-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My personal TOE
- Thread starter outhouse
- Start date
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
My theory? Consciousness factually does not exist at all other than being just a label. Fundamental Interactions exist. Complex interactions exist. Consciousness is nothing more than a label we use for certain peculiar complex interactions which occur in the brain allowing us to interact with our environment. Some forms are not as evolved as the human brain, therefore that ability to interact with the environment is limited. Animals interact in a very complex manner. Plants interact in a less complex manner. Rocks interact at a very fundamental level. The point is...everything is interactive in some way.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Oh really? Perhaps you should do some reading....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything_(philosophy)
A quote from that Wikipedia link...
"In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind,[5]David Chalmers argues that a theory of everything must explain consciousness, that consciousness does not logicallysupervene on the physical, and that therefore a fundamental theory in physics would not be a theory of everything. A truly final theory, he argues, needs not just physical properties and laws, but phenomenal or protophenomenal properties andpsychophysical laws explaining the relationship between physical processes and conscious experience. He concludes that "[o]nce we have a fundamental theory of consciousness to accompany a fundamental theory in physics, we may truly have a theory of everything."
Oh yeah... I would recommend you not using the word "factually" so often when it is quite clear you have no idea what is factual and what is not.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Factually it doe not
Nor have you explained anything in any credible way addressing such
outhouse
Atheistically
Philosophy is out of context here. the OP is about the scientific TOE
outhouse
Atheistically
,
Has no education at all on the scientific TOE.
And his ideas are not accepted as status quo
David Chalmers argues, not someone who provides a decent hypothesis
and not even the same TOE
Has no education at all on the scientific TOE.
And his ideas are not accepted as status quo
David Chalmers argues, not someone who provides a decent hypothesis
and not even the same TOE
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Vague pseudoscience
Conscious thought has been observed in the brain.
Vague worthless rhetoric with no real meaning.
You cannot provide a credible link, because there is no credible link for YOUR pseudosceince
outhouse
Atheistically
maybe you should take your own advise.
Do you comprehend what he is saying here?
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
The OP is about your TOE. You specifically asked for some opinions or criticism with regards to that. My opinion is that your TOE fails to address EVERYTHING because it fails to address All observable phenomena within the universe. That includes the phenomena we call life, death, and consciousness, not just gravity.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
,
Has no education at all on the scientific TOE.
And his ideas are not accepted as status quo
David Chalmers argues, not someone who provides a decent hypothesis
I would accept his ideas over yours. At least he seems to know what he's talking about.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
I'm sure you mean to say that complex interactions have been observed in the brain.
The direct and credible link with which to validate my theory of interaction is your very own brain which you don't seem to be using at the moment.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
I comprehend what he is saying just fine, which is also why I dismiss what you are saying as nonsense.
outhouse
Atheistically
The TOE explains why the universe happened, and explains gravity, and the nature of physical properties.
Not life and consciousness that came a few billion years later
outhouse
Atheistically
It did not validate anything.
It showed some guys argument that is not substantiated in any way.
outhouse
Atheistically
No one can explain your pseudoscience. Not even you.
This phenomena You speak of comes AFTER the TOE and has nothing to do with explaining biology. Your so lost here you don't have a clue what even going on.
Biology has nothing to do with the TOE
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
The TOE explains why the universe happened, and explains gravity, and the nature of physical properties.
Not life and consciousness that came a few billion years later
Then that is not an adequate theory of EVERYTHING.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
It did not validate anything.
It showed some guys argument that is not substantiated in any way.
Yes, because the interactions in a your brain must be somewhat more limited than others.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your admitting you don't have a clue what your talking about. It does not have to meet your standards. YOURS are PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC.
A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.
Runewolf1973
Materialism/Animism
No one can explain your pseudoscience. Not even you.
This phenomena You speak of comes AFTER the TOE and has nothing to do with explaining biology. Your so lost here you don't have a clue what even going on.
Biology has nothing to do with the TOE
I have not presented any pseudoscience. I am neither religious, nor am I spiritual. I am probabably in a way even more of a materialistic, non-believer than you are. For starters, I don't even believe in such things as life, consciousness, or death. There are different forms and varying degrees of interaction, that is all. You have more beliefs than I do. I ascribe to one view alone and that is everything is interactive. Nothing is truly conscious, or living, nor does anything ever truly die. Those are just labels describing peculiar interactive states. The forces of nature are neither living, dead, nor conscious. They are interactive.