Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[Ben Dhyan]

Selective consideration of objective evidence to justify a religious agenda. Your "no way" clearly indicates inflexibility and stoic denial of science.

Consciousness varies in increasing complexity the animal kingdom in harmony with the degree of the development of a complex nervous system, and evolved independently as in the cephlepods such as as octopi.

Also you did not respond to to post #301 coherently concerning the Urban 5% Myth,

Your habit of 'arguing from ignorance' and not considering science as science demonstrates an anti-science agenda,

Did you not know that 95% The percentage of matter and energy in the Universe that is currently unobservable - The Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian is a collaboration between Harvard and Smithsonian designed to ask — and ultimately answer — humanity’s greatest unresolved questions about the nature of the universe.

Consciousness itself evolves from the experience of physical life, but the source of consciousness does not arise from the material realms. With all the research into AI, and all the present knowledge of human science, it is not able to produce consciousness, and never will for the reasons provided by this scientist, Federico Faggin top physicist and inventor of the microprocessor & touch screen. He tried but for the reasons given, he at some stage realized that computers can never be conscious.

It is a long video but he covers the salient facts relating to this question of the source of consciousness in the first 38 minutes. Given that he talks about a spiritual revelation in parts, please disregard, that is not the point, it is his scientific position on why consciousness cannot arise from matter which he realized before the revelation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did you not know that 95% The percentage of matter and energy in the Universe that is currently unobservable - The Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian is a collaboration between Harvard and Smithsonian designed to ask — and ultimately answer — humanity’s greatest unresolved questions about the nature of the universe.

Did you know gravity is unobservable? Your distorted view is false, and I already addressed this.

Your statement concerning the 5% re[resents intentional ignorance of what science knows about the cosmos. This represents a common 'arguing from ignorance' fallacy of those that tend to reject science based on a religious agenda. It is sort modern mythology. The limits of our direct observation of the Dark Energy and Dark Matter problem is like gravity we cannot directly observe them but we understand Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Gravity by their effects on the Matter of the Universe Of course there are unanswered question in all science, and that is motivating force behind science.

the myth scientific knowledge of of 5% of the cosmos - Google Search

The "myth" of scientists only knowing 5% of the cosmos refers to the fact that while we can directly observe only a small fraction of the universe's matter and energy, which is primarily composed of ordinary matter like stars and galaxies, the vast majority of the universe is made up of mysterious substances called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we can't directly detect, meaning our understanding of the universe as a whole is significantly limited.

Key points about this "myth":
What we can see:

• Only about 5% of the universe's total mass-energy is made up of ordinary matter that we can directly observe with telescopes.
• Dark matter and dark energy:
  The remaining 95% is thought to be composed of dark matter (around 27%) and dark energy (around 68%), which are only inferred through their gravitational effects on visible matter.

Basing your argument of the 95% myth simply on things science supposedly does not know' concerning Dark Matter and Dark Energy is only an argument on the present limits of scientific knowledge nothing more. It is a classic fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The knowledge of science is limited concerning the Cosmos. So what?!?!?!

Consciousness itself evolves from the experience of physical life, but the source of consciousness does not arise from the material realms. With all the research into AI, and all the present knowledge of human science, it is not able to produce consciousness, and never will for the reasons provided by this scientist, Federico Faggin top physicist and inventor of the microprocessor & touch screen. He tried but for the reasons given, he at some stage realized that computers can never be conscious.

This is unbelievably false. Consciousness is a direct result of the physical nervous system. Experience only stores knowledge. This is true in humans and higher mammals like primates and sea mammals, It is well documented that consciousness is universal with the animal life with a complex nervous system. Consciousness is not only universal, but many mammals have languges like sea mammals, dream, and solve problems, and learn tasks taught by older relatives.

It is a long video but he covers the salient facts relating to this question of the source of consciousness in the first 38 minutes. Given that he talks about a spiritual revelation in parts, please disregard, that is not the point, it is his scientific position on why consciousness cannot arise from matter which he realized before the revelation.

The first problem a long contorted YouTube video cannot be reasonably used to argue your case. It presents an unverifiable subjective religious argument without science. If you want argue your case you need peer reviewed scientific research, which does not exist. Faaqin is a famous physicist, but his argument does not involve physics. He clearly states his argument goes beyond physics and science. OK, for religious subjective belief, but not science.

If needed I can provide references the demonstrates intelligence in higher mammals that demonstrates higher consciousness naturaly evolved.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you know gravity is unobservable? Your distorted view is false, and I already addressed this.

Your statement concerning the 5% re[resents intentional ignorance of what science knows about the cosmos. This represents a common 'arguing from ignorance' fallacy of those that tend to reject science based on a religious agenda. It is sort modern mythology. The limits of our direct observation of the Dark Energy and Dark Matter problem is like gravity we cannot directly observe them but we understand Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Gravity by their effects on the Matter of the Universe Of course there are unanswered question in all science, and that is motivating force behind science.

the myth scientific knowledge of of 5% of the cosmos - Google Search

The "myth" of scientists only knowing 5% of the cosmos refers to the fact that while we can directly observe only a small fraction of the universe's matter and energy, which is primarily composed of ordinary matter like stars and galaxies, the vast majority of the universe is made up of mysterious substances called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we can't directly detect, meaning our understanding of the universe as a whole is significantly limited.

Key points about this "myth":
What we can see:

• Only about 5% of the universe's total mass-energy is made up of ordinary matter that we can directly observe with telescopes.
• Dark matter and dark energy:
  The remaining 95% is thought to be composed of dark matter (around 27%) and dark energy (around 68%), which are only inferred through their gravitational effects on visible matter.

Basing your argument of the 95% myth simply on things science supposedly does not know' concerning Dark Matter and Dark Energy is only an argument on the present limits of scientific knowledge nothing more. It is a classic fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The knowledge of science is limited concerning the Cosmos. So what?!?!?!



This is unbelievably false. Consciousness is a direct result of the physical nervous system. Experience only stores knowledge. This is true in humans and higher mammals like primates and sea mammals, It is well documented that consciousness is universal with the animal life with a complex nervous system. Consciousness is not only universal, but many mammals have languges like sea mammals, dream, and solve problems, and learn tasks taught by older relatives.

The first problem a long contorted YouTube video cannot be reasonably used to argue your case. It presents an unverifiable subjective religious argument without science. If you want argue your case you need peer reviewed scientific research, which does not exist. Faaqin is a famous physicist, but his argument does not involve physics. He clearly states his argument goes beyond physics and science. OK, for religious subjective belief, but not science.

If needed I can provide references the demonstrates intelligence in higher mammals that demonstrates higher consciousness naturaly evolved.

Haha, shunydragon v Harvard and Smithsonian, Centre of Astrophysics.

In your own words, "The knowledge of science is limited concerning the Cosmos. So what?!?!?!"

"So what!", so science does not know beans about the 95% bulk of existence, the very omnipresent space that religion say is full of spirit, a spirit btw which is the source of all awareness incarnate in all the expressions of the Cosmos.

If the combined contemporary AI and neurological sciences with all their present, and imho relatively awesome, knowledge of computing and consciousness, cannot replicate simple awareness as is seen in nature, then your faith that the beginning of awareness in nature arose from experience looks pretty sick.

Awareness cannot come from unawareness, consciousness cannot come from the unconscious, it is absurd, only the most indoctrinated atheist could believe it. Next you will be telling me you believe that existence came from non-existence. You can't have some mysterious eternal existence that science does not and cannot know, otherwise it might give rise to the concept of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Haha, shunydragon v Harvard and Smithsonian, Centre of Astrophysics.

In your own words, "The knowledge of science is limited concerning the Cosmos. So what?!?!?!"

"So what!", so science does not know beans about the 95% bulk of existence, the very omnipresent space that religion say is full of spirit, a spirit btw which is the source of all awareness incarnate in all the expressions of the Cosmos.

If the combined contemporary AI and neurological sciences with all their present, and imho relatively awesome, knowledge of computing and consciousness, cannot replicate simple awareness as is seen in nature, then your faith that the beginning of awareness in nature arose from experience looks pretty sick.

Awareness cannot come from unawareness, consciousness cannot come from the unconscious, it is absurd, only the most indoctrinated atheist could believe it. Next you will be telling me you believe that existence came from non-existence. You can't have some mysterious eternal existence that science does not and cannot know, otherwise it might give rise to the concept of God.

Haha, shunydragon v Harvard and Smithsonian, Centre of Astrophysics.

In your own words, "The knowledge of science is limited concerning the Cosmos. So what?!?!?!"

"So what!", so science does not know beans about the 95% bulk of existence, the very omnipresent space that religion say is full of spirit, a spirit btw which is the source of all awareness incarnate in all the expressions of the Cosmos.

Did you know gravity is unobservable?
You did not answer the above question. I answered yours in detail and you failed to respond coherently

Again , , , Your distorted view is false, and I already addressed this.

Your statement concerning the 5% re[resents intentional ignorance of what science knows about the cosmos. This represents a common 'arguing from ignorance' fallacy of those that tend to reject science based on a religious agenda. It is sort modern mythology. The limits of our direct observation of the Dark Energy and Dark Matter problem is like gravity we cannot directly observe them but we understand Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Gravity by their effects on the Matter of the Universe Of course there are unanswered question in all science, and that is motivating force behind science.

the myth scientific knowledge of of 5% of the cosmos - Google Search

The "myth" of scientists only knowing 5% of the cosmos refers to the fact that while we can directly observe only a small fraction of the universe's matter and energy, which is primarily composed of ordinary matter like stars and galaxies, the vast majority of the universe is made up of mysterious substances called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we can't directly detect, meaning our understanding of the universe as a whole is significantly limited.

Key points about this "myth":
What we can see:

• Only about 5% of the universe's total mass-energy is made up of ordinary matter that we can directly observe with telescopes.
• Dark matter and dark energy:
  The remaining 95% is thought to be composed of dark matter (around 27%) and dark energy (around 68%), which are only inferred through their gravitational effects on visible matter.

Basing your argument of the 95% myth simply on things science supposedly does not know' concerning Dark Matter and Dark Energy is only an argument on the present limits of scientific knowledge nothing more. It is a classic fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The knowledge of science is limited concerning the Cosmos. So what?!?!?!

If the combined contemporary AI and neurological sciences with all their present, and imho relatively awesome, knowledge of computing and consciousness, cannot replicate simple awareness as is seen in nature, then your faith that the beginning of awareness in nature arose from experience looks pretty sick.

We are not addressing the question of AI intelligence, and in and of itself is not consciousness yet.

Awareness cannot come from unawareness,

Meaningless assertion as per topic of consciousness in the animal kingdom including home sapiens.

consciousness cannot come from the unconscious,

Meaningless assertion. Animals with complex nervous systems and consciousness physically evolved from from life forms without complex nervous systems that lacked consciousness.

it is absurd, only the most indoctrinated atheist could believe it.

The question of belief in God or not, or which God you believe in. It is matter of the fact of the nature of animals with a complex nervous system have the attributes of consciousness and intelligence.

Next you will be telling me you believe that existence came from non-existence. You can't have some mysterious eternal existence that science does not and cannot know, otherwise it might give rise to the concept of God.

Science, nor I, propose that existence comes from non-existence. I would tell anyone that foolish notion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did you know gravity is unobservable?
You did not answer the above question. I answered yours in detail and you failed to respond coherently

Again , , , Your distorted view is false, and I already addressed this.

Your statement concerning the 5% re[resents intentional ignorance of what science knows about the cosmos. This represents a common 'arguing from ignorance' fallacy of those that tend to reject science based on a religious agenda. It is sort modern mythology. The limits of our direct observation of the Dark Energy and Dark Matter problem is like gravity we cannot directly observe them but we understand Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Gravity by their effects on the Matter of the Universe Of course there are unanswered question in all science, and that is motivating force behind science.

the myth scientific knowledge of of 5% of the cosmos - Google Search

The "myth" of scientists only knowing 5% of the cosmos refers to the fact that while we can directly observe only a small fraction of the universe's matter and energy, which is primarily composed of ordinary matter like stars and galaxies, the vast majority of the universe is made up of mysterious substances called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we can't directly detect, meaning our understanding of the universe as a whole is significantly limited.

Key points about this "myth":
What we can see:

• Only about 5% of the universe's total mass-energy is made up of ordinary matter that we can directly observe with telescopes.
• Dark matter and dark energy:
  The remaining 95% is thought to be composed of dark matter (around 27%) and dark energy (around 68%), which are only inferred through their gravitational effects on visible matter.

Basing your argument of the 95% myth simply on things science supposedly does not know' concerning Dark Matter and Dark Energy is only an argument on the present limits of scientific knowledge nothing more. It is a classic fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

The knowledge of science is limited concerning the Cosmos. So what?!?!?!

We are not addressing the question of AI intelligence, and in and of itself is not consciousness yet.

Meaningless assertion as per topic of consciousness in the animal kingdom including home sapiens.

Meaningless assertion. Animals with complex nervous systems and consciousness physically evolved from from life forms without complex nervous systems that lacked consciousness.

The question of belief in God or not, or which God you believe in. It is matter of the fact of the nature of animals with a complex nervous system have the attributes of consciousness and intelligence.

Science, nor I, propose that existence comes from non-existence. I would tell anyone that foolish notion.

The omnipresent Cosmos/God is alive and aware, else there could be no life of awareness anywhere.

Life cannot arise from no life. Awareness cannot come from unawareness. Something cannot come from nothing. All life forms on Earth derive their life and awareness from the underlying universal life and awareness. It is not rocket science!

 

[shunyadragon]

The omnipresent Cosmos/God is alive and aware, else there could be no life of awareness anywhere.

If God exists thisis obvious, but there is no objective evidence God or which exists.

Life cannot arise from no life. Awareness cannot come from unawareness. Something cannot come from nothing. All life forms on Earth derive their life and awareness from the underlying universal life and awareness. It is not rocket science!

No it is not rocket science. Failure to respond to factual science based posts. Science does not claim anything comes from nothing.

Continue to enjoy your dark damp stay in Plato's Cave based on intentional ignorance of science clinging to an ancient tribal agenda.

 

[metis]

The omnipresent Cosmos/God is alive and aware, else there could be no life of awareness anywhere.

Life cannot arise from no life. Awareness cannot come from unawareness. Something cannot come from nothing. All life forms on Earth derive their life and awareness from the underlying universal life and awareness. It is not rocket science!

Einstein believed it was likely that God was the energy of creation and therefore of all existence. Do you think that's possible?

 

[shunyadragon]

Einstein believed it was likely that God was the energy of creation and therefore of all existence. Do you think that's possible?

I do not believe Einstein proposed an anthropomorphic God was the energy of creation and therefore all of existence. His statement concerning were mostly anecdotal and vague at best with also statements negating the existence of Judeo Christian God.

More to follow. . . .

 

[metis]

I do not believe Einstein proposed an anthropomorphic God was the energy of creation and therefore all of existence. His statement concerning were mostly anecdotal and vague at best with also statements negating the existence of Judeo Christian God.

Correct. He also said he generally believed in "Spinoza's God", and I've mentioned Spinoza in numerous posts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Correct. He also said he generally believed in "Spinoza's God", and I've mentioned Spinoza in numerous posts.

If correct, Einstein never proposed that: "believed it was likely that God was the energy of creation and therefore of all existence."

 

[metis]

If correct, Einstein never proposed that: "believed it was likely that God was the energy of creation and therefore of all existence."

Yes, he did as I have 4 or 5 books about his view of God, thus I didn't invent this! Your assertion is nonsensical and so much based on arrogance., and this so often is your m.o. and I've had more than enough of it. One can NEVER be a scholar if and when they jump to conclusions as you have done on numerous occasions with me.

Bye.

Oh, for those maybe reading this and who are more down to Earth, here: Albert Einstein: Quotes on God, Religion, Theology

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No it is not rocket science. Failure to respond to factual science based posts. Science does not claim anything comes from nothing.

Continue to enjoy your dark damp stay in Plato's Cave based on intentional ignorance of science clinging to an ancient tribal agenda.

The universe is eternal, there is no direct proof that there was a beginning. The very idea of a beginning is absurd, not evolved awareness.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Einstein believed it was likely that God was the energy of creation and therefore of all existence. Do you think that's possible?

God is all that is, nothing does not exist. From the human perspective, there is a creator/unmanifest aspect of God and a creation manifested aspect, but the two are one. The manifested aspect of God is the material universe, including energy.

 

[shunyadragon]

The universe is eternal, there is no direct proof that there was a beginning. The very idea of a beginning is absurd,

Again, science does not propose a beginning of our physical existence.

not evolved awareness.

Assertion based on a religious agenda.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, science does not propose a beginning of our physical existence.

Assertion based on a religious agenda.

So then we are in agreement, there is no beginning to the universe, the universe is eternal.

The universe is alive and aware, if it is not self-evident to you then you will need to show me evidence that awareness can be created from something unaware.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams depends upon his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair.

 

[shunyadragon]

So then we are in agreement, there is no beginning to the universe, the universe is eternal.

True I am in agreement with science

The universe is alive and aware, if it is not self-evident to you then you will need to show me evidence that awareness can be created from something unaware.

This is your belief OK, but one of many subjective diverse and conflicting beliefs.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams depends upon his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair.

OK expression. I like the following better: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his or her religious beliefs depends upon his not understanding it."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

True I am in agreement with science

This is your belief OK, but one of many subjective diverse and conflicting beliefs.

OK expression. I like the following better: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his or her religious beliefs depends upon his not understanding it."

I don't do belief wrt the reality represented by the concept God, but you are free to believe I believe.

Ok. let's agree on "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams/beliefs depends upon his not understanding it."

 

[Pogo]

So then we are in agreement, there is no beginning to the universe, the universe is eternal.

The universe is alive and aware, if it is not self-evident to you then you will need to show me evidence that awareness can be created from something unaware.

ps. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams depends upon his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair.

More assertions without evidence of vague concepts without any logical structure to back them up beyond assuming the conclusion. Yawn.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't do belief wrt the reality represented by the concept God, but you are free to believe I believe.

Problem with understanding the above.

Ok. let's agree on "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary/exams/beliefs depends upon his not understanding it."

Actually I consider religious motivation inherited over generations is far more influential than the superficial salary and exams. As far as exams go if it is sound academics no problem understanding with a firm foundation. The many diverse conflicting ancient religious beliefs is far more problematic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Problem with understanding the above.

Actually I consider religious motivation inherited over generations is far more influential than the superficial salary and exams.

The ego self believes in soul, whereas the soul is one with the source of life and is not separate from the source, so it comes down to what you self identify with, the body or soul. So a novice spiritual devotee may believe in soul, the more spiritually evolved person will have experienced being united with the source so belief is no longer relevant. Iow, belief in God is only relevant until the union state has been realized, then is not needed any longer.