What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Are you denying that Josh's worldview isn't simpler than yours?

 

Now it is has been explained to you how and why this is so.

 

Therefore I need to ask Ed, are you now rejecting the use of Occam's Razor here?

 

To decide who has the simpler worldview, you or Josh?

How do you come to the conclusion that because we have access..."testable", does that make it simpler.  I test stuff every day all day for 10 analytes.  We could test for ages at the nearest and outermost of our capabilities and still not have an answer.  How is this simpler and make Occam's Razor applicable.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So why does that mean you still can't answer the Prof's question?

 

What you're trying to do here Ed is to make it necessary that Josh explain his worldview to your satisfaction before you will answer the Prof's question.  On Friday the Prof wrote this...

 

Now, you're more than welcome to ask Josh to support his assertion of a Conscious Universe, same as we demand of you.  But that's between you and Josh.  What's between you and me is that I asked you a question and you still haven't answered it.  In typical fashion you are ignoring it, dodging it, answering around it, doing anything to keep yourself from admitting to the truth that the answer would reveal.

 

And he's right.  You are trying to make what's strictly between you and Josh into a reason not to give an honest answer to the Prof.  Therefore, please do the honest thing and answer the question honestly.  Here it is again.

 

Why is a god even necessary in the first place, if the universe itself is primary consciousness?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

How do you come to the conclusion that because we have access..."testable", does that make it simpler.  I test stuff every day all day for 10 analytes.  We could test for ages at the nearest and outermost of our capabilities and still not have an answer.  How is this simpler and make Occam's Razor applicable.

I really need to write a post on the the blind eyes of a Christian. You admittedly can't explain why the bible should be considered true. You say the mysteries will be revealed to us when we see God. Because the "mysteries" are things that don't fit or make logical sense. Especially knowing what we know now in today's time about our universe.

 

The only leap to take with the universe is believing that it is conscious. That is so much simpler and easier than believing the entirety of the Bible and trying to puzzle piece your way through the faith. 

 

How can you not see the simplicity in that? I'd like to rephrase the professors question. Not that you shouldn't answer his as well. 

 

If the universe isn't conscious, How can you prove that your God is?

 

Thanks,

 

DB

 

PS, Edgacito, as much as I've disagreed with you,  I really hope it finally clicks one day that there is nothing in the bible worth believing. I would gladly welcome you as a brother in apostasy. You're just a shitty Christian  

[Edgarcito]

31 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I really need to write a post on the the blind eyes of a Christian. You admittedly can't explain why the bible should be considered true. You say the mysteries will be revealed to us when we see God. Because the "mysteries" are things that don't fit or make logical sense. Especially knowing what we know now in today's time about our universe.

 

The only leap to take with the universe is believing that it is conscious. That is so much simpler and easier than believing the entirety of the Bible and trying to puzzle piece your way through the faith. 

 

How can you not see the simplicity in that? I'd like to rephrase the professors question. Not that you shouldn't answer his as well. 

 

If the universe isn't conscious, How can you prove that you God is?

 

Thanks,

 

DB

 

PS, Edgacito, as much as I've disagreed with you,  I really hope it finally clicks one day that there is nothing in the bible worth believing. I would gladly welcome you as a brother in apostasy. Your just a shitty Christian  

You’re 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You’re 

Fixed. 

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And there it is: cogito ergo sum.  The only thing I can be sure of is that my consciousness exists.  Everything else is just window dressing.  I can be certain that my consciousness exists; but I cannot prove it to anyone outside of myself.  Because I am the only one experiencing my own consciousness.  But others are also experiencing their own consciousness, just as I am experiencing mine.  Thus, consciousness must be universal. 

 

Alternatively, only my consciousness exists; and everything else that appears to exist, exists entirely within my own consciousness, including the existence of other consciousness experienced by other individuals.  Still this would mean that consciousness is universal.

 

So, if the only meaningful spirituality I can have is based on what I know, and the only thing I know is that my consciousness exists and consciousness is universal,  then my spirituality must be based on universal consciousness. 

 

So, circling back around to Occam's Razor, if universal consciousness alone can explain, then there is no need to introduce a god, or any other compounding complication into the explanation.  As Josh has made clear, and as Edgarcito has already agreed, a conscious universe would be indistinguishable from an omni-everything "god," which renders the untestable, unmeasurable god redundant by contrast to the testable, measurable universe.

 

Thus, I find god unnecessary. 

 

This is how I landed on spiritual about consciousness, life, and existence, but not-theistic. Theism is demonstrably unnecessary. Demonstrably false from a literal, factual, historical standpoint. And demonstrably sub standard against non-dual varieties of spiritual thinking. 

 

The Russian guy probably means well, I don't want to hurt his feelings too bad. I get the feeling that he believes what he's trying to preach. But it's simply wrong. There's nothing for him to latch onto that can make it right. It just has to be let go of - like any other past misconception that becomes demonstrably incorrect or at least demonstrably less preferred. 

 

How in the world can anyone - when faced with this demonstrably less preferred situation - walk away from it thinking that an omni-everything God would leave the world with a demonstrably less preferred system of "proofs" for its existence??? Rather than leaving the world something rock solid and irrefutable???

 

But I get the feeling that that may be the case again. 

 

A couple of apologetic guys are going to suddenly get it this time around or continue to completely miss it again. If either one of them does get it, what a breakthrough that would be! 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is how I landed on spiritual about consciousness, life, and existence, but not-theistic. Theism is demonstrably unnecessary. Demonstrably false from a literal, factual, historical standpoint. And demonstrably sub standard against non-dual varieties of spiritual thinking. 

 

The Russian guy probably means well, I don't want to hurt his feelings too bad. I get the feeling that he believes what he's trying to preach. But it's simply wrong. There's nothing to latch onto that make it right. It just has to be let go of, like any other past misconception that becomes demonstrably incorrect, or at least demonstrably less preferred. 

 

How in the world can anyone - when faced with this demonstrably less preferred argument - walk away from it thinking that an omni-everything God would leave the world with a demonstrably less preferred system of "proofs" for its existence???

 

But I get the feeling that that may be the case again. 

 

A couple of apologetic guys are going to suddenly get it this time around or continue to completely miss it again. If either one of them does get it, what a breakthrough that would be! 

 

 

 

Shut up already and make your case… 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's just start here please Josh.

 

Do we have any proof of this transaction?

What do we think this Consciousness actually is and is all matter conscious? 

 

The religious view is that spirit exists and also this other thing called matter. The spirit goes to and from the matter. That's why it's a dualistic belief. Two separate things exist which are not the same. 

 

What grew out of that dualistic belief, due to the church persecuting the early scientists, was that the scientists agreed to let the church have consciousness (spirit) and science would only tamper with the material world. That's how the split between religion and science began.

 

And science went away treating reality as dual - with unconscious energy/matter existing independently of consciousness, which, was conceived of as an emergent, but unknown phenomenon. Science became a new dualistic way of thinking behind western dualistic religions. 

 

Eventually, a run of German oriented Idealist philosophers arose. With the aim of bringing back the consciousness part to the sciences. The first generations of philosophers were Christians or Christian influenced thinkers. And most of their positions were readily rejected by the materialist metaphysics community. But over time, more eastern influence began to fill in to back the move of the early Idealist philosophers. Going through the 1900's. And especially after QP started turning up weird paradoxes. 

 

It's been escalating all along. And now we have a much more non-theistic version of Idealist Philosophy on the table. It's non-dual.

 

You also asked about Panpsychism, the idea that two things exist, matter and consciousness and consciousness is in all matter. But what that is, is merely another attempt at dualism, again. So that doesn't get any further along than traditional dualistic Christianity, or metaphysical materialism. All are less preferred to this newer non-dual 21st Century Idealism. 

 

You can check out Analytic Idealism: www.bernardokastrup.com

 

The only way that it seems to work out - to remove the paradoxes - is to model Consciousness according to a non-dual foundation.

 

The consciousness that does exist, which is the only thing you actually have proof of, because you are aware and experiencing right now, has to flow from an irreducible, primary Consciousness. It can't emerge from a prior non-existence. Or the paradoxes all roll back out again. 

 

The model is that everything that exists as energy/matter, can only be "appearances" that take place in Consciousness. The eastern metaphors of the dreaming deities that dream the universe and world, point back to an ancient understanding that reality is taking place in what is essentially the Mind of Nature itself. All of this business about "Holy," should more correctly be seen as "Wholly." 

 

Because it's about simplifying down to the One, not two. 

 

And One = All. 

 

The case was made from the outset. I'm waiting for you to catch up to the case if possible. Here we are.

 

Down to One thing existing, Consciousness. 

 

And Occam's Razor supervising...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

How do you come to the conclusion that because we have access..."testable", does that make it simpler.  I test stuff every day all day for 10 analytes.  We could test for ages at the nearest and outermost of our capabilities and still not have an answer.  How is this simpler and make Occam's Razor applicable.

 

Because one thing is simpler than two, Ed.

 

You worldview requires that there be two things - god and his created universe.

 

Josh's worldview requires only one thing - the universe.

 

Occam's Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is probably the one that is true.

 

And since one thing is simpler than two, Josh's worldview is more likely to be true than yours.

 

So there's no need for you to create a strawman pseudo-argument about testing.

 

The Razor doesn't require any testing - as you well know.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

I see that you had intended to respond to me Ed, but it looks like you hit the 'Submit Reply' button before you typed it.

 

Hopefully you were about to answer the Prof's question, which I quote again, so that you can.

 

Why is a god even necessary in the first place, if the universe itself is primary consciousness?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Honestly, I think whatever worldview is presented, Ed is going to claim that it isn't as simple or as logical as a talking snake convincing a rib woman to eat magical fruit, thus resulting in an unprovable god having to cast billions of people into hell because of his infinite mercy. 

 

I really don't think he understands Occam's Razor or how to apply it.

[walterpthefirst]

38 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Honestly, I think whatever worldview is presented, Ed is going to claim that it isn't as simple or as logical as a talking snake convincing a rib woman to eat magical fruit, thus resulting in an unprovable god having to cast billions of people into hell because of his infinite mercy. 

 

I really don't think he understands Occam's Razor or how to apply it.

 

Or, he does understand the Razor and a whole lot more.

 

But, whatever his reason for doing this and being like this, we can expose whatever objections he throws up.

 

Not because we have anything personal against him.

 

But because when we expose his objections as groundless we serve the aims and needs of this community.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The religious view is that spirit exists and also this other thing called matter. The spirit goes to and from the matter. That's why it's a dualistic belief. Two separate things exist which are not the same. 

 

What grew out of that dualistic belief, due to the church persecuting the early scientists, was that the scientists agreed to let the church have consciousness (spirit) and science would only tamper with the material world. That's how the split between religion and science began.

 

And science went away treating reality as dual - with unconscious energy/matter existing independently of consciousness, which, was conceived of as an emergent, but unknown phenomenon. Science became a new dualistic way of thinking behind western dualistic religions. 

 

Eventually, a run of German oriented Idealist philosophers arose. With the aim of bringing back the consciousness part to the sciences. The first generations of philosophers were Christians or Christian influenced thinkers. And most of their positions were readily rejected by the materialist metaphysics community. But over time, more eastern influence began to fill in to back the move of the early Idealist philosophers. Going through the 1900's. And especially after QP started turning up weird paradoxes. 

 

It's been escalating all along. And now we have a much more non-theistic version of Idealist Philosophy on the table. It's non-dual.

 

You also asked about Panpsychism, the idea that two things exist, matter and consciousness and consciousness is in all matter. But what that is, is merely another attempt at dualism, again. So that doesn't get any further along than traditional dualistic Christianity, or metaphysical materialism. All are less preferred to this newer non-dual 21st Century Idealism. 

 

You can check out Analytic Idealism: www.bernardokastrup.com

 

The only way that it seems to work out - to remove the paradoxes - is to model Consciousness according to a non-dual foundation.

 

The consciousness that does exist, which is the only thing you actually have proof of, because you are aware and experiencing right now, has to flow from an irreducible, primary Consciousness. It can't emerge from a prior non-existence. Or the paradoxes all roll back out again. 

 

The model is that everything that exists as energy/matter, can only be "appearances" that take place in Consciousness. The eastern metaphors of the dreaming deities that dream the universe and world, point back to an ancient understanding that reality is taking place in what is essentially the Mind of Nature itself. All of this business about "Holy," should more correctly be seen as "Wholly." 

 

Because it's about simplifying down to the One, not two. 

 

And One = All. 

 

The case was made from the outset. I'm waiting for you to catch up to the case if possible. Here we are.

 

Down to One thing existing, Consciousness. 

 

And Occam's Razor supervising...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the effort to explain.  My mind can't envision the universe being the primary consciousness unless we ARE that primary consciousness.  And I don't see that working because I'm a subject of the universe, not capable of manifesting consciousness other than mine in my existence. 

 

I need to do other things but jotted this down.  So again, perhaps we are consciousness that has uniquely evolved, but I don't think that's primary.  It would just mean that rocks are just rocks and the universe is just the universe.  

 

I'd like to understand your definition of consciousness.  What does that mean.  Is the whole universe conscious or are we just unique moments in the evolution of the universe.  I prefer the latter, discussing outside of Christianity obviously.

 

[Edgarcito]

And to our knowledge, our individual consciousness is finite.  That doesn't speak to non-dual.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And to our knowledge, our individual consciousness is finite.  That doesn't speak to non-dual.  

That's because you're looking at it as my consciousness versus not-my consciousness instead of looking at consciousness itself as a collective and universal entity.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That's because you're looking at it as my consciousness versus not-my consciousness instead of looking at consciousness itself as a collective and universal entity.

That's fine, that still doesn't speak to non-dual, in our conventional understanding of consciousness.  Maybe we should discuss that before labeling outside of some definition.  I don't see that even though we share a quality that it means we share a common quality, the source quality.  Sorry, I can't think of the appropriate words.  Just saying that we both are conscious but that doesn't mean we share the same conscious.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

That's fine, that still doesn't speak to non-dual, in our conventional understanding of consciousness.  Maybe we should discuss that before labeling outside of some definition.  I don't see that even though we share a quality that it means we share a common quality, the source quality.  Sorry, I can't think of the appropriate words.  Just saying that we both are conscious but that doesn't mean we share the same conscious.  

No, Ed.  Now you're shifting the goalposts.  You were ready to summarily dismiss Josh's worldview as bullshit without first defining "consciousness".  You don't get to go back and say we need to define it now that Josh's case has been built and I've shown how it is (quite obviously) non-dualistic.  

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No, Ed.  Now you're shifting the goalposts.  You were ready to summarily dismiss Josh's worldview as bullshit without first defining "consciousness".  You don't get to go back and say we need to define it now that Josh's case has been built and I've shown how it is (quite obviously) non-dualistic.  

I'm not shifting anything.....trying to understand through a conversation.  If you don't like how I think, stay out of the damn conversation.  Thanks.

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

And to our knowledge, our individual consciousness is finite.  That doesn't speak to non-dual.  

 

Try looking at it this way, to understand it better, Ed.

 

Are the carbon atoms in your body really YOU or are you just a temporary collecting place for these carbon atoms as they are cycled and recycled by the universe?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_star

 

Owing to its low surface gravity, as much as half (or more) of the total mass of a carbon star may be lost by way of powerful stellar winds. The star's remnants, carbon-rich "dust" similar to graphite, therefore become part of the interstellar dust.  This dust is believed to be a significant factor in providing the raw materials for the creation of subsequent generations of stars and their planetary systems. 

 

All of the carbon on Earth that enters the food chain and goes to make up our bodies came from these stars.  When our Sun becomes a red giant it will incinerate the earth and the dust of that conflagration will become the same kind of interstellar dust that will go to make new stars and new planets.  So, the carbon atoms that are currently part of you don't really belong to you.   Ultimately they belong to the universe and you are just a small part of the way the universe creates and re-creates itself. 

 

In the widest scheme of things what Edgarcito thinks and does and feels are of little consequence in the great cycles of cosmic renewal and rebirth.  There is only matter, energy and information, doing what they do across the universe on timescales and distances too great for us to fully comprehend.

 

We are the universe and the universe is us.  There are no divisions, dichotomies or dualities needed to understand this.

 

Does that help?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not shifting anything.....trying to understand through a conversation.  If you don't like how I think, stay out of the damn conversation.  Thanks.

Well, Ed, you certainly weren't trying to understand anything through a conversation when you were summarily dismissing Josh's worldview.  And, at that point, the definition of "consciousness" didn't matter a gnat's dick to you.  So, either you did not understand consciousness at that point, which means you had no basis for calling Josh's idea bullshit; or you did understand consciousness well enough to call Josh's idea bullshit, which means you understand it well enough now to know exactly what we mean when we say it.

 

I suspect the latter, which tells me that the only reason the definition of "consciousness" is suddenly so very important to you is because you are hoping to a) sidetrack the conversation in order to distract everyone, including yourself, from the fact that Josh's worldview is simpler than yours,  and therefore Occam's Razor is applicable; and b) try to redefine the word "consciousness" in such a way as to render Josh's worldview null.  Both are dishonest tactics which you often employ.

 

I don't care about how you think; it's your dishonesty that gets my dander up; and I simply won't allow it.  If you don't like the way I call you out for your dishonesty, try being honest.  Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Damn, Walt, you just summarized the Buddhist principle that there is no Self.  Good on ya, boyo!

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Well, Ed, you certainly weren't trying to understand anything through a conversation when you were summarily dismissing Josh's worldview.  And, at that point, the definition of "consciousness" didn't matter a gnat's dick to you.  So, either you did not understand consciousness at that point, which means you had no basis for calling Josh's idea bullshit; or you did understand consciousness well enough to call Josh's idea bullshit, which means you understand it well enough now to know exactly what we mean when we say it.

 

I suspect the latter, which tells me that the only reason the definition of "consciousness" is suddenly so very important to you is because you are hoping to a) sidetrack the conversation in order to distract everyone, including yourself, from the fact that Josh's worldview is simpler than yours,  and therefore Occam's Razor is applicable; and b) try to redefine the word "consciousness" in such a way as to render Josh's worldview null.  Both are dishonest tactics which you often employ.

 

I don't care about how you think; it's your dishonesty that gets my dander up; and I simply won't allow it.  If you don't like the way I call you out for your dishonesty, try being honest.  Thanks.

I’m amazed myself John that y’all carry on a conversation about universal consciousness with not a clue, the definition…. yet harangue Christians with a variation.  If it’s one of your own, it’s good candy.  So put at least an attempt at a definition out there or quit beating up people like aik.  You said take it up w Josh…. as I have.  So go sit down there gman or give us something viable to consider.  I’m embarrassed for you.

[Edgarcito]

@pantheory…. Did you see the article about the large galaxies discovered recently where there shouldn’t be well developed galaxies?  If I’m understanding that correctly, what do we make of that.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Try looking at it this way, to understand it better, Ed.

 

Are the carbon atoms in your body really YOU or are you just a temporary collecting place for these carbon atoms as they are cycled and recycled by the universe?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_star

 

Owing to its low surface gravity, as much as half (or more) of the total mass of a carbon star may be lost by way of powerful stellar winds. The star's remnants, carbon-rich "dust" similar to graphite, therefore become part of the interstellar dust.  This dust is believed to be a significant factor in providing the raw materials for the creation of subsequent generations of stars and their planetary systems. 

 

All of the carbon on Earth that enters the food chain and goes to make up our bodies came from these stars.  When our Sun becomes a red giant it will incinerate the earth and the dust of that conflagration will become the same kind of interstellar dust that will go to make new stars and new planets.  So, the carbon atoms that are currently part of you don't really belong to you.   Ultimately they belong to the universe and you are just a small part of the way the universe creates and re-creates itself. 

 

In the widest scheme of things what Edgarcito thinks and does and feels are of little consequence in the great cycles of cosmic renewal and rebirth.  There is only matter, energy and information, doing what they do across the universe on timescales and distances too great for us to fully comprehend.

 

We are the universe and the universe is us.  There are no divisions, dichotomies or dualities needed to understand this.

 

Does that help?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I picture consciousness as an organization of matter that produces consciousness.  I’m speaking outside of Christianity certainly, but humanity is probably an organization that is an organization in time w this quality.  I don’t believe the universe is conscious itself…. no such thing as primary consciousness.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm amazed myself John that y’all carry on a conversation about universal consciousness with not a clue, the definition

I'm more amazed at the idea that you can, with certainty, declare universal consciousness to be bullshit, when, by your own admission, you apparently do not even know what consciousness is.  Even more amazing is that you cannot see the sheer stupidity of your position.  You should be embarrassed for yourself, Ed.