What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

This I do not disagree with. It's true that we experience reality THROUGH a consciousness, through a perception.

However, consciousness otherwise has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

And energy is a property of matter.

You're just regurgitating your paradigm.

We don't experience reality through consciousness; consciousness is Reality itself. But when it is shrouded via conceptual thought, we mistake the illusion of the world for Reality. That is what Science and Religion do, unwittingly, by creating models of reality, and then attempt to make reality conform to those models. Both fail miserably.

 

[godnotgod]

You only call such things 'woo' simply because your own consciousness has been conditioned into paradigm, though you are unaware of it. /QUOTE]

Sorry, but exactly the same thing could be said about you and about your ideas. You have been indoctrinated into believing that some sorts gods are involved with the creation of the universe, despite there being no evidences to support such creation by such a god, nor there even be evidences for the existence of such god in the first place.

Hmmmm....you must have me confused with someone else. When did I ever espouse a god and his creation?

This sentence could apply to you. Your consciousness cause nothing but knee-jerking reaction to accept only the possibly of there being a god, despite all evidences are contrary to the existence of a god.

You can't accept nature happening and evolving without a god, because your consciousness is nothing more than just a knee-jerking-pseudoscience-indoctrinate-faith. Evidences and logic and common sense just get thrown out the proverbial window for your world of wishful fantasy that there is a god.

You simply can't accept evidences, because actually looking at the evidences - honestly and without prejudices - would cause your faith, like a house of cards, to collapse.

I accept scientific evidence. That is not a problem for me. But science will never tell us what the true nature of reality is. It can tell us about how the universe behaves, and even predict its behavior. This is knowledge, but its own methodology condemns it in terms of real understanding.

I said that science is a conditioned or altered state of consciousness. I don't think you can deny that, first of all. But that does not automatically mean my consciousness is in an altered state. In order to detect an altered state of consciousness, one must be in an unaltered state. That is what we call 'awakening'.

Do you think there is such a state of conscious awareness that is pure and unaltered; that is to say, 'original'?

 

[godnotgod]

There's no reason to suppose that an emergent property has to have the same properties or metaproperties as the structure from which it emerges.

For instance, chess programs don't have spatiotemporal extension (not in a meaningful sense -- the visualization they provide does), you can't reach out and touch a chess program even if you can touch a silicon chip or laser disc or whatever.

But consciousness is beyond sensory perception. It is invisible, tasteless, odorless, silent, and intangible. It cannot be measured by or contained within any known thing. It exists outside of space, time, or causation, and is absolutely still.

So where is the bridge between the physical brain and consciousness? It's all in your head.

 

[godnotgod]

Everything goes back to one. What does one go back to?

Can you tell me what you see 'one' against?

 

[godnotgod]

The thing is, though, that it's impossible for the universe not to be logical because the negation of logic self-refutes. The universe is logical -- our perceptions of it might not be, the tools we use to describe it might not be, etc., but the universe is and must be logical to exist at all. Denying this self-refutes because it denies the efficacy of logic while using the efficacy of logic in order to make the denial, anyway.

What the universe isn't is intuitive. There's a difference between the universe being counterintuitive and the universe being illogical. The first is certainly the case, the second is not.

But in order for logic to exist, you must first have consciousness. So if, as you say, that the universe is logical, then you are also saying that it is conscious.

Logically speaking, you've just defeated your own logic.

Case closed.

footnote: if the universe is logical, then what is the logic of countless stars, infinite snowflake variety, etc.? The fact is that the universe is neither logical, nor illogical, because it is non-dual. That is why it is called the 'uni-verse'.

 

[godnotgod]

Nothing "is" energy, but if we haven't gotten this across to you by now, then it seems we never will.

When you talk about mass, energy, and matter, all you're doing is conceptually dissecting reality. The reality of a steel ball, for example, is singular. Everything about it is one event. What you call its mass and its energy are actually one reality. Before you talk about mass; before you talk about energy; when you simply observe the steel ball, it is one event, it is 'massenergy'. It is...

The same is true of what we call the 'physical' world and the 'spiritual' world. They are one and the same, but only seem different because of the conceptualization process, by which we split reality in two, and then proceed to actually believe they ARE two.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I don't prejudge ideas based on whether they "sound weird" or "go against the paradigm." I judge them based on my understanding of them.

The fad in theoretical physics right now is string theory, for instance, yet I'm not on board that train because I understand a thing or two about it -- including what's wrong with it. If I were a bandwagon paradigm rider, I'd be defending string theory rather than being skeptical since it's such the fashionable thing to do in physics these days.

If I call something woo, it's because I understand the position and know that it's pseudoscientific in nature, has shoddy metaphysics, isn't justified, etc.

True, there are false theories based on erroneous logic, but the mystical view is not based on science. So for you to say that you 'understand' the mystical view, which you call 'woo, means you would need to have a mystical experience.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you define "consciousness" please?

That which sees, without thought.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But in order for logic to exist, you must first have consciousness. So if, as you say, that the universe is logical, then you are also saying that it is conscious.

Logically speaking, you've just defeated your own logic.

Case closed.

footnote: if the universe is logical, then what is the logic of countless stars, infinite snowflake variety, etc.? The fact is that the universe is neither logical, nor illogical, because it is non-dual. That is why it is called the 'uni-verse'.

The Universe is Logical is not the same as saying that the Universe has Logic.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

What if it was less of a big bang and more of a big stirring spoon in a bowl of soup?

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Namaste

What if it was less of a big bang and more of a big stirring spoon in a bowl of soup?

Om Namah Sivaya

Well that would be quite frightening because Soup is made to be eaten/drank.

 

[Thief]

Can you have sentience without a sentient being?

There is no such thing as a wave.

There is no such thing as a river.

There is no such thing as a whirlpool.

There is no such thing as a thinker of thoughts called "I", a maker of things, or an agent of sentience.

There is no 'do-er'.

And you were using the word....delusional.....

 

[metis]

It's electrostatics, but your hands aren't polarized (well, okay, you do build up a slight excess of electrons but that's aside the point) -- to be polar, something has to have a dipole moment. For instance H2O has a dipole moment because of the angle at which the hydrogen atoms bond to the oxyen atom such that there's a definite, inherent negatively charged side and positively charged side. Your hands repel each other because their atoms are surrounded by electrons, which will obviously repel each other, but it's not because they have a dipole moment -- not because they're polar.

Here:

Ethane's still not going to pass through itself because the valence electrons will still repel each other -- but not because of polarity.


That's really awesome What kind of anthropology did you do? What were (are) your interests?

First of all, thanks a lot for your explanation.

As far as my anthropology experience, I started out mainly studying physical anthropology (human evolution) but then shifted over to cultural anthropology for my graduate degree. After completing this, I taught an introductory class in anthropology for roughly 30 years whereas I covered both, although about 2/3 of the time was on cultural.

In cultural, I did not specialize in any single area but in several because I needed to teach a broader scope, but my main areas were traditional Huron and Cheyenne societies (my ancestry is that of being a Me'tis (a French & Indian mix, although I was not brought up in the "tradition of the elders", as it's called), and mostly modern Middle Eastern culture. As a Jew, the latter item gradually took over more and more, and I've studied in the Middle East (1991 and 1999), including working on a dig just west of Jerusalem that was a Zealot-occupied site that was eventually destroyed by the Romans.

Have you any interest in either of these areas of study?

Shalom

 

[godnotgod]

The Universe is Logical is not the same as saying that the Universe has Logic.

Even if that were true, which it isn't, what is the origin of it's logic?

What determines that it is logical? You. And you are a conscious being who is the universe, though you fancy yourself an independent observer of an 'object' you call 'universe'.

 

[godnotgod]

Namaste

What if it was less of a big bang and more of a big stirring spoon in a bowl of soup?

Om Namah Sivaya

In either case, the divine must have been/is having a ball!

Thank you for 'Om Namah Sivaya'. I chant it sometimes. It is powerful and it works!

 

[Meow Mix]

You're just regurgitating your paradigm.

We don't experience reality through consciousness; consciousness is Reality itself. But when it is shrouded via conceptual thought, we mistake the illusion of the world for Reality. That is what Science and Religion do, unwittingly, by creating models of reality, and then attempt to make reality conform to those models. Both fail miserably.

Can you please succinctly, exhaustively, define what you mean by "consciousness is reality?"

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but that phrase doesn't mean anything to me. Please elaborate and be specific.

 

[Meow Mix]

But consciousness is beyond sensory perception. It is invisible, tasteless, odorless, silent, and intangible. It cannot be measured by or contained within any known thing. It exists outside of space, time, or causation, and is absolutely still.

So where is the bridge between the physical brain and consciousness? It's all in your head.

I agree that consciousness itself isn't physical. I'm not a physicalist/ontological empiricist.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say consciousness exists outside of space, time, or causation. A person's personality, awareness, cognitive abilities, etc. are very much subject to causal effects in terms of brain injury, disease, parasites, chemical imbalances, genetic disorders, and so on. That our minds mature as we age (hopefully ) is indicative that our consciousness changes, so it must be subject to time. And that all of this points to the brain as the seat of consciousness certainly suggests a connection to space.

 

[Slapstick]

It's an illusion of a higher order than what we ordinarily call an illusion. There are different levels of conscious awareness. When you are asleep and dream, that is the second level. The dream may seem real, but when you awaken, you see that it was illusory, even though you may experience dream thirst, hunger, pain, and pleasure. Awakening into the third level, that of Waking Sleep, or Identification, is to experience another dream world, though it seems perfectly real. This is still sleep, even though one thinks oneself perfectly awake. Only by entering the fourth level, that of Self-Transcendence, can one see the illusory nature of the third level, where most of mankind dwells.

Hitting your head on the keyboard does not confirm reality. It confirms your delusive state.

What confirms reality then? You can deny the inevitable, but you can’t just make it go away by saying it’s an illusion and matter doesn’t exist.

Not that I care at this point, but I would like for you to explain the difference between fictitious beliefs and reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you please succinctly, exhaustively, define what you mean by "consciousness is reality?"

Prior to thought, is there awareness?

 

[Meow Mix]

But in order for logic to exist, you must first have consciousness. So if, as you say, that the universe is logical, then you are also saying that it is conscious.

Logically speaking, you've just defeated your own logic.

Case closed.

footnote: if the universe is logical, then what is the logic of countless stars, infinite snowflake variety, etc.? The fact is that the universe is neither logical, nor illogical, because it is non-dual. That is why it is called the 'uni-verse'.

There are a couple of misunderstandings in this post. I'll try to just address those one at a time.

1) Logic doesn't require a consciousness to exist -- the laws of logic do, however. Humans do invent the words, the symbols, the syntax, the utterances, and so on in order to describe logic via laws. However, humans don't invent the things to which the laws of logic refer (which can be called "logic," or "logical facts," or "logical objects," whatever).

As a crude analogy, Earth exists regardless of whether there are any minds to look at it or not. Minds make up the word "Earth," they make up the practice of differentiating it from the rest of the universe as a distinct thing that has a name, and so on; but minds aren't responsible for it being there and minds aren't responsible for it being what it is.

That second part (things being what they are, regardless of minds) is logic (the thing). We invent laws and words and terms and symbols to describe logic, but "the laws of logic" aren't what logic is, they're referencing logic, which humans didn't create -- they discovered.

Consciousness is necessary to make laws about logic, but consciousness doesn't create or cause logic -- in fact, that would be self-contradictory; since logic is about things being self-consistent, about things being what they are and not what they are not. Saying consciousness creates logic is putting the cart before the horse, since in order for consciousness to be consciousness (rather than a horse or a transcendental number or whatever) logic would already have to be the case. So, no, consciousness isn't required for logic to exist -- though the mistake is understandable since consciousness is necessary for laws about logic to exist.

2) You ask, "what is the logic of countless stars, infinite snowflake variety, etc.?"

This is a nonsense question. Logic is simply to have limitation, to have self-consistency and external consistency: to be is to be something, to be something is to be that thing and not something else.

I think the word you're looking for with this second part is "reason" or something. Are you trying to ask "what is the reason for the countless stars," or "what is the reason for snowflakes having variety?" The word "logic" doesn't apply in the context you used it there at all.

As a fun side note for Star Trek fans, Spock always used the word "logical" incorrectly as well. What he meant to say 99% of the time was "reasonable." The terms mean entirely different things.