Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 23, 2023 Super Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2023 27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: So put at least an attempt at a definition out there No, Ed. Because if you understand what the word means enough to declare it bullshit, then you already know what we mean when we say it. If you do not understand what the word means, then you're in no position to declare it bullshit. Stop making me have to repeat myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: 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. Wrong O Mary Lou… I’m the one that takes the position of faith. It’s you knot heads and your egos that pretend you DO know the definition… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 23, 2023 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2023 11 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. The link I gave you has a course on Analytic Idealism. It will walk you step by step through all of the questions you're asking. It will be easier for me to talk to you about it if you've gone through the summaries. And the course is a series of summaries. You have to look at phenomenal consciousness versus meta consciousness. And the course covers it. Mind at Large is viewed as phenomenal. And an instinctual type of Mind, that's why it's the Mind of Nature. It's not deliberating off to the side, or thinking of complex equations. That phenomenal consciousness flows through Nature and is viewed as the type of consciousness of plants and lower animals. Meta consciousness or meta cognition will be presented as the ability to deliberate, be thought conscious, and is viewed as something that is experienced through the higher mammals, such as primates, dolphins and the more intelligent animals. With human being's sort of leading the apex currently of meta cognition, as far as we know. That Nature, instinctual and phenomenal Consciousness, is still in human beings simultaneously with the metacognition. It's our instinctual aspect. Subconscious mind regulates the inner working of the entire body system, without our meta conscious thought focus on the inner workings. And when you go into meditation it can become clear and obvious that there is something deeper in, observing our thoughts as they stream by. Something is witness to the metacognition. But it's all within you. It's one collective. With everything working together. Well, check out the link and go through the videos. It's easier to understand if you've gone through the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted February 23, 2023 Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: 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. First, you need to go ahead and look through the definitions that I've outlined. That do exist. And are put forward in an understandable way. And then reflect back again on what you've said here. It can't be an organization of matter, that's basically out as possible. Which is explained in the video. You have to understand what the hard problem of consciousness is. It has to do with trying to explain qualities from quantities, the thing that science hasn't been able to do. He covers that. If you say 'there's no such thing as primary Consciousness,' you have literally said that there's no such thing as God. Because everyone's God is viewed as 1) Conscious and 2) Primary. When did the God's Consciousness begin? You know where this is leading. It's an eternal Consciousness, because the Conscious God IS eternal. Being eternal and Conscious, is what primary Consciousness means. Yahweh, can't be anything other than primary Consciousness. The myth lays it out as such. If this sets in, then you can at least see how and why the concept of God IS a concept of primary Consciousness. That comes from mythologies. Now the philosophers and mystics in question understand the gods of mythology, all of them, to be symbolic of the human mind grasping at the preconditions of its own existence. You graduate to another level of perspective. And then you can stop needing the symbolic images and metaphors and deal directly with what it is you've been trying to deal with all along. Only this time, you are beyond thinking that it's something different or other than you. It's just you. You ARE Nature. You are aware of things because there is an inherent awareness in Nature itself. That manifests itself through different levels of awareness. From the more primitive to the more complex. I don't know, I'm just trying to explain to you what this alternative thinking and view consists of. I believe that it can serve you better than religion has. If you let down your guard and simply allow it a fair, intellectually honest shake. That's why I've bothered to type this and try and explain. You can grow a lot more personally, by going into these other spiritual directions which are worlds more interesting to explore than old fashioned monotheism. There's a lot out there to discover. About the world, the cosmos, Nature - all of which are you yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 23, 2023 Super Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2023 43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Wrong O Mary Lou… I’m the one that takes the position of faith. It’s you knot heads and your egos that pretend you DO know the definition… No, Ed. You take the position that something is bullshit only to later admit that you don't even understand it. That's not faith. It's small-minded ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 4 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. That was a good damn post. Reminds me a lot of the stance BAA took in his farewell letter. It is really a beautiful mindset IMO. And this is something based on truth rather than "fairy tales" of civilizations long past. All of the atoms that make up this vessel that we call our body, will remain for the universe to use in whatever various ways gravity, speed, space, and time dictate. DB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 25 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: No, Ed. You take the position that something is bullshit only to later admit that you don't even understand it. That's not faith. It's small-minded ignorance. No one understands it… and was calling bs on the bullshit here. Feel free to post the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 On 2/22/2023 at 6:55 PM, Edgarcito said: @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. Of course, it's been obvious to me for over 60 years that science also makes mistakes. Yes, the Big Bang model is entirely wrong IMHO. Remember that half the scientists in the US are Christians or spiritual,and half the scientists of the rest of the world are either religious or spiritual. So obviously mistakes can be made by such folks that must believe, Jokes aside, even us atheists can make mistakes -- even though I know it will be hard for you to believe that, I'm sure https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363649063_The_Surprising_and_unexpected_discoveries_the_James_Webb_Space_Telescope_will_likely_make_based_upon_our_research ref. (3.0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 23, 2023 Super Moderator Share Posted February 23, 2023 4 hours ago, Edgarcito said: No one understands it… and was calling bs on the bullshit here. Feel free to post the definition. You're a liar, Ed. You were straight-up calling Josh's worldview bullshit. Now you're claiming you don't understand it and no one does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 7 hours ago, Edgarcito said: 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. Thank you, Ed. You seem to be occupying two mutually exclusive positions here. The materialistic non-Christian position, where consciousness is just a natural, physical arrangement of matter. The supernatural Christian position, where consciousness is the result of god's direct intervention. These two cannot coexist unless Christianity is demoted from literal truth to a kind of myth about our origins. If that is so, then nothing written in the bible has any historical support - it is all symbolic and allegorical. But I know that you have declared yourself to be a biblical inerrantist, asserting the literal truth of scripture. So, can you help me understand how you can have both feet in two camps? Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 8 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Wrong O Mary Lou… I’m the one that takes the position of faith. It’s you knot heads and your egos that pretend you DO know the definition… Occam's Razor is a tool used by people who do not know the answer to the question they are asking. If they already knew the answer they would not need to employ it. That would be like me referring to a map to find where my garden shed is located. I already know where it is and so I don't need anything to help me find. If the people in this thread already knew the definition of consciousness they would not need to use the Razor to help them decide which worldview, yours or Josh's, is more likely to be true. If the definition of consciousness was already known to us it we would not need to use the Razor to help us find out. Since you, me, the Prof, Josh and DB have all participated in using the Razor, this is clear proof that none of us knows what the definition of consciousness is. Therefore, your claim is false, Edgarcito. Nobody here has pretended to know that definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 7 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Wrong O Mary Lou… I’m the one that takes the position of faith. It’s you knot heads and your egos that pretend you DO know the definition… You take the position of faith, but is this the position of literal and inerrant Christian faith, Ed? I ask because if you picture consciousness arising by purely natural means from dead matter, then you have excluded the god of the bible from the picture. It's one or the other, not both. Where do you stand, Edgarcito? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: You're a liar, Ed. You were straight-up calling Josh's worldview bullshit. Now you're claiming you don't understand it and no one does. Yes, John, no one knows the definition of consciousness nor the origins of life, yet here we have one of your members, a moderator btw, posting like he does....with authority. I didn't understand it either then nor do I now. It was ego driven of him to say it then and to say it now....hence my post. All we can do is talk about theory. That is what I am attempting to do, but you keep interrupting with your mess. Go play in the street maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: Thank you, Ed. You seem to be occupying two mutually exclusive positions here. The materialistic non-Christian position, where consciousness is just a natural, physical arrangement of matter. The supernatural Christian position, where consciousness is the result of god's direct intervention. These two cannot coexist unless Christianity is demoted from literal truth to a kind of myth about our origins. If that is so, then nothing written in the bible has any historical support - it is all symbolic and allegorical. But I know that you have declared yourself to be a biblical inerrantist, asserting the literal truth of scripture. So, can you help me understand how you can have both feet in two camps? Thank you, Walter. Ultimately I believe in Christianity. But I own a small lab and can consider other points of view as well as speculate on my own. Not too complicated really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: You take the position of faith, but is this the position of literal and inerrant Christian faith, Ed? I ask because if you picture consciousness arising by purely natural means from dead matter, then you have excluded the god of the bible from the picture. It's one or the other, not both. Where do you stand, Edgarcito? I may have missed something. I could have sworn that @Edgarcito took much of the Bible as metaphorical. Is it one of those deals where it is inerrant because he has deduced that partd of the bible he can't fit with reality must be metaphorical? I don't believe I've ever heard Ed lay out specifically what he believes. His actions speak as someone who isn't really strong in the word or faith. Either that or he has a more modernized liberal stance on biblical teachings. DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 minute ago, DarkBishop said: I may have missed something. I could have sworn that @Edgarcito took much of the Bible as metaphorical. Is it one of those deals where it is inerrant because he has deduced that partd of the bible he can't fit with reality must be metaphorical? I don't believe I've ever heard Ed lay out specifically what he believes. His actions speak as someone who isn't really strong in the word or faith. Either that or he has a more modernized liberal stance on biblical teachings. DB Dude, I was a deacon...buried in the church. Bad divorce....elder that I trusted, he was actually a dick. So yeah, I've been out for a while, but I don't waiver in faith. That's where I've been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Ultimately I believe in Christianity. But I own a small lab and can consider other points of view as well as speculate on my own. Not too complicated really.... Then I found myself in the same position as you say that you are now, Ed. I did not realize that you were speculating and you didn't make it clear that you were. I thought that your description of the origin of consciousness from dead matter was a belief that you held to. Which, until you clarified the matter as speculation, put your words on a par with Josh's. Since I've known before this thread started that there is no proper definition of consciousness I realized from get go that Josh would be speculating and describing his beliefs on the subject. He couldn't be speaking from a position of knowledge, nor be pretending to - because he's smart enough to know that there is no proper definition of consciousness. Therefore, he's been sharing his beliefs and speculations with us - not his knowledge. For you to assert that he's claiming true knowledge is just false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: Dude, I was a deacon...buried in the church. Bad divorce....elder that I trusted, he was actually a dick. So yeah, I've been out for a while, but I don't waiver in faith. That's where I've been. So do you still consider yourself to be a part of the Body of Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Ultimately I believe in Christianity. But I own a small lab and can consider other points of view as well as speculate on my own. Not too complicated really.... So owning a small lab opens you up to speculating on your own? I don't see the connection. I mean there are all kinds of methheads around here that own a small lab. Maybe that is what allows them to speculate on their own and not abide by the law. DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: Dude, I was a deacon...buried in the church. Bad divorce....elder that I trusted, he was actually a dick. So yeah, I've been out for a while, but I don't waiver in faith. That's where I've been. So....... do you believe it is metaphorical. Or literal and inerrant? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ DarkBishop ☆ Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Bad divorce....elder that I trusted, he was actually a dick. Amazing how shitty God is at keeping his institution of marriage together huh? Been there. Done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said: So do you still consider yourself to be a part of the Body of Christ? Certainly. Save your lecture please sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, DarkBishop said: So owning a small lab opens you up to speculating on your own? I don't see the connection. I mean there are all kinds of methheads around here that own a small lab. Maybe that is what allows them to speculate on their own and not abide by the law. DB A science background DB....being exposed to both gives more opportunity to see comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 1 hour ago, DarkBishop said: So....... do you believe it is metaphorical. Or literal and inerrant? Mixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted February 23, 2023 Share Posted February 23, 2023 38 minutes ago, DarkBishop said: Amazing how shitty God is at keeping his institution of marriage together huh? Been there. Don't that. I see it as a lack of God, not God's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now