The "consciousness without (subjective) mind" then becomes the physical laws of the universe--materialism.
-
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!
What is objective?
- Thread starter David T
- Start date
godnotgod
Thou art That
Does a mirror think about what it reflects?
Behind everything you have just stated, and everything that scientists investigate via 'objectivity', is consciousness, which you and they put your trust in without the ability to test its veracity in a scientific way. Even if you were able to to so, you would be utilizing consciousness in that effort. The problem here is consciousness being an object of itself, which I don't see as being possible.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
No. Consciousness does not 'become' anything. It is simply playing itself as 'the world'. It's just an illusion. The gold in a gold chain does not 'become' a gold chain. It remains gold at all times. Only form has changed. We must be careful not to confuse form with 'things'. In the same manner, consciousness (ie Brahman; Tao; The Void; Sunyata; The Changeless, etc) has not 'become' the world; it's consciousness, playing itself AS the world.
The notion that there are 'physical laws of the universe' was inherited by science from theology, except that science simply dropped the idea of a 'law-maker'. In reality, what we see and experience are not so much 'laws', as patterns.
Quantum physics cannot find any solid 'material' at the base of what makes up the atom. 99.9999% of it is empty space. It is this empty space which scientists are now looking into as the source of what we call 'the material world'. Here is a tantalizing taste of the new physics:
Last edited:
Of course not.
Of course, consciousness is not being an object unto itself. Likewise, it is a 'subjective' assumption that everything is consciousness underlies your argument, which does not work. The objectivity of the evidence of our physical existence works beautifully and consistently. That is why our computers work well, we correspond on the internet, and airplanes fly. The problem with your claim is that it is based on a 'subjective' assumption of a vedic religious belief like Buddhism or one of many variations of Hinduism.
This relationship in and of itself remains a claim of a religious belief. There is no objective verifiable evidence that you can equate physical laws with consciousness. This is a bit confusing, and needs some explanation.
The objective verifiable evidence demonstrates that the physical existence simply exist without origin nor cause.
Oh, I agree. I was following another poster's premise that "everything is consciousness" to a logical conclusion. Yes, this conclusion was a creation of my subjective, sentient mind.
I agree that Consciousness does not become anything. The problem comes with trying to define what consciousness is from the subjective religious perspective.
I have two objections to this.
First, from the Vedic and Taoist perspective of trying to define something, consciousness, that cannot be defined, because from the Vedic and Taoist the Brahman, Tao, the void or the shunya simply exist without a possible human explanation.
I do not consider the 'physical laws of the universe' inherited from theology. It evolved from the practical human experience on testing the physical world for useful purposes. The nature of Methodological Naturalism is the foundation of science as only applying to the objective nature of our physical existence and not to apply to the subjective beliefs of the mind only such as those theological beliefs.
Actually, this a misrepresentation of how Quantum Mechanics describes 'empty space.'
Quantum mechanics describes what appears as 'empty space' as the state of Quantum zero-point energy where the energy exists in a potential state, and though not yet completely clear the world of Quantum Gravity.
godnotgod
Thou art That
With the experience of suffering.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The limit of the objective is what can be verified by objective evidence of the physical that may be falsified by theories and hypothesis.
All science and the technology of our world is dependent on this understanding of the objective.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So, objective evidence would also need to be verified by objective evidence which would need to be verified by objective evidence...
It's turtles all the way down.
Take away subjective, and you've also taken away its only contrast: objective.
What's left is the world.
No, the objective evidence stands on its own, and it is the theories and hypothesis that are verified. It is the theories and hypothesis that are dependent on the 'objective evidence.' Further thesis and hypothesis would be dependent on further objective evidence.
The turtles hangout in Hilbert's hotels
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So, then, what is the "limit of the objective" that you were referring to? Your separate posts are inconsistent - at least as written, so I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.
http://www.ivtnetwork.com/sites/default/files/What Is Objective Evidence.pdf
"Objective evidence is what one observed, what actually happened, or what did not happen. In science, test methods and objective data are documented to allow others to perform the tests and compare results (objective evidence). By this method, others can objectively determine whether the conclusions are valid.
DEFINITIONS REVIEWED The following are some example definitions of “objective evidence” from literature and other sources:
• “Information based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.” This is a business type look at objective evidence.
• “Real evidence, also known as demonstrative or objective evidence; this is naturally the most direct evidence.” This is a legal definition.
• “Objective evidence is data that shows or proves that something exists or is true. Objective evidence can be collected by performing observations, measurements, tests, or by using any other suitable method.” This definition comes from the International Organization for Standardization’s Plain English definitions.
• “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical, and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.” This is how objective evidence is defined for science."
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Golly gee, thanks mister.
I'll just assume that the initial post I commented on was a mistake on your part that you just didn't want to rectify or address.
I think of objective information as anything that seems reliable, repairable and reproducible, sort of like asphalt roads, door hinges etc. To a lesser extent facts can be objective. Even feelings can be considered objective sometimes if you are in touch with your feelings.
Last edited: