-->
@TwoMan
Even a "dirt first" hypothesis doesn't have anything at all to say about what "caused" the big bang.Agreed. A primordial consciousness does.
What conclusions can you draw from a "primordial consciousness" (Brahman) hypothesis?
Theism vs. Atheism debate
Posts
Total:
540
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not sure a hypothesis can "prove" anything.I don't know what can't be proven with 'consciousness first'.
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you're right. I definitely didn't say what I what I wanted to say.
It's more that with CF I can't see what 'true' and 'false' mean.
-->
@keithprosser
Here is the definition of idealism:
"In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."
The "external world'" that we all perceive is a mental construct. People share mental constructs, of rocks for instance, because we're processing the same information. But what really exists is the information that generates the appearance of the rock, not the rock itself.
Another thing that's crazy is that "depth" and "space" can be understood without 3 dimensions. If you look at a picture at the right angle it can appear 3-dimensional while only being 2-D. Makes me wonder if depth and space are just illusions.
-->
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL
Given that 3ru7al refers to God as noumenon, it sounds like that would make him an idealist.
But it is true that we as human beings deal in the realm of abstraction, that is, we interact with reality through representations of reality rather than reality directly.
I think the easiest way to demonstrate this is to take up 2 rocks. One rock plus one rock equals two rocks, right? Well yes, but on closer examination these two rocks are not identical. If one rock doesn't equal one rock, how can one rock plus one rock equal two rocks? We are dealing with representations of reality rather than reality itself.
If this was understood, it would really wreck some paradigms, I tell ya.
But The Ultimate Reality is by definition NOT noumenon. That is, all noumenon are contingent on The Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Mopac
Does a word spoken exist without the breath that carries it?
Especially when the alleged speaker doesn't breathe?
-->
@disgusted
Especially when the alleged speaker doesn't breathe?
I.e. a computer does not breathe, yet it speaks and has no access to meta{ beyond }physical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.
/\/\/ = algorithmic computation
../\/\/ Euclidean expression{ topology } of a sine-wave......
( )( ) = consciousness ( as a geodesic set } before it calculates
.....positive and negative geodesics beyond normal computational processes......
(><)(><) = consciousness processing computational caculations
.........................................(>*<) i (>*<).....................................................................
* * = bilateral/soul life or as minimal set for most complex consciousness having access to meta{beyond}physical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.
( )( ) = bisecting of a torus { a tube that meets itself }
..."In a microtubule, the subunits are organized in such a way that they all point the same direction to form 13 parallel protofilaments. This organization gives the structure polarity, with only the alpha-tubulin proteins exposed at one end and only beta-tubulin proteins at the other."...
..."The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions."....
-->
@Fallaneze
I disagree. Certainly what we perceive is 'a mental construct', and if I perceive a rock I can't tell if it is a 'real rock' or a hallucination. However the fact that I do not perceive the external world directly does not mean that there is no eternal world - what it means is I can't infer the presence of an eternal world purely on the basis of my perception.The "external world'" that we all perceive is a mental construct. People share mental constructs, of rocks for instance, because we're processing the same information. But what really exists is the information that generates the appearance of the rock, not the rock itself.
But if I perceive a rock then anyone I am with will generally also preceive a rock. That implies that what causes my perception of the rock and my companioins perception is something external to both of us.
-->
@Fallaneze
Another thing that's crazy is that "depth" and "space" can be understood without 3 dimensions.
Incorrect, as it is our 3D existence ergo experiences that allow us to "understand" 3D and 2D.
If you look at a picture at the right angle it can appear 3-dimensional while only being 2-D. Makes me wonder if depth and space are just illusions.
Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics led to the same conclusion and holographic scenarios.
..." we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D" ...Jacob Bekentien
..."He concluded that the black hole entropy is directly proportional to the area of the event horizon.[9]"...LINK
Archimedes was first to discover that the surface area of spherical cubo-octahedron is equal to the area four bisecting, great circular hexagonal planes, that, define the spherical cubo-octahedron.
So the 2D area inside the cubo-octahedron is equal to its outer 2D-surface area.
-->
@keithprosser
The thing that causes the shared perception of the rock is something that is mentally interacting with us. The term "rock" refers to an assimilation of mental properties and the term "rock" would have no meaning without these properties.
So something independent does need to exist in order to be our shared reference point but that does not mean that this independent thing is non-mental.
-->
@Fallaneze
So something independent does need to exist in order to be our shared reference point but that does not mean that this independent thing is non-mental.
Human beings genetically have similar filters. We are programmed in a sense with the same sensory input.
The different senses are very foreign to eachother. Sight and hearing draw from the same source, but the information is filtered in a radically different way. Thus, the experience from sight and hearing are alien to eachother.
Besides information being filtered through our senses, it is further filtered through our cognition.
The shared reference point is almost universally mental, or a conception.
In this sense, The Ultimate Reality as a concept to be communicated is noumenon, but what it actually is referring to cannot be noumenon. A conception or mental construct is not God, otherwise the essence of this conception is not fulfilled. The essence of this conception is that it is not a conception, because the.conception itself is an arrow pointing to something else.
If The Ultimate Reality is noumenon, it does not fulfil the basic requirement of what The Ultimate Reality is in essence. Mind is a greater reality than noumenon, and mind itself is contingent on The Ultimate Reality.
Our ancient theologians knwing this problem said "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.", not to say that God was a word, or noumenon, but to make clear that this Word is an image of what it represents, and it must be respected that when we use this image or icon, we are refering to the prototype of the icon.
Believe He is who He says He is. Get it?
What God is in essence. What The Ultimate Reality is in essence.
It is The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth which comes from The Father, through The Son, and allows us to speak of The Father in The Son.
This I am speaking of is a great part of the Mystagogy of the faith. We acknowledge thst the only way to The Father is through The Son with The Holy Spirit as helper.
And this is something that distinguishes Orthodox Christianity from other monotheist faiths. By acknowledging the icon, we aren't mistaking a conception of God as God!
-->
@keithprosser
It's more that with CF I can't see what 'true' and 'false' mean.
Even in a hypothetical solipsistic dream game, scientific reliability and efficacy are still real-true-facts.
-->
@3RU7AL
Even in a hypothetical solipsistic dream game, scientific reliability and efficacy are still real-true-facts.
I am not sure what you mean. But if,say, water is an illusion how reliable is it's boiling point being 100C?
-->
@Fallaneze
So something independent does need to exist in order to be our shared reference point but that does not mean that this independent thing is non-mental.
(IFF) "something" is the origin and sustainer of existence
(THEN) both must be fundamentally comprised of the same "substance"
(THEREFORE) monism is true (whether "mental" or "non-mental", they are functionally identical).
-->
@keithprosser
Imagine you are currently in a hypothetical solipsistic dream game matrix.I am not sure what you mean. But if,say, water is an illusion how reliable is it's bioing point being 100C?
Will boiling water burn your hand?
Will boiling water cook your food?
Will boiling water humidify the air in your kitchen?
In other words, can you violate the laws of physics?
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, can you violate the laws of physics?
Clearly not, but I see that as evidence I am not in a solipsistic illusion.
If I asleep and dreaming I would not really be able to break the laws of physics but I could easily perceive myself breaking them by flying or breathing under water.
Of course I could be dreaming now... but life is a bit short to bother with every fanciful idea there is - I don't have much interest in idealism.
-->
@keithprosser
But if I perceive a rock then anyone I am with will generally also preceive a rock. That implies that what causes my perception of the rock and my companioins perception is something external to both of us.
(IFF) you can't be certain "the rock" is really really realzies (THEN) how can you be certain your companion is really really realzies?
-->
@keithprosser
How could you possibly know this?Clearly not, but I see that as evidence I am not in a solipsistic illusion.
This would seem to be an astronomical leap in logic.
-->
@3RU7AL
That is the problem with arguing about idealism... it's effectively irrefutable because it can just keep on retreating!
-->
@keithprosser
That is the problem with arguing about idealism... it's effectively irrefutable because it can just keep on retreating!
That is the problem with discussing hypotheticals that are unfalsifiable and beyond our epistemological limits.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE STRONGEST CASE FOR ATHEISM, BUT IT MUST BE UNIVERSALLY APPLIED TO EVERYTHING.
-->
@keithprosser
Or is it dualism and physicalism that are in need of saving? We have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality.
-->
@Fallaneze
Or is it dualism and physicalism that are in need of saving? We have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality.
Dualism is logically incoherent.
-->
@3RU7AL
Then that leaves idealism..
-->
@Fallaneze
Then that leaves idealism..
Monism is necessarily true.
Idealism is NOT necessarily true.
-->
@Fallaneze
Or is it dualism
convex ( concave inherently exist
and physicalism that are in need of saving?
Occupied space of fermionic matter and bosonic forces do not need saving.
We have evidence of a mental reality
We have simple consciousness other than biologic/soul life and most complex biologic life, human consciousness.
and no evidence of a non-mental reality.
What is a non-mental reality? Never heard of it?
Reality { Observed Time } is occupied space of fermionic matter and bosonic forces.
The only non-mental reality ---whatever that is--- I can think of is that occupied space that biologics/souls are not aware of if not specifically human consciousness.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well first, monism isn't necessarily true.
Second, we have evidence of a mental reality and no evidence of a non-mental reality. So why is physicalism a better explanation than idealism when idealism is evidenced by a mental reality whereas physicalism, which posits a non-mental reality, has no evidence whatsoever?
-->
@Fallaneze
Uni = one = mono ergo Universe is simple-to-grasp terminology of eternally existent, finite, occupied space.
" U "niverse and Uni-V-erse both have a few clear trinity subsets for those with desire to follow rational, logical common sense pathways of thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/\/\/ = algorithmic computation association
../\/\/ Euclidean expression{ topology } of a sine-wave......
( )( ) = consciousness ( as a geodesic set } before it calculates association
.....positive and negative geodesics beyond normal computational processes......
(><)(><) = consciousness processing computational caculations
.........................................(>*<) i (>*<) = biologic/soul consciousness computating via access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts
* * = bilateral/soul life or as minimal set for most complex consciousness having access to meta{beyond}physical-1 mind/intellect/concepts.
( )( ) = bisecting of a torus { a tube that meets itself }
..."In a microtubule, the subunits are organized in such a way that they all point the same direction to form 13 parallel protofilaments. This organization gives the structure polarity, with only the alpha-tubulin proteins exposed at one end and only beta-tubulin proteins at the other."...
..."The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions."....
-->
@mustardness
What is a non-mental reality? Never heard of it?
Good question.