what to try and what works to create the experience they wish to have inside the dream.

 

 

I think my brain is hungry for that book! I should add it to my book list. I'll see if I can find the exact title. I bet lucid dreaming fucking rocks!!

 

 

I still haven't had the super high lucid dream states. I don't doubt they are possible though just from what I've already experienced. And even my mid-range level lucid dreams are enough to make me go: "WTF is reality?"

[badpuppy]

Yes, that's the book. I can't 100% remember but I think the reason I liked that book was it was simple, practical, executable, and didn't veer off too much into spiritual beliefs the authors may have after having experienced lucid dreams. A LOT of lucid dream books overlay a set of spiritual beliefs on top of it which I think is counterproductive. Each person should be able to interpret their own experiences.

[badpuppy]

Also, even though I don't believe this reality is as "physically real and objective" as we like to think... for practical purposes I behave as if it is... after all, those ARE the rules of this layer of reality and so I don't think I'm in the Matrix. I don't think I can fly here or suddenly move in slow motion or jump off a building and walk away from it. (I can do that in my personal dreams, but not in consensus reality.) I'm far more deeply connected to "this" level of reality than the very transient experiences of my night time dreams. (That, to me would be another difference between the two dreams besides the linear/logic issues, that there is more "attachment" in this one. The greater feeling of attachment as well as the longer perceptual reality makes it feel more "objectively real".)

 

To me, the existence of the personal nighttime dreamworld as well as altered states is meant to be a trigger to "wake us up" so we don't get so swept up we forget to question the nature and empiricism of the reality with which we're presented. It's like a failsafe.

 

 

I think you were correct that we're at an impasse on this issue. One thing about good about this disagreement is neither of us thinks the other is evil for believing something different. Neither of us is damned to hell for it. Ditto for Antlerman. He may have something he calls religion, but his kind of religion isn't going to cause people to fly planes into buildings and may very well be beneficial.

 

 

LOL agreed!

[MagickMonkey]

Do you accept multiverse theories as legit? It seems a lot of them assume that our laws of physics are not the only laws that can exist, but just the ones in our universe specifically.

 

No, if for no other reason than semantics. If if the universe is the absolute sum of everything, then what people call multiverses would simply be additional dimensions or additional sets of dimensions or forking timelines within the universe.

[MagickMonkey]

Yes, that's the book. I can't 100% remember but I think the reason I liked that book was it was simple, practical, executable, and didn't veer off too much into spiritual beliefs the authors may have after having experienced lucid dreams. A LOT of lucid dream books overlay a set of spiritual beliefs on top of it which I think is counterproductive. Each person should be able to interpret their own experiences.

 

Cool! Thanks. It's definitely going on my list-of-books-to-get, and probably not at the bottom of that list either.

[badpuppy]

Do you accept multiverse theories as legit? It seems a lot of them assume that our laws of physics are not the only laws that can exist, but just the ones in our universe specifically.

 

No, if for no other reason than semantics. If if the universe is the absolute sum of everything, then what people call multiverses would simply be additional dimensions or additional sets of dimensions or forking timelines within the universe.

 

Okay then let's crawl over the semantics. Do you accept theories of additional dimensions as legit? The problem with calling it "additional dimensions" (that we can't see, interact with, or empirically prove to be real) is that it starts sounding VERY much like spirituality, just with less dogma attached.

 

The word "multiverse" can somehow still be used while pretending it's all "materialism" LOL!

[badpuppy]

with regards to theories like multiverse, m-theory, string theory, parallel dimensions, holographic universe, etc... most of them are largely mathematical models about realities we cannot personally interact with, perceive, or really "know" to be real. And yet, even if every scientist doesnt' accept them, they are considered "legitimate" inquiries in science.

 

IMO it feels like a bunch of scientists got together and just created some extra universes to put off having to deal with a reality that isn't as boiled down to chemicals as they thought... not realizing these theories themselves aren't exactly "hardcore materialism". It's as if nonmaterialism can now be called materialism as long as we attach lots of theoretical math to it.

[Legion]

with regards to theories like multiverse, m-theory, string theory, parallel dimensions, holographic universe, etc... most of them are largely mathematical models about realities we cannot personally interact with, perceive, or really "know" to be real. And yet, even if every scientist doesnt' accept them, they are considered "legitimate" inquiries in science.

 

IMO it feels like a bunch of scientists got together and just created some extra universes to put off having to deal with a reality that isn't as boiled down to chemicals as they thought... not realizing these theories themselves aren't exactly "hardcore materialism". It's as if nonmaterialism can now be called materialism as long as we attach lots of theoretical math to it.

Here's my suspcion. It's not that mathematical models are doomed to failure. Science requires mathematical models. But if the math they are using is too impoverished in implication then it won't have much (if any) value in modeling the complexity of nature.

[badpuppy]

with regards to theories like multiverse, m-theory, string theory, parallel dimensions, holographic universe, etc... most of them are largely mathematical models about realities we cannot personally interact with, perceive, or really "know" to be real. And yet, even if every scientist doesnt' accept them, they are considered "legitimate" inquiries in science.

 

IMO it feels like a bunch of scientists got together and just created some extra universes to put off having to deal with a reality that isn't as boiled down to chemicals as they thought... not realizing these theories themselves aren't exactly "hardcore materialism". It's as if nonmaterialism can now be called materialism as long as we attach lots of theoretical math to it.

Here's my suspcion. It's not that mathematical models are doomed to failure. Science requires mathematical models. But if the math they are using is too impoverished in implication then it won't have much (if any) value in modeling the complexity of nature.

 

I agree. My issue isn't with the math per se. It's that suddenly science is getting highly theoretical (above and beyond the general scientific usage of that term.), to the point that it looks like spirituality using different language. And yet, anytime science and spirituality OPENLY seem to intersect, it's called pseudoscience, but when quantum physics does it, it's called theoretical math.

 

That's my only objection.

 

Of course, to be fair, a lot of what's out there being labeled pseudoscience IS pseudoscience... i.e. the "What the Bleep" nonsense.

 

Also, I can pretty much theoretically accept anything science comes up with. It's impossible to upset an apple cart operating on an entirely different grid. Not that I feel like I have to even resort to that seeing the weird rabbit hole science seems to be dropping us down. Whee. I'm excited for the ride.

[Legion]

I don't study quanta and such. I'll leave that to Deepak Chopra.

[MagickMonkey]

Robert Sapolsky has a couple of nice lectures about emergence. I don't see how the concept is counter-materialism, though it does explain the short comings of reductionist perspectives.

Now apply that to mind being emergent from brain. Again, not separate, but a distinct sphere in itself with its own properties. The way we can approach those are in terms like the physiosphere, the biosphere, and the noosphere. I'll quote someone talking about Ken Wilber's application of these domains (which others prior to him termed): From here: Link

Emphasizing that holonic evolution generates emergent qualities, Wilber divides the Kosmos into four grand domains: physiosphere, biosphere, noosphere and theosphere. The physiosphere includes the non-biological features of the universe, including the stars and planets that arose in the billions of years following the Big Bang. The biosphere, the domain of life, depends upon the much older and much vaster physiosphere, but involves features that transcend the physiosphere. Finally, the biosphere gives rise to the noosphere, which includes complex sentient life such as mammals and humans. Again, the noosphere both depends on physiosphere and biosphere, but also transcends them, by exhibiting emergent characteristics, including self-consciousness, language, and rationality. The theosphere, which both includes and transcends the other three domains, refers to dimensions of consciousness that include what is traditionally understood by God.

 

 

The point is that there are distinct fields and areas of disciplines which have to apply to each domain respectively. You can't use an EEG to "know" another person. You can only know that by dialog, through discourse with one mind talking to another mind and interpreting. You can examine my exteriors, but unless you engage mentally, mind to mind, you will only know things "about me", the surfaces without interiors. Likewise to use philosophy to understand how nature works is the wrong set of tools. Rationality without empirical verification is disastrous. And so forth.

 

 

I guess I'm starting to see what you're saying. Not separate but distinct in that you use a different set of perspectives for one than the other. I still wouldn't discount perspectives where the domains overlap. For instance, knowing that a mind is the brain or a function of the brain can be useful when considering why people behave a certain way. If you ever happen to check out any of Sapolsky's lectures (I know not everyone likes Sapolsky like I do) listen to what he says about being an expert witness in the sentencing phase of a murderer who had been missing his prefrontal cortex since he was 6. Knowing right from wrong had absolutely no impact on his ability to determine how he would act. Despite this, the jury still sentenced the guy to death.

[MagickMonkey]

Do you accept multiverse theories as legit? It seems a lot of them assume that our laws of physics are not the only laws that can exist, but just the ones in our universe specifically.

 

No, if for no other reason than semantics. If if the universe is the absolute sum of everything, then what people call multiverses would simply be additional dimensions or additional sets of dimensions or forking timelines within the universe.

 

Okay then let's crawl over the semantics. Do you accept theories of additional dimensions as legit? The problem with calling it "additional dimensions" (that we can't see, interact with, or empirically prove to be real) is that it starts sounding VERY much like spirituality, just with less dogma attached.

 

The word "multiverse" can somehow still be used while pretending it's all "materialism" LOL!

 

Yeah, the additional dimension thing can perhaps be considered part of the philosophy of physics rather than the science of physics. It's certainly nothing that's been proven, but seems to fit mathematical models of how the universe might work. If we can make testable predictions, maybe we can make some confirmations, but it's obviously just educated guessing at the moment.

[MagickMonkey]

with regards to theories like multiverse, m-theory, string theory, parallel dimensions, holographic universe, etc... most of them are largely mathematical models about realities we cannot personally interact with, perceive, or really "know" to be real. And yet, even if every scientist doesnt' accept them, they are considered "legitimate" inquiries in science.

 

IMO it feels like a bunch of scientists got together and just created some extra universes to put off having to deal with a reality that isn't as boiled down to chemicals as they thought... not realizing these theories themselves aren't exactly "hardcore materialism". It's as if nonmaterialism can now be called materialism as long as we attach lots of theoretical math to it.

Here's my suspcion. It's not that mathematical models are doomed to failure. Science requires mathematical models. But if the math they are using is too impoverished in implication then it won't have much (if any) value in modeling the complexity of nature.

 

I agree. My issue isn't with the math per se. It's that suddenly science is getting highly theoretical (above and beyond the general scientific usage of that term.), to the point that it looks like spirituality using different language. And yet, anytime science and spirituality OPENLY seem to intersect, it's called pseudoscience, but when quantum physics does it, it's called theoretical math.

 

That's my only objection.

 

Of course, to be fair, a lot of what's out there being labeled pseudoscience IS pseudoscience... i.e. the "What the Bleep" nonsense.

 

Also, I can pretty much theoretically accept anything science comes up with. It's impossible to upset an apple cart operating on an entirely different grid. Not that I feel like I have to even resort to that seeing the weird rabbit hole science seems to be dropping us down. Whee. I'm excited for the ride.

 

Well, it's not spirituality. It's simply educated guessing. It's "here's what we see. Let's see if we can try to make sense of it, and then only regard it as proven truth when we can confirm it experimentally".

 

"We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." - Carl Sagan

[Legion]

"We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." - Carl Sagan

Sagan was awesome. He inspired me. I thought his Cosmos series was first class when I was a kid.

 

But I disagree with him here. This is how I'd phrase it...

 

"We wish to obtain understanding, and the potential of that understanding is ALL around us. But to see it, we'll have to ask bold questions, framed in the proper way, then we'll need to have the humility it requires to seek answers instead of assuming we already have them."

 

Something like that anyway.