Does an Atheist Know God?

[Fool]

No problem. #192

darn, ahead of myself again. sorry

 

[Monk Of Reason]

the underlying point ws consciousness is not the result of a brain but the reverse is true. brains came into being because consciousness exists at a lower level and evolves to a higher level. consciouness exists at many levels from a chemical to a higher state. i'm sure that most humans are like most bacteria; they aren't aware of anything above their level of consciousness. how could they be, unless they had an open mind, or were able to think outside the box, or the conditional mind.

in the eastern concepts you can't have just spirit. you have to have a state of matter. with this idea the concept is that mind is a state of matter at all level but it doesn't have a fixed form. so like the universe has a state of matter all times then consciousness does too, it simply doesn't have an exclusive form, or definite form.

Alright now that we are back to the basics here lets talk about that a minute.

You do realize that "consciousness" talked about in physics and "consciousness" talked about in medicine having to do with cognitive thought of the brain are two very different things. They are totally different things in fact. There are two frindge theories that talk about how they may be interconnected more than what the general theories prescribe to but all in all even within those two theories they are as different as a wire spring and the season of spring.

The way that bacteria function is not the same way that faster than light information transfer functions. Bacteria function much as our bodies function. However when we talk about actual thought and understanding and contemplation that requires a brain.

 

[Fool]

Alright now that we are back to the basics here lets talk about that a minute.

You do realize that "consciousness" talked about in physics and "consciousness" talked about in medicine having to do with cognitive thought of the brain are two very different things. They are totally different things in fact. There are two frindge theories that talk about how they may be interconnected more than what the general theories prescribe to but all in all even within those two theories they are as different as a wire spring and the season of spring.

The way that bacteria function is not the same way that faster than light information transfer functions. Bacteria function much as our bodies function. However when we talk about actual thought and understanding and contemplation that requires a brain.

yes, i do. i'm not interested in how consciousness is transported. or the action. i'm not interested int how fast, or slow, it gets there, or how it's relayed, transported. i'm stating its still consciousness in some form, at some transmission rate..


that would be like noting the difference in how a duck conveys itself vs a cheetah. they both have means of action. the actions doesn't take the same form but they have similarities. unfortunately science reverse engineers. it usually starts with a result and works backwards. nature doesn't do that. reverse the action, ignore the form, look at the similarities, even many animals evolved from a common source.


its a top down vs a bottom up. i don't believe in a god, or love, of form. i believe in love and god as states of Mind.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

yes, i do. i'm not interested in how consciousness is transported. or the action. i'm not interested int how fast, or slow, it gets there, or how it's relayed, transported. i'm stating its still consciousness in some form, at some transmission rate..


that would be like noting the difference in how a duck conveys itself vs a cheetah. they both have means of action. the actions doesn't take the same form but they have similarities. unfortunately science reverse engineers. it usually starts with a result and works backwards. nature doesn't do that. reverse the action, ignore the form, look at the similarities, even many animals evolved from a common source.


its a top down vs a bottom up. i don't believe in a god, or love, of form. i believe in love and god as states of Mind. i believe in I think therefore I AM, not i am therefore i think

Its a little bit more complicated than all that. The consciousness as explained in physics simply means that it interacts with the world around it. How does an apple know which direction to fall? Because gravity affects it. It is "observing" or "conscious" of the gravity pulling it. Otherwise it would have no effect. My ability to think comes from a totally different mechanism. It is still dependent on the first mechanism but that mechanism isn't in anyway a spiritual consciousness of the universe as many (mostly new age-y) people have attemped to quote science saying.

 

[Fool]

Its a little bit more complicated than all that. The consciousness as explained in physics simply means that it interacts with the world around it. How does an apple know which direction to fall? Because gravity affects it. It is "observing" or "conscious" of the gravity pulling it. Otherwise it would have no effect. My ability to think comes from a totally different mechanism. It is still dependent on the first mechanism but that mechanism isn't in anyway a spiritual consciousness of the universe as many (mostly new age-y) people have attemped to quote science saying.

i agree that its more complicated than that but information can take many forms too. a tree responds to its environment. at the quantum level we don't recognize higher forms.

or are you implying that we aren't some form of quanta?

 

[Fool]

Its a little bit more complicated than all that. The consciousness as explained in physics simply means that it interacts with the world around it. How does an apple know which direction to fall? Because gravity affects it. It is "observing" or "conscious" of the gravity pulling it. Otherwise it would have no effect. My ability to think comes from a totally different mechanism. It is still dependent on the first mechanism but that mechanism isn't in anyway a spiritual consciousness of the universe as many (mostly new age-y) people have attemped to quote science saying.

again panpsychism is once again being considered in the scientific community. old ideas are overturned all the time. Like einsteins belief that nothing could travel faster than light, well science knows that there are things that travel faster than light. Light travels at a constant, everything isn't made of light energy, or light matter. in fact light matter and energy makes up a very small part of the total energy and matter in the universe.


Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate

 

[Monk Of Reason]

i agree that its more complicated than that but information can take many forms too. a tree responds to its environment. at the quantum level we don't recognize higher forms.

or are you implying that we aren't some form of quanta?

Sure we are. But the building blocks don't have to reflext the function of macro structures in the slightest. Nothing about the molecules in bricks are bulding like. Nothing in any of the molecules of a car are car like. So nothing about the molecules or smaller in a brain is brain like.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

again panpsychism is once again being considered in the scientific community. old ideas are overturned all the time. Like einsteins belief that nothing could travel faster than light, well science knows that there are things that travel faster than light. Light travels at a constant, everything isn't made of light energy, or light matter.

To be specific his stipulation is that nothing energy or matter could go faster than the speed of light. An panpsychism is more a philiosphical thing than a physics one. Physics doesn't really consider it. What is being researched however is the observer effect on quantem superpositions and how that functions. Its a bit differnet than panpsychism.

 

[Fool]

Sure we are. But the building blocks don't have to reflext the function of macro structures in the slightest. Nothing about the molecules in bricks are bulding like. Nothing in any of the molecules of a car are car like. So nothing about the molecules or smaller in a brain is brain like.

yet the fundamental building blocks are found in all of them and restructured as different atoms; which take a form. the hydrogen atom has a form, the Helium another, and so on

 

[Fool]

To be specific his stipulation is that nothing energy or matter could go faster than the speed of light. An panpsychism is more a philiosphical thing than a physics one. Physics doesn't really consider it. What is being researched however is the observer effect on quantem superpositions and how that functions. Its a bit differnet than panpsychism.

no the majority of research doesn't include panpsychism, agreed. but the scientific community is constantly recreating itself with new ways of measuring and thinking about things.

like suspended animation was once fiction, now it is possible.

change your mind and you can change the matter

 

[Monk Of Reason]

yet the fundamental building blocks are found in all of them and restructured as different atoms; which take a form. the hydrogen atom has a form, the Helium another, and so on

Agreed. The building blocks all the way down to quantem flucuations build up to different things.

no the majority of research doesn't include panpsychism, agreed. but the scientific community is constantly recreating itself with new ways of measuring and thinking about things.

like suspended animation was once fiction, now it is possible.

change your mind and you can change the matter

Science and research are coming up with new and exciting ideas. I firmly believe that the standard modle is wrong and will be completely replaced in the next century. Hopefully in the next two decades.

And you canot just change matter totally with changing your mind. What is the context of that statement exactly?

 

[Fool]

Agreed. The building blocks all the way down to quantem flucuations build up to different things.

Science and research are coming up with new and exciting ideas. I firmly believe that the standard modle is wrong and will be completely replaced in the next century. Hopefully in the next two decades.

And you canot just change matter totally with changing your mind. What is the context of that statement exactly?

if we change our way of thinking, we grasp new insights. change doesn't come from without. it comes from within the delimiting factors we've assigned to our image. innovation doesn't come from thinking inside the box; otherwise you can't grasp anything beyond those limits.

Does Science Need Falsifiability? - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

with what we measure it is measured to us

 

[Monk Of Reason]

if we change our way of thinking, we grasp new insights. change doesn't come from without. it comes from within the delimiting factors we've assigned to our image. innovation doesn't come from thinking inside the box; otherwise you can't grasp anything beyond those limits.

Does Science Need Falsifiability? - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

with what we measure it is measured to us

I think that internal change in insight is important. No doubt. But I don't think we can ever gain any kind of real truth without external investigation.

On the first link we are hitting some walls. We need new approaches to tackling some of these problems because we are finding many things that should not exist or should be impossible. This is because at some point our models of the universe are wrong. Someone once said that "all models are wrong but some are less wrong". What that means is that we can get a good idea about the universe but we probably will never get a perfect understanding of it. At this point falsibility is the best tool we have for determining what is bunk and what is fact.

The second one is a little misleading. We are all trapped biologically in our first person universes where all we ever actually see is what our senses tell us. However pretty much all macro structures of the earth at least starting at the molecular level, is constantly observed. So we are all locked into the same reality. There is no real chance that I am existing in a different reality than you in the physics definition of the word.

 

[Fool]

I think that internal change in insight is important. No doubt. But I don't think we can ever gain any kind of real truth without external investigation.

On the first link we are hitting some walls. We need new approaches to tackling some of these problems because we are finding many things that should not exist or should be impossible. This is because at some point our models of the universe are wrong. Someone once said that "all models are wrong but some are less wrong". What that means is that we can get a good idea about the universe but we probably will never get a perfect understanding of it. At this point falsibility is the best tool we have for determining what is bunk and what is fact.

The second one is a little misleading. We are all trapped biologically in our first person universes where all we ever actually see is what our senses tell us. However pretty much all macro structures of the earth at least starting at the molecular level, is constantly observed. So we are all locked into the same reality. There is no real chance that I am existing in a different reality than you in the physics definition of the word.

i agree with your insight. that faith without works is a potential without an actual, or practical application.