Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[PolyHedral]

The aims of knowing through scientific methods and in philosophy of Vedanta are not same.

But should they not arrive at the same answers?

So the goals (or rather the scopes) are apparently different and the premises are. If we agree on this difference and are willing to give unbiased importance to both the vijnana and the jnana, then we can profitably discuss further.

I'd agree that the scopes of your methods are different to that of generalized science, but I think you're making a distinction where isn't any. In the case of universal theories of physics, there is no subject. There is only the system being modeled, and subsets of that system.

To give an analogy. A geologist may describe a mountain as such in totalty. Or a geologist may create a thin slice and observe a very small part of the rock of mountain under microscope. The desriptions derived from both observations are true in there scopes but an overall understanding entails understanding of diversity and unity together.

That is exactly what the theory of everything would do. It would describe perfectly the entire universe, on all scales. All understanding would be derivable from it. It would, necessarily, describe both the thin slice and the larger mountain depending on how you manipulated it.

 

[atanu]

But should they not arrive at the same answers?

I'd agree that the scopes of your methods are different to that of generalized science, but I think you're making a distinction where isn't any. In the case of universal theories of physics, there is no subject. There is only the system being modeled, and subsets of that system.

Universally yes. But for an individual, it will depend on individual's apparent goal. I say apparent goal since invariably attainment of perfect peace is goal for everyone but many are clouded even at the time of death regarding their goal.

The nature. We're not entirely sure what the nature precisely is, but the most verified guess we have so far show it's built out of four fields, and the interactions between these produce everything. There's been suggestions that there's a fifth field we haven't found yet, (to explain anomalies like the galaxy rotation problem) but it hasn't been confirmed.

That is exactly what the theory of everything would do. It would describe perfectly the entire universe, on all scales. All understanding would be derivable from it. It would, necessarily, describe both the thin slice and the larger mountain depending on how you manipulated it.

OK. Will the theory of everything, composed of equations include you? If it leaves out you then it will not be the complete theory of everything. But good luck.

Dreams are simply an illusion that originate in your brain's sensory processing subsystems, and no conscious processing goes on at all in deep sleep. However, the universe proper is still there. After all, you wake up from a loud noise, don't you?

The same nature is all of us. That which describes the universe automatically describes us.

Here, my appeal to you to look from both sides come into play and I hope that you will be open. When science describes dream or sleep, it does from the state of waking, in terms of brain, which is a component of waking state. I am requesting you to reverse the view. Start from sleep.

Whether we accept a self or not, it is the common invariant experience that self remains through three states: sleep, dream, waking -- observing and playing with objects.

Now, in sleep, the mind-senses are not active and the self does not see anything, but remains as deep peace. Why a scientist cannot see the indivisible-homogeneous nature as the primordial nature of self, as the untainted or devoid of superimposition of objects?

In this state, the subject-object division does not exist. Further, scripture tells us that the state appears unconscious because of lack of subject-object divisions (due to yet non-functioning of mind-senses). Scripture also tells that though the state is an unconscious state it contains the designs for the future just as designs of a sculptor may remain in uncut marble. The design for individuals (we call it memory) are unique in some respects and common in other respects.

In the next transition, to dream state, the functions of mind-senses begin but not using the physical organs. The functions begin as functions. Subject-object division starts and in the same space called 'me', which was homogeneous in deep sleep, forms of subject and object/s appear.

During the next transition to waking state, the same space of 'me' gives rise to a physically graspable object, with which the awareness associates 'me', and also the graspable universe, as different from me. No such difference was evident in the primordial condition of deep sleep before opeartion of mind.

The point for this lengthy discussion is to suggest that the sleep condition is our untainted primary nature on which functions of senses superimpose objects. The self being same in three states, it is often seen that actions of one state may bear fruit in another. Example was provided earlier that a dream copulation may lead to losing physical semen. More commonly, the designs/seeds, hidden from conscious mind in deep sleep sprout in dream and waking. And vice-versa, the effects of waking get imprinted in memory (deep sleep).

The point for this discussion is also that knowing one's primordial nature one does not blame others for one's affairs and after letting the consciousness clean up the subconscious designs/memory exists as happiness itself.

This view is not from the waking state but from above. It does not also require any scientific proof since it is experience of every one.

The same nature is all of us. That which describes the universe automatically describes us.

Nobody, at the moment. At least, anyone who does deserves a Nobel prize. We only have simplifications, which can only be used in some circumstances to get accurate results.

Don't you find this unexplainable?? That the nature is within us, or that it is our very nature, yet we do not know our nature? And to know our own nature we need to make many external observations and many other things .......

 

[atanu]

The only things you could justifiably call components of the universe are the four fundamental fields, and even then, there are theories out there that unite the fields into even fewer objects. The holy grail of theoretical physics would be a single object that perfectly describes the entire universe at once, which would render "component" meaningless.

The same nature is all of us. That which describes the universe automatically describes us.

A speculative article on the subject that you may wish to read.

Science Of Brahmn | SpeakingTree

 

[PolyHedral]

Universally yes. But for an individual, it will depend on individual's apparent goal. I say apparent goal since invariably attainment of perfect peace is goal for everyone but many are clouded even at the time of death regarding their goal.

It seems unsound logic to say that someone has a goal without realizing that that is actually their goal. How do you work towards a goal you don't know you have?

OK. Will the theory of everything, composed of equations include you? If it leaves out you then it will not be the complete theory of everything. But good luck.

Theorectically, yes. However, I can't imagine the computational power you'd need to model all of me from the fundamental level up. It'd be far easier to model me using a less general theory, if that's the goal.


Here, my appeal to you to look from both sides come into play and I hope that you will be open. When science describes dream or sleep, it does from the state of waking, in terms of brain, which is a component of waking state. I am requesting you to reverse the view. Start from sleep.

Whether we accept a self or not, it is the common invariant experience that self remains through three states: sleep, dream, waking -- observing and playing with objects.

I wouldn't say so. My self certainly doesn't remain when I'm unconscious; my experience simply cuts from one time to another, with no recording of the intervening hours.

In this state, the subject-object division does not exist. Further, scripture tells us that the state appears unconscious because of lack of subject-object divisions (due to yet non-functioning of mind-senses). Scripture also tells that though the state is an unconscious state it contains the designs for the future just as designs of a sculptor may remain in uncut marble. The design for individuals (we call it memory) are unique in some respects and common in other respects.

Agreeing with the idea that marble contains the designs of a sculptor for the sake of argument, then that would mean that the marble contains an infinity of designs. (In fact, a number of designs several times infinitely larger again than what we usually consider "infinity.") At that point we're not using "contain" in a useful sense anymore, since obviously an infinity of anything can't be contained in a finite space. Also, you're terminology is somewhat vague. A state, in the sense of mathematics, doesn't contain any information about the future or the past; that information only appears when a state is combined with whatever rules govern how states flow into each other.

[sorry for skipping bits, I didn't really have any comment]

The point for this lengthy discussion is to suggest that the sleep condition is our untainted primary nature on which functions of senses superimpose objects. The self being same in three states, it is often seen that actions of one state may bear fruit in another. Example was provided earlier that a dream copulation may lead to losing physical semen. More commonly, the designs/seeds, hidden from conscious mind in deep sleep sprout in dream and waking. And vice-versa, the effects of waking get imprinted in memory (deep sleep).

I think you're taking your (seemingly valid) idea of how the brain behaves from its own perspective and extending it too far. Just because the self is not "connected" to the body doesn't mean the body doesn't exist, and can't react to either outside stimuli or even imagined stimuli.

This view is not from the waking state but from above. It does not also require any scientific proof since it is experience of every one.

Oh no you don't. You only get away with not needing evidence if you're not making predictions, and if you're not making predictions... what use is it?

Don't you find this unexplainable?? That the nature is within us, or that it is our very nature, yet we do not know our nature? And to know our own nature we need to make many external observations and many other things .......

No, it is to be expected. Why would we know how ourselves work automatically?

 

[atanu]

It seems unsound logic to say that someone has a goal without realizing that that is actually their goal. How do you work towards a goal you don't know you have?

Why? People do have illusions.

Theorectically, yes. However, I can't imagine the computational power you'd need to model all of me from the fundamental level up. It'd be far easier to model me using a less general theory, if that's the goal.

It will not be the theory of everything, if it just included physical phenomena and not the observer.

I wouldn't say so. My self certainly doesn't remain when I'm unconscious; my experience simply cuts from one time to another, with no recording of the intervening hours.

But you remain peacefully. And that in fact is the crucial point that pure existence is devoid of objects.

Agreeing with the idea that marble contains the designs of a sculptor for the sake of argument, then that would mean that the marble contains an infinity of designs. (In fact, a number of designs several times infinitely larger again than what we usually consider "infinity.") At that point we're not using "contain" in a useful sense anymore, since obviously an infinity of anything can't be contained in a finite space.

That is the point. One is not finite.

Also, you're terminology is somewhat vague. A state, in the sense of mathematics, doesn't contain any information about the future or the past; that information only appears when a state is combined with whatever rules govern how states flow into each other.

OK. No problem, since consciousness joins all three states.

I think you're taking your (seemingly valid) idea of how the brain behaves from its own perspective and extending it too far. Just because the self is not "connected" to the body doesn't mean the body doesn't exist, and can't react to either outside stimuli or even imagined stimuli.

I am certainly not saying that. THe duality of body and self is also not acceptable, in the final analysis. All I am saying is that the name-form of the reality is later than the reality.

No, it is to be expected. Why would we know how ourselves work automatically?

In that case, IIMO, one must know one's nature in order not run after mirages.

 

[PolyHedral]

Why? People do have illusions.

True, but it seems bizarre to say that you know their goals better than they themselves do.

It will not be the theory of everything, if it just included physical phenomena and not the observer.

That's the whole point that Copernicus and I have been trying to drive home: the "observer" is a physical phenomenon in itself.

But you remain peacefully. And that in fact is the crucial point that pure existence is devoid of objects.

In order to recognize your own existence, there has to be an object: "I", or alternatively, "this."

That is the point. One is not finite.

But the universe, and all entities within, is finite. More importantly, what gives you the idea that the self isn't finite? A lack of edges isn't good enough.

I am certainly not saying that. THe duality of body and self is also not acceptable, in the final analysis. All I am saying is that the name-form of the reality is later than the reality.

What does later mean in that context?

In that case, IIMO, one must know one's nature in order not run after mirages.

How do you know you haven't?

 

[atanu]

True, but it seems bizarre to say that you know their goals better than they themselves do.

Bizarre but true. All are happy in sleep without any object. But all erroneously imagine that objects give happiness.

That's the whole point that Copernicus and I have been trying to drive home: the "observer" is a physical phenomenon in itself.

Yes, in a futile way. What you call the observer is actually the observed object. My body and me are not same. I see my body. My body does not see me.

The point however was different -- that the theory of everything must account for consciousness.

In order to recognize your own existence, there has to be an object: "I", or alternatively, "this."

That is an ignorant view, based on the premise that the mind/senses are the knowers. Everyone exists in deep sleep and the the Self is the Seer/Knower of even the deep sleep state. Else, one would not be able to say "I slept blissfully".

But the universe, and all entities within, is finite. More importantly, what gives you the idea that the self isn't finite? A lack of edges isn't good enough.

But you are defining self with mere edges, again from the perspective of individual's mind/senses that are localised instruments. Detailed desription of the sleep process was meant to suggest that one is not a localised body. Just as an iron ball glows in heat, the mind-senses reflect infinite consciousness locally. Self is pure ungraspable awareness without any in or out.

You may take it or leave it.

 

[Copernicus]

Atanu,

After all of this discussion, we are still left with incontrovertible evidence that the condition of a physical brain determines consciousness. We can do things to the physical brain--e.g. administer general anesthesia--that control consciousness. We have no evidence that minds can function independently of brain activity, so the most natural conclusion is that minds are fully dependent on it. No meditation or logical argument is going to make that evidence go away.

 

[atanu]

Atanu,

After all of this discussion, we are still left with incontrovertible evidence that the condition of a physical brain determines consciousness. We can do things to the physical brain--e.g. administer general anesthesia--that control consciousness. We have no evidence that minds can function independently of brain activity, so the most natural conclusion is that minds are fully dependent on it. No meditation or logical argument is going to make that evidence go away.

• You can disturb the structures of brain by external chemicals or through influence, just as you can smash an instrument. That shows effect of another consciousness and is a proof that brain is not its own controller.
• OTOH, we control brain by self's will power and intentionality.
• There is more compelling evidence that no brain is known in absence of a conscious human being seeing it.
• There is more compelling evidence that a brain does not work in a dead body.
• You have yourself acknowledged that brain is programmed by nature and thus is not its own master. That same nature is our nature and references were cited to show that yogis control the nature and thus their brain as per their wish.
• There is every possibilty that evolution is directed by the purpose of the being.

Your points were discussed and discarded . Why bring the same points again and again after lapse of few days?

 

[Copernicus]

• You can disturb the structures of brain by external chemicals or through influence, just as you can smash an instrument. That shows effect of another consciousness and is a proof that brain is not its own controller.[/quote]

No, that is proof that the mind does not control the brain. Rather, it is the reverse.

• OTOH, we control brain by self's will power and intentionality.

Actually, that is your gratuitous assumption. There is no evidence that we exist independently of our brains, since a functioning brain is necessary to sustain consciousness.

• There is more compelling evidence that no brain is known in absence of a conscious human being seeing it.

I have never been sure how to interpret expressions like "no brain is known". Brains are physical objects that we recognize and understand by means of brain activity. Consciousness is a function of brain activity.

• There is more compelling evidence that a brain does not work in a dead body.

Nor does the mind. There is a good reason for that.

• You have yourself acknowledged that brain is programmed by nature and thus is not its own master. That same nature is our nature and references were cited to show that yogis control the nature and thus their brain as per their wish.

No, yogis control nothing more than their own bodies in the same way that any animal controls its own body. The nervous system in animals has evolved as a control mechanism. The brain is just a specialized component of a nervous system, and consciousness is what allows our moving bodies to survive in an ever-changing environment.

• There is every possibilty that evolution is directed by the purpose of the being.

Lots of assumptions are possible, but are they reasonable assumptions? Evolution theory has been tested and retested. It works quite well without any direction from an external agency.

Your points were discussed and discarded . Why bring the same points again and again after lapse of few days?

For the same reason that you do. You appear to believe that your points are valid, and I want to make sure you know why I am discarding them.

 

[atanu]

• You can disturb the structures of brain by external chemicals or through influence, just as you can smash an instrument. That shows effect of another consciousness and is a proof that brain is not its own controller.

No, that is proof that the mind does not control the brain. Rather, it is the reverse.

No. Another mind is playing a role. Obvious. You forget that all your observations are happening in consciuosness.

• OTOH, we control brain by self's will power and intentionality.

Actually, that is your gratuitous assumption. There is no evidence that we exist independently of our brains, since a functioning brain is necessary to sustain consciousness.

There is no evidence that a working brain is known without consciousness. OTOH, we indded control brain by self's will power and intentionality. There are thousands of papers demonstrating that. I cannot help that you close your eyes to those.

And, I wonder how, automatic brain intercations create such preferences in you.

• There is more compelling evidence that no brain is known in absence of a conscious human being seeing it.

I have never been sure how to interpret expressions like "no brain is known". Brains are physical objects that we recognize and understand by means of brain activity. Consciousness is a function of brain activity.

You observe electrical signals etc., with your instruments. No one has ever seen brain understanding anything. You superimpose your interpretation on brain.

It is childish to interpret some signals as intelligence.

• There is more compelling evidence that a brain does not work in a dead body.

Nor does the mind. There is a good reason for that.

But a brain in a dead body does not say "Let me live". If brain was the real "I" and real intelligence, then it would do so.

OTOH, near death experiences prove you wrong.

• You have yourself acknowledged that brain is programmed by nature and thus is not its own master. That same nature is our nature and references were cited to show that yogis control the nature and thus their brain as per their wish.

No, yogis control nothing more than their own bodies in the same way that any animal controls its own body. The nervous system in animals has evolved as a control mechanism. The brain is just a specialized component of a nervous system, and consciousness is what allows our moving bodies to survive in an ever-changing environment.

That is too much. Evidence is there that meditation alters brain waves. No animal (nor you) can do that consciously. Neither can a higher process alters a lower fundamental process. Just as an application program cannot change the OS, if not programmed to do so.

:flirt:

• There is every possibilty that evolution is directed by the purpose of the being.

Lots of assumptions are possible, but are they reasonable assumptions? Evolution theory has been tested and retested. It works quite well without any direction from an external agency.

Evolution theory does not say anything about origin of life or about intelligence. You introduce your assumptions.

For the same reason that you do. You appear to believe that your points are valid, and I want to make sure you know why I am discarding them.

The objection is for bringing the same points again. We know that we do not agree. Against your one point, I can show 10 points that do not support your hypothesis.

If your argument that automatic material reactions give rise to intelligence is true, I do not see why you are so eager to push your hypothesis? What goads you? There is certainly something other than chemicals that is goading you on.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, in a futile way. What you call the observer is actually the observed object. My body and me are not same. I see my body. My body does not see me.

The distinction is illusionary. The physical version is looking into a mirror and thinking the object behind it is distinct from you.

The point however was different -- that the theory of everything must account for consciousness.

It does; Conciousness appears to be a specific set of computations, and the theory of everything describes computers quite easily.

That is an ignorant view, based on the premise that the mind/senses are the knowers. Everyone exists in deep sleep and the the Self is the Seer/Knower of even the deep sleep state.

What is there to be aware of in deep sleep? The brain does not perform any sort of self-aware processing at all at that stage.


Also, I was looking at a few computer science articles, and found something you might be interested in. The idea behind the Observer Pattern is that you have a collection of objects that "watch" a subject, and the observers are told when the subject changes anything about itself. (For instance, the subject might be a company, and the observers shareholders; the shareholders will be notified if the business changes.) If that's the sort of thing you're talking about, then you seem to be assuming that there is always an observer in all circumstances, which I don't find an at all sensible proposition. For instance, on the RF server's end, who is the observer of this thread? Also, what, exactly, is being observed?

 

[atanu]

-----Conciousness appears to be a specific set of computations, and the theory of everything describes computers quite easily.

Old discussion again. The day computers evolve of their own, bring back this subject. Abilty to store, retreive and act as per a given program is not consciousness.

 

[PolyHedral]

Old discussion again. The day computers evolve of their own, bring back this subject. Abilty to store, retreive and act as per a given program is not consciousness.

They did, several hundred million years ago. You are one.

Conciousness is many many abstractions above the ability to store and retrieve data, and follow instructions, but the latter is still absolutely necessary. Electrons are still needed for planetary weather systems to work.

 

[atanu]

What is there to be aware of in deep sleep? The brain does not perform any sort of self-aware processing at all at that stage.

I requested you to not look at this from waking state reality. If you do that you are superimposing the waking state reality on sleep.

Also, I was looking at a few computer science articles, and found something you might be interested in. The idea behind the Observer Pattern is that you have a collection of objects that "watch" a subject, ------

Do not complicate the issue. You are the subject and you are the observer of all three states. No one else can observe the subject.

Suppose, you are sleeping peacefully. You wake up and thousand worries make you disturbed. Apprently, the same 'you' that was existing without any worry in sleep is now worried. Why? Has the person changed?

The person/subject does not change. But we associate the characterics of the states with us and feel changed. This I called ignorance. Actually, the attachements and objects of our waking state have covered up the peacful self, which is still there as the peaceful seer self.

 

[atanu]

They did, several hundred million years ago. You are one.

Conciousness is many many abstractions above the ability to store and retrieve data, and follow instructions, but the latter is still absolutely necessary. Electrons are still needed for planetary weather systems to work.

Unfortunately, that does not explain experience and preference. And we have several times discussed that your hypothesis is no better than god hypothesis, since an external programmer is posited and that makes us zombies.

 

[PolyHedral]

Unfortunately, that does not explain experience and preference. And we have several times discussed that your hypothesis is no better than god hypothesis, since an external programmer is posited and that makes us zombies.

Experience is simple; it is analysis of memory. "This has worked well in the past; it should work well here." Preference is similar; it is a heuristic used to make some decisions quickly, because making those decisions quickly is more important than making them well. To quote the master of eloquence himself,

The brain does more than just recollect. It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyses. It generates abstractions.

There is no external programmer in any meaningful sense; calling something a "programmer" implies a purpose, a goal that the program is designed to achieve. There is no such purpose in nature. There is no goal to evolution. What works, propagates.

I requested you to not look at this from waking state reality. If you do that you are superimposing the waking state reality on sleep.

In order for two different perspectives on the same thing to be correct, they must yield the same answers. This is true in science, and in mathematics. Why wouldn't it be true in philosophy?

Do not complicate the issue. You are the subject and you are the observer of all three states. No one else can observe the subject.

The meanings of "subject" and "observer" are context-dependent. What is the context?

Suppose, you are sleeping peacefully. You wake up and thousand worries make you disturbed. Apprently, the same 'you' that was existing without any worry in sleep is now worried. Why? Has the person changed?

Yes, obviously. Also, you're running into a contradiction in my model because you don't understand the model correctly; in deep sleep, there is no "I", the self-reference. In that state, the brain runs on automatic. It is as dumb as a life support computer.

 

[atanu]

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
The brain does more than just recollect. It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyses. It generates abstractions.

It is Carl Sagan saying and not the brain saying.

 

[PolyHedral]

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
The brain does more than just recollect. It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyses. It generates abstractions.

It is Carl Sagan saying and not the brain saying.

Carl Sagan did not have a brain?

 

[atanu]

There is no external programmer in any meaningful sense; calling something a "programmer" implies a purpose, a goal that the program is designed to achieve. There is no such purpose in nature. There is no goal to evolution. What works, propagates.

I hate it when you take up points on behalf of Copernicus and twist the matter. The subject of external programmer was started from the discussion that structures (higher level applications) cannot alter the basis of the structures itself. Intelligence, if evolved fronm structures cannot have any control over the base on which the structures are built.

In short, structures explain the structures, but consciousness is not the structure.

In order for two different perspectives on the same thing to be correct, they must yield the same answers. This is true in science, and in mathematics. Why wouldn't it be true in philosophy?

You cannot use the Newtonian framework for QM. In respect of sleep and waking states, the waking state is not independent of the effects of mind-sense functions. So, to study the pristine consciousness, the waking state realities are hindrance.

Take some time on previous posts. You are not reading my posts.

The meanings of "subject" and "observer" are context-dependent. What is the context?

You are the seer of your body, including the brain. You are the seer of modifications of your mind. These are objects. The self that is you is the subject and is not the object of any other subject.

Yes, obviously. Also, you're running into a contradiction in my model because you don't understand the model correctly; in deep sleep, there is no "I", the self-reference. In that state, the brain runs on automatic. It is as dumb as a life support computer.

Ha. You mean the person has changed? Surely not. The person is still there. Else, he would not come back saying "i slept blissfully".

Self is there in deep sleep in all fullness and without any division. Since, there are yet no created objects, it does not see anything and no separate "I". Again. There is no brain in deep sleep. It is a construct of mind-senses of waking time. Try searching for the brain in deep sleep.

That it is the point of liberation in Vedanta will mean nothing to you. But I am amazed that you are analysing the situtation from waking state experience -- which is different and has those objects. Our aim is to inspect the nature of mind when it is not superimposed by objects.

However, I do not think that there can be any revelation to you as of now. Some other reader may intuitively pick up the point.

I will cite Skwim from another post to speak in another way -- if that helps to clarify what I am saying.

If it were not for the existence of objects then there would be nothing to be conscious of, and with nothing to be conscious of the ability to be conscious would have nothing with which to function. Therefore, in order for the consciousness to function it must have an object to work with. And just to explain, when you asked "whether the predating truth could be the source of the perceiving agency?" I took "agency" to mean the being that perceived, not the latent consciousness of a being.