Western Materialism

[Heyo]

Yes, me too. Maybe they don't understand either one at all.

It isn't necessarily gods which are incompatible with science but an attribute that is commonly associated with gods, magic (or miracles).
In science there are no miracles, everything has a natural explanation that can be found by science. That's the creed of science.
If you have a god that can or has worked outside of the laws of nature, there is an unbridgeable conflict. The only god that is compatible with science is a Deos, a non intervening god.

 

[F1fan]

To say it was possible is self-evident. It's only meaningless to you, because saying it supports a view contrary to your materialist view of existence.

How? You'd have to be a Creator for it to be evident. You aren't a god, are you? You don't know that matter was created or caused, do you? You are guessing because that is what your religious assumptions are. It's most likely that matter has always existed. That is the most likely assumption. Why? Because how do you explain any alternative without evidence? You can't, you have to assume more things.

Prior to the Bing Bang, matter didn't exist.

No, there was a singularity. A super dense mass. This is explained in any source you care to read. The matter wasn't in the same form after the expansion. But the stuff existed.

In fact, even in the very earliest moments after the Big Bang began it didn't yet exist. But the possibility for it to exist was written into the nature of the event, from even before it took place, and so matter came to exist. And it came to exist in very specific ways.

The four forces began to work, and the laws of physics also began to work on the atms. But the matter was already there, and as the singularity expanded it was in the form of helium and hydrogen atoms.

Why?

Because that is how it is. The laws of physics are part of the universe as it expanded from the singularity.

Why THOSE laws and no others?

Because it's these laws, and not others.

Again, the answer is self-evident. Because those laws are the expression of what was/is possible and what is not. But what is creating/determining these possibilities and limitations? Yes, we "see" the laws. We see the physical machinations expressing what is possible and what is not. But we know nothing at all of why or how they are happening. Just pointing at them and calling them "laws" doesn't explain anything.

More of your flawed "possibility" nonsense. Things are as they are, and you don't seem comfortable with that.

Based on the self-evident fact that it now exists. And on the fact that is far as we can tell, it came into existence with the Big Bang.

You don't understand that energy/matter already existed. More flawed thinking. Just get the facts right, and then come back with adjusted views.

Except that no energy was being expressed prior to the Big Bang,

Actually no one knows what happened before the event, so you are incorrect yet again.

and from then on, it has been expressed as the universe we exist within. So apparently, this "rule" only applies to the expressed energy of the Big Bang, and within the universe that we exist within. The origin of all that energy is still a mystery to us, but it appears that it was not always thus extant. So this rule is not the absolute rule that you are trying to portray it as being.

We can't know if it always existed or if there was some other phenomenon where it was caused somehow. In any event we can only make assumvtions, and the fewest assumptions are superior. That's that energy always existed.

That is the million-dollar question. How do we even comprehend "existence" prior to the existence of all that we know to exist? This is a mystery that is simply beyond our cognitive reach. And yet the mystery remains. And it remains fundamental to understanding what existence is.

One thing for sure, there's no reason to think religions got it correct. So being neutral and rejecting religious assumptions is a wise thing to do.

 

[1137]

Well I'm not sure, but I tend to think that if conciousness is transmitted such that could transfer past life memories for example then it would mean that conciousness is kind of like the cloud where memories are stored.

If only we had a means to turn the receiver off keeping it in tact then able to restore its link to its conciousness then its conciousness should be able to transmit the missing memories of our concious experiences that occurred while the receiver was turned off.

Well the good news is we can turn the brain (alleged reciever) off using anaesthetic (i have been under anaesthesic myself during a hospital procedure), the bad news is that except for where only a partial state of anaesthetic has been achieved patients will have no recollection of what happened or even of the passage of time while they were under anaesthetic.

Personally I think this may count as evidence against the idea that brains are merely the passive recipient of conciousness.

Then there is the research on how memory is actually stored in the brain;

How are memories formed?

Memories are formed by changing the connections between neurons.

qbi.uq.edu.au

It could be that brain memory is redundant, but one wonders why this redundancy evolved if there was no selection pressure in favour of it (which I wouldn't expect there to be if we could rely on transmitted memory for survival).

I'm personally open minded to the existence of concious spirits, I'm just not convinced that there is clear evidence of their existence for what its worth.

Hey there! Came over from the other thread as requested. I do see where you're coming from here but would counter it this way:

First, and anecdotally, I'm not sure this is always true. I've been under anesthesia many times sadly, and in a few cases have had spiritual experiences I've remembered while under. Vaguely of course, and I'm sure you could easily disregard them as anecdotal, but I just thought I would share. I actually met another person who reported the same though we haven't talked much about it yet.

Second, I think it's possible they were indeed conscious or maybe even "somewhere else" but since the connection to the body was limited the body didn't store the information. Thuswhen you come back to the body you can't recall what happened, but I might theorize once you are, so, dead, you'll remember it all.

 

[PureX]

No, there was a singularity.

A meaningless term. We could have called that "singularity" Bob, and it would convey just as much informatiom.

A super dense mass. This is explained in any source you care to read. The matter wasn't in the same form after the expansion. But the stuff existed.

This is all just science fiction, with absolutely no basis in any version of testable reality.

The laws of physics are part of the universe as it expanded from the singularity.

They are the expression of what is existentially possible, and what is not, within the physical realm created by the Big Bang. We know nothing beyond that.

Because it's these laws, and not others.

Exactly. These "laws" express what is possible, and what is not possible. But what is determining this? How is this determination being imposed? And why? These are the most fundamental questions in science, philosophy, and religion, and yet we still have no idea what the answers are. Many of us can't even grasp or articulate what the real questions are.

Things are as they are,...

Well, that says exactly nothing.

Actually no one knows what happened before the event, so you are incorrect yet again.

How can I be incorrect if no one knows what is correct ... including you?

We can't know if it always existed or if there was some other phenomenon where it was caused somehow. In any event we can only make assumptions, and the fewest assumptions are superior.

Then no assumptions at all would be best we could do. Right?

That's that energy always existed.

So you are admitting that you're really just making this stuff up, as you have no idea what the origin or source of 'energy' is.

One thing for sure, there's no reason to think religions got it correct. So being neutral and rejecting religious assumptions is a wise thing to do.

Rejecting other people's assumptions in favor of your own is not being "neutral". It's called a blind (unfounded yet willful) bias.

 

[Ostronomos]

Yes but that just means a healthy body is likely to lead to a sense of wellbeing. It does not signify a distinction between mind and body. It’s just a saying, dreamt up by someone from our dominant Cartesian dualist tradition.

Chalmers’s view is dismissed by Pigliucci.

I am one of those in the same school of thought as Chalmers. In fact, I proved it.

 

[Ostronomos]

That would be what we often refer to as the "laws of physics", then, I suppose, or more generally the principles of order in the universe that we categorise in terms of "laws". Spinoza and Einstein's God, basically.

What omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience? The very thought invites the possibility.

 

[F1fan]

A meaningless term. We could have called that "singularity" Bob, and it would convey just as much informatiom.

You seem upset that the Big Bang wasn't a creation event and go off on this irrelevancy.

This is all just science fiction, with absolutely no basis in any version of testable reality.

So internet forum member @PureX is correct but Steven Hawking is incorrect?

They are the expression of what is existentially possible,

False, actual existing things actually exist. To refer to real things as possible is absurd.

and what is not, within the physical realm created by the Big Bang. We know nothing beyond that.

So we don't have any science? We don't know that heavier elements are forged in stars and explode into space?

Exactly. These "laws" express what is possible,

Matter behaves according to the laws.

and what is not possible.

How does this make sense?

But what is determining this? How is this determination being imposed? And why? These are the most fundamental questions in science, philosophy, and religion, and yet we still have no idea what the answers are. Many of us can't even grasp or articulate what the real questions are.

Looking for the ghost in the machine. We observe matter behave according to the physical laws, and there is no signs of intention.

Well, that says exactly nothing.

It says the truth which you have hostility towards. We all see that you prefer confusion and mystery.

How can I be incorrect if no one knows what is correct ... including you?

Not knowing what happened before the Big Bang is uncertain. That's it. Your previous comments suggest that matter was created, and before that that matter was a possibility. How could you know any of this when there is no evidence that you are correct?

Then no assumptions at all would be best we could do. Right?

We shouldn't make assumvtions that are unnecessary to help find the truth.

So you are admitting that you're really just making this stuff up, as you have no idea what the origin or source of 'energy' is.

There is no evidence that energy/matter was created. It most likely has always existed.

Rejecting other people's assumptions in favor of your own is not being "neutral". It's called a blind (unfounded yet willful) bias.

Sorry but there are rules of reasoning and disccourse, and that you prefer a conclusion that requires more assumptions than mine is why yours is inferior.

 

[PureX]

I’m not “upset”. But I’m not going to argue with anyone else’s willful ignorance, either. It’s just a waste of time.

 

[F1fan]

I’m not “upset”.

That's why I wrote upset and not "upset".

But I’m not going to argue with anyone else’s willful ignorance, either. It’s just a waste of time.

Oh the irony.

 

[paarsurrey]

Western Materialism​

One many like to read my post #25 in another thread, which, I understand, is relevant here also, please.

Regards