|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2003 : 09:32:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
I have to say that one cannot neccessarily dismiss the god hypothesis based only on absurdity, except when theists are kind enough to describe various properties of god, such as benevolence, which can be esaily countered. When it comes to a sort of "first mover" hypothesis, it becomes very difficult to argue it either way. How can we know that there was not an intelligent "mover" which started the big bang?
Indeed. That's why we call ourselves "skeptics," rather than "cynics." 
quote:
Can ultra come up with some sort of definition of "god"?
Actually, he probably can. What I'd really like to see is a definition of "God."
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
 |
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 09:53:12 [Permalink]
|
My first take on Ultra's statement was it's just another "God of the Gaps" argument; what we don't know must be god's miracle.
However, if what Ultra is trying to say is that the totality of the universe and beyond is "God", then isn't he just taking the label "God" (that, BTW, has already been used by others for something else) and putting it on his construct? Why not just call it Ralph? |
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 11:42:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Walt Fristoe
Anything that is just too absurd to exist simply cannot
That is simply your opinion. How do you define absurd? Life for example, has been found on this planet (bottom of the deepest oceans)where previously it was regarded as 'absurd' to suggest that it was possible for such creatures to exist.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W
If millions of people take drugs and sincerely experience the exact same thing as people who "experience God," does that mean that God is a hallucination?...Experiences of a divine or mystical nature occur within our brains, due to chemical shifts which can be brought on by drugs or a host of other influences.
I don't believe that your example renders God a 'hallucination'. The ingestion of drugs could result in a spiritual experience but that would simply be a trigger towards the experience itself, since many people have such experiences without the involvement of drugs. How would you explain those cases?
I will cite an example from NDE researcher Kevin Williams;
Such reductionism, may only be explaining the mechanism of the 'spiritual experience', not necessarily the experience itself. In the same way, it is possible to reduce a television set to its basic elements such as electrodes and tubes, but one cannot satisfactorily explain the television show being played on it using reductionist terms. Concerning the chemical basis of the experience and using this television analogy, if the brain can be thought of as a television set, then the experience can be thought of as the television show being played on it. Science maybe able to quantify everything concerning the television set components (i.e. the brain), but science is unable to satisfactorily quantify the television show being played on it (i.e. the spiritual experience)."
I will paraphrase a quote from Dr. Ken Ring;
"Does the brain state associated with the onset of an spiritual experience explain the experience or does it merely afford access to it?"
You may argue that we need objective scientific 'proof' of such experiences. However, conversely, it could be argued that nothing is ever truly objective anyway.
What is objective reality?
quote:
Originally posted by Antie
You know, Ultramundane sounds a lot like the author of this article:
http://www.geocities.com/kainospress/answersquestions.html
Well...I don't share his belief in Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
I wasn't mocking at all, sorry if it seemed like that.
Apology accepted Slater.
It's only now, years after my high school education, that I have developed an interest in science & can now look back with regret that the topic wasn't covered.
I will check out 'Climbing Mount Improbable', thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
you had the nerve to pretend you never mentioned God!
Show me an instance to support your claim.
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 11:47:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
quote:
Originally posted by walt fristoe
[Any being worthy of the title '[G]od' must at least be omnipotent (other 'omni's may or may not be necessary).
Professor Andrei Linde of Stanford Universitry believes that the laws of quantumn theory may allow scientists to play at being God themselves, creating new universes in the laboratory - at least in theory.
I would respond that 'playing at being God' is not the same as actually being God. Is it your contention that our universe is the product of 'meta-scientists' in a larger 'meta-universe'? Or are you merely suggesting that it is theoretically possible? I don't think this is more than idle speculation, which doesn't seem to me, at least, to advance the argument for God's existence at all.
But perhaps if we could settle on a definition of the term 'God' we might be able to generate a more fruitful dialogue. Are we discussing the Christian God? or the god of Spinoza? Exactly what attributes does God possess? What is He/She/It composed of?
Until we have a working definition we will just be arguing in circles. |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 11:57:56 [Permalink]
|
| Peter O'toole said, "When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and suddenly realized I was talking to myself." |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
| Edited by - walt fristoe on 03/13/2003 16:00:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 13:44:04 [Permalink]
|
Ultramundane wrote:quote:
I don't believe that your example renders God a 'hallucination'. The ingestion of drugs could result in a spiritual experience but that would simply be a trigger towards the experience itself, since many people have such experiences without the involvement of drugs. How would you explain those cases?
Didn't I make it clear that it was not just drugs which I was talking about? Researchers have been able to measure similar brain states for drug use and deep meditation, both of which trigger many mystical experiences. What the claimants (those who claim that experiences of God are actually experiences of God) need to show is that God exists.
Until they demonstrate that, there's no reason to believe that something odd is going on. The similarity of the experiences suggests they are caused by the same strange functions of the brain, and not of God. Or is there some reason we should not apply Occam's Razor to these theories?
Dr. Ken Ring also assumes that God exists, making that quote just a re-statement of the faulty premise.
Oh, the argument of that NDE researcher is clearly missing the point: if I see the same episode of "I Love Lucy" playing on a TV and playing on a bare living room wall, the content of the show is not what I'm interested in. I want to know how it gets projected onto the wall. The analogy, from what we've been discussing so far in this thread, is that the choice becomes "either God is displaying that episode, or there's a projector around here somewhere." I'm much more inclined to believe the latter than the former. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 17:33:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
quote:
Originally posted by Walt Fristoe
Anything that is just too absurd to exist simply cannot
That is simply your opinion. How do you define absurd? Life for example, has been found on this planet (bottom of the deepest oceans)where previously it was regarded as 'absurd' to suggest that it was possible for such creatures to exist.
I think you're correct in this assessment. One man's absurdity is another man's diety. I guess it may be, after all, a matter of opinion.
Life has, indeed, been found to thrive in extreme environments, which had been considered implausible, but not necessarily absurd. Are the two words synonymous? Not quite, though close. "Absurd", according to Random House Webster's Collegiate Dictionary means: utterly or obviously senseless; laughably foolish or false; whereas "implausible" means (same source): not plausible; causing disbelief. It was also once considered implausible that rocks could fall from the sky. It has since been found that not only is the idea plausible, but that falling rocks have likely had a profound influence on the developement of life on earth.
Now, rocks falling from the sky was at least physically possible, since 'rocks exist', and 'the sky exists'. It was merely that the juxtaposition of 'rocks' and 'sky' was a conceptual leap that needed demonstration before it could be accepted. Such demonstration was eventually forthcoming, providing ample physical evidence that rocks do actually fall from the sky. The same holds true with your example of extremophiles; it was known that 'life' physically existed, and that 'extreme environments' existed; it was only the juxtaposition of the two that lacked demonstration, which has now occured.
It is my opinion that the idea that 'God exists' is not just implausible, but 'utterly, obviously, senseless', which makes it absurd. I will predict, right now, that no physical evidence will ever be forthcoming that will demonstrate God's existence.
And yet, I could be wrong; does that make me an agnostic? I don't think so. Admitting that I could be wrong is nothing more than acknowledging my status as a fallible human being.
As for my earlier post concerning Invisible Pink Unicorns, I just want you to know that I did not make it up for satirical purposes. Some people do claim to believe in IPUs I could have chosen any number of other examples, e.g., leprechauns, Shiva, ghosts, etc., that many honest, sane, intelligent people do claim to have experienced. But claiming to have experienced something and being able to convince me (or anyone else) that the experience represents actual entities are two different things. It requires more than just saying "I know it was real!"
And please don't think that I am attacking you personally. I'm just tryng to have a stimulating dialogue, in the hope that I might learn something that I didn't know before. And besides, this is fun!
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
| Edited by - walt fristoe on 03/11/2003 17:34:40 |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 00:38:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
I will cite an example from NDE researcher Kevin Williams;
Such reductionism, may only be explaining the mechanism of the 'spiritual experience', not necessarily the experience itself. In the same way, it is possible to reduce a television set to its basic elements such as electrodes and tubes, but one cannot satisfactorily explain the television show being played on it using reductionist terms. Concerning the chemical basis of the experience and using this television analogy, if the brain can be thought of as a television set, then the experience can be thought of as the television show being played on it. Science maybe able to quantify everything concerning the television set components (i.e. the brain), but science is unable to satisfactorily quantify the television show being played on it (i.e. the spiritual experience)."
I will paraphrase a quote from Dr. Ken Ring;
"Does the brain state associated with the onset of an spiritual experience explain the experience or does it merely afford access to it?"
These researchers, and the analogies they use depend on the old "software-hardware" analogy of brain function. In this paradigm, the brain is the hardware, and the experience of consciousness the software. Although popular, it is just an analogy. Current views in neurology suggest the identity position. Here, neurochemical brain functioning (on a neural level) is concurrent and indistinct from the experience of consciouness. We do not experience neurons firing, instead, we experience that which has been classified as "consciousness".
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
Although science doesn't realize it, once it embarks upon this exploration and begins to delve into deep mind, it is going to find itself confronting the one thing it has avoided and denied for so long - the nature of God.
Huh? The author states that science is yet to explore the "deep mind", but also states that he knows what science will find there!! How does he know this? This seems like plain old thumb sucking and unsupported argumentation to me. Again, skeptics prefer to see what is out there, rather than believing people who claim, without evidence, to know what is out there.
Also, science has not denied or avoided the nature of god. It cannot investigate god because the definition of god is simply too vague or unfalsifiable to investigate! When god is defined, little to no evidence is provided to back up such definitions- again, a requirement for productive scientific debate.
Are you going to hazard a definition of god, Ultramundane? Before you do, I don't know why your arguments which beg the question of such a definition should be taken seriously.
|
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
Ultramundane
New Member
16 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 06:49:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
Also, science has not denied or avoided the nature of god. It cannot investigate god because the definition of god is simply too vague or unfalsifiable to investigate! When god is defined, little to no evidence is provided to back up such definitions- again, a requirement for productive scientific debate.
Are you going to hazard a definition of god, Ultramundane?
Ok, I've been pondering your question. To move anywhere with such a debate it is crucial to be as clear as possible about the meaning of "god" (e.g., "supraphysical creator of the universe" or, perhaps, "natural purposeful creative force intrinsic to all of nature").
But we would be naive, I believe, to rely on the intellect (or our senses) as sufficiently robust epistemological tools for deciding the issue one way or another. Kant demonstrated this a few centuries ago.
Many of the responses so far in this thread reveal to me what seems like a relatively shallow view of epistemology: an unquestioned acceptance that reason and sensory empiricism are the only valid avenues to truth. Kant demolished that one a long time ago, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W
Researchers have been able to measure similar brain states for drug use and deep meditation, both of which trigger many mystical experiences.
The argument about mystical experiences being merely brain-generated events is very weak indeed - and ultimately self-defeating. For if we accept that particular objection (that mystical experiences are reduciable to electrochemical events in the brain), exactly the same objection can then be laid at ANY experience whatsoever - including all experiences that underly neuroscience and all knowledge we have about the operations of the brain and the rest of the physical universe. Furthermore, even if specific neuronal behaviors are implicated in the kind or quality or content of any or all mystical experiences (or, again, ANY experience), that still leaves unaccounted the very fact of experience itself.
We never directly experience the world around us. All we ever know are the contents of consciousness, the thoughts, feelings, perceptions and sensations that appear in the mind. This one fact leads to a radical rethinking of the relationship between consciousness and reality.
According to Peter Russel;
Kant held that there is an underlying reality, but we never know it directly. All we can ever know is how it appears in our minds.
All that I perceive–all that I see, hear, taste, touch and smell–has been reconstructed from sensory data. I think I am perceiving the world around me, but all that I am directly aware of are the colors, shapes, sounds and smells that appear in the mind.
Every man's world picture is and always remains a construct of his mind, and cannot be proved to have any other existence. - Erwin Schrödinger
Russell continues;
Our perception of the world has the very convincing appearance of being "out there" around us, but it is no more "out there" than are our nightly dreams. In our dreams we are aware of sights, sounds and sensations happening around us. We are aware of our bodies. We think and reason. We feel fear, anger, pleasure and love. We experience other people as separate individuals, speaking and interacting with us. The dream appears to be happening "out there" in the world around us. Only when we awaken do we realize that it was all just a dream–a creation in the mind.
When we say "it was all just a dream" we are referring to the fact that the experience was not based on |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 07:49:07 [Permalink]
|
Ultramundane wrote (quote in bold):God?
Sorry for taking so long before posting, but I'd like to address some of what you wrote in your first post in the thread. Somehow I feel that the nit-picking about "There is no absolutes" is distracting you from the initial questions.
Quantum Mechanics might replace God but how could a random fluctuation of energy deliver a universe with everything just right to produce human consciousness?
The question to that is "the antropic principle". If the initial parameters hadn't been the way they are, we wouldn't have existed, and consequently, we would not have been able to ask the question.
Why these forces, this maths?
That's what scientists are trying to figure out.
A theory of 'everything' has yet to be discovered. Such a theory argues that there is only '1' typical universe.
How can you say such a theory argues... when you just stated that it is yet undiscovered? Once discovered, the theory of everything might say there are 9 typical universes.
Where does the quantum vacuum come from, for example?
"Quantum vacuum" sounds like a place where quantum fluctuation does not happen. To my knowledge there is no such place. Do you mean "quantum fluctuations in vacuum" as in the 'vacuum of space' like between Earth and the Moon, or in a thermos?
Perhaps the rational order & beauty of the universe is simply an expression of a divine mind?
No. What we perceive as order and beauty is just an random effect. Entropy is steadily increasing in the universe, but that doesn't mean that local areas can not achieve higher order than average: The higher order of matter that is us, comes with the cost of our sun using up it's energy by radiating.
Proposing an infinite number of universes has shocking consequences - it means inescapably, that our physics is just one chance set of laws in one chance universe. The only reason that scientists are studying it was because by chance, it created them.
Eh... Yes? Is that so bad? Why do you think that is such a shocking consequence? It is supported by the antropic principle. If there wasn't infinite universes to choose from, and ours just having the right properties, it could be interpreted as you implied that there is a mind behind it. But then I also have to accept that my life is a consequence of that mind. And that there is a mind behind all the shitty things that has happened to me and my loved ones. I once believed in God, but as I came to the realization that there was no God believing in me, so I gave it up.
Ultramundane, some, if not many of your arguments in this thread are similar to another user on the forum. Darwin-something. He was also a lot into nit-picking (il)logical constructs like "there is no absolute truth".
The concept of evolution and natural selection was lost on him, just as it is on many fundamentalistic religious people, or just people who have been brought up by, or educated by such people.
The behaviour of the Jewel Wasp that you brought up is just the kind of argument "fundies" make when they argue for an Intelligent Design. That's why some of the members said they'd heard it before, thinking you were that Darwin-person or otherwise doubting your sincere desire to learn more science.
By accepting the possibility that the stuff you have been taught at the religious school is wrong is the first of many steps towards wisdom. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 08:31:48 [Permalink]
|
Regarding God being a fictional character versus Invisible Pink Unicorn...
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
First of all, the biggest problem with this argument is that what people actually experience is NOT the same thing as what you have deliberately made up for satirical purposes. To compare the two is ludicrous and illogical.
On the contrary, the comparison is made to show that both the concept of God and the concept of the Invisible Pink Unicorn are ludicrous
quote:
Since you have never really experienced invisible pink unicorns yourself, it is obvious that you are deliberately making up something fictitious to put down something you don't believe in while the experiencer or claimant is not. Since you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns yourselfelf, it is pointless as well as inconsiderate to compare that to what people genuinely believe and experience. Of course, just because someone genuinely believes something doesn't make it true, but to compare an honest person to a deliberate fraud is not a valid comparison.
If like spiritual experiences for example, there were millions of credible intelligent people out there claiming to have seen or experienced invisible pink unicorns then this comparison would have some merit. But there aren't, so this comparison is without merit.
The significant difference between experiencing God, the divine, or the mystical, and the fictional example of invisible pink unicorns is that throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with the former which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said for invisible pink unicorns.
Let's do an experiment. Let's exchange the entity God for the entity Santa Claus in the text above and see how it works?
quote:
If like spiritual experiences for example, there were millions of credible intelligent people out there claiming to have seen or experienced invisible pink unicorns then this comparison would have some merit. But there aren't, so this comparison is without merit.
The significant difference between experiencing Santa Claus , the divine, or the mystical, and the fictional example of invisible pink unicorns is that throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with the former which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said for invisible pink unicorns.
Millions of children firmly believes that Santa actually exist. They see proof of it every time they look at the toy they got for christmas. Those children's parents are not very different than priests who reinforce the believers' belief that they have had a divine experience.
quote:
The bottom line is that while it is true that no one can disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, the evidence to support Santa Claus, for example, although mostly anecdotal, is vastly greater, more significant, more relevant, and more sincere than the evidence to support invisible pink unicorns and other fictitious examples that you deliberately make up.
Santa Claus works here too. It is said that 'Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder' the same goes with t |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 09:27:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ultramundane
The idea that god would have to be fully accounted for in the equation E=mc2 reveals a very simplistic understanding of the nature of reality. We also know that mind or consciousness is nonphysical, in the sense that it is nonsptaial - mind does not occupy space. We cannot measure it, it has no extension or volume or size, it is non-objective - all of which make it nonphysical.
A guy I know hit his head badly in a car accidet. A part of his physical brain got dammaged, and the guy's mind was never the same after that. Almost apathetic, and non-careing for himself. From this I deduce that mind and consciousness are a function of the specific connections of neurons. Without the physical there is no mind. Without energy being transmitted between different objects of matter (neurons) there is no thought. The energy is physical, hence mind and consciousness is physical.
quote:
If consciousness is nonphysical then it cannot be a form of energy (because all energy occupies some kind or degree of space, and therefore is physical). So the equation E=mc2 is a complete nonsequitur in the debate about the existence of god.
I personally think that E=mc² is relevant, as energy is involved in the point I just made above.
Edit: formatting |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/18/2003 17:10:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2003 : 17:22:26 [Permalink]
|
Ultramundane wrote:quote:
The argument about mystical experiences being merely brain-generated events is very weak indeed - and ultimately self-defeating. For if we accept that particular objection (that mystical experiences are reduciable to electrochemical events in the brain), exactly the same objection can then be laid at ANY experience whatsoever - including all experiences that underly neuroscience and all knowledge we have about the operations of the brain and the rest of the physical universe.
Well, see, there's the thing: neurology and psychiatry and other sciences of the brain are firmly rooted upon the idea that experiences, feelings, thoughts, etc. are all caused by the biochemical goings-on within the brain itself.
It's funny that you think that this invalidates these sciences. After all, what makes a science a science is that other people can do the same research and "experience" the same results. If, as you imply, everyone got wildly different results simply because the "equipment" is fautly, science wouldn't work and I wouldn't be here talking about it.
The "very weak indeed" argument is that the basis of a science invalidates that science.
quote:
Furthermore, even if specific neuronal behaviors are implicated in the kind or quality or content of any or all mystical experiences (or, again, ANY experience), that still leaves unaccounted the very fact of experience itself.
Why? What's missing? People experience an abnormal brain chemistry, and think they've seen God. There is, of course, zero evidence that they've actually seen God.
quote:
We never directly experience the world around us. All we ever know are the contents of consciousness, the thoughts, feelings, perceptions and sensations that appear in the mind. This one fact leads to a radical rethinking of the relationship between consciousness and reality.
According to Peter Russel...(snip)
We can delve into the depths of solipsism for weeks and get nowhere. That's why there haven't ever been many people who profess to be solipsists. Talk about your self-defeating arguments: I can't prove that you or Peter Russel exist, ever, so why should I bother listening to either of you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2003 : 02:53:06 [Permalink]
|
Replying to Ultramundane
But we would be naive, I believe, to rely on the intellect (or our senses) as sufficiently robust epistemological tools for deciding the issue one way or another. Kant demonstrated this a few centuries ago.
Indeed, but Kant also criticized the Hegelian metaphysical "world system" in his critique of pure reason. If you fail to define an entity you claim to be part of reality, or meta-reality for that matter, you are going into the realm of metaphysics. Metaphysical claims are even harder to justify given the limitations of both reason and empirical data.
I'm not sure why it should be so objectionable to define what you mean by "god". If people have mysterious experiences which they cannot explain, why necessarily label them "god" and not just "mysterious experiences I cannot explain". By labeling them "god", a positive claim is made, which requires some sort of justification. Even if the most vague of linguistic principles are adhered to, some substantive reason is required for this truth-claim.
The argument about mystical experiences being merely brain-generated events is very weak indeed - and ultimately self-defeating... exactly the same objection can then be laid at ANY experience whatsoever
Good point. Well argued. However, the identity position avoids this sort of causal confusion. Brain activity and conscious experience (i.e. "mind") are concurrent and equivalent.
...how can we be sure there is a physical reality behind our perceptions? There is no sound in the physical reality; pressure waves in the air, perhaps, but no sound... Our eyes, for example, are sensitive only to light in the narrow frequency range from 430,000 to 750,000 gigahertz (a gigahertz is a billion cycles per second). At lower frequencies are infrared (below red) radiation, and lower still are microwaves and radio waves. At higher frequencies we find ultraviolet (above violet) rays, and beyond them X-rays and gamma-rays. Our eyes detect none of these other frequencies, and our image of reality represents but a tiny fraction of what is there..etc.
Now here you make some good points. Indeed, I agree that labels we use in science and everyday descriptions are not the "things-in-themselves", but rather theoretical descriptions. But you go astray by using physical evidence to back up your notion of us not seeing all of reality. If you deny the accuracy of empirical data and the possibility of apprehending the "world out there" as Kant did, then you surely cannot use scientific data to back up your augment. The fact that we "know" of gama-waves etc. is based on the presumed accuracy of our empirical observations which are believed to be reflections of the world out there. So, you can't make a claim denying this epistemology using the very epistemology you have just denied! (hope that came out clearly).
How is it possible that consciousness exists in an otherwise physical universe? Some would argue that the fact of consciousness is itself sufficient evidence for what others sometimes refer to as "god."
Yeah, but some would argue just about anything to justify what is essentially a positive truth claim about something which, more often than not, undermines the very idea of truth. That aside, an alternative explanation of consciousness is that it is not an ethereal "substance" but rather a basic property of matter in our universe. This accords very well with what cognitive scientists are presently discovering about the link between brain and mind. It also explains why it is virtually impossible to solve the old mind-matter puzzle. Only if mind is seen as a substance and not a property of matter does this puzzle raise its ugly head.
To illustrate: Nobody can tell you why matter has mass for instance (on a metaphysical level). Sure we can define mass as related to the atomic structure of elements, etc., but after deeper inquiry, you cannot explain why this is so. It just is. That's the way the laws of nature work in our universe. Now philosophers like Chalmers reckon that consciousness is just such a property of matter. When matter is arranged in particular (complex) ways, consciousness is the result. Mind is therefore a property of matter, and cannot be explained as a substance in itself!
If consciousness is nonphysical then it cannot be a form of energy
Exactly. It is a property of matter. The equation E=mc2 does not then directly apply to it, as it does not deal with the complexity of arrangement of said matter.
someone reporting having an experience of god may be deluded (whatever that means). But that doesn't change the fact of what they have experienced.
No it does not. But what exactly can we say of our own experience? If Kant is correct, we should be very cautious of the claims we make based on our own external (empirical) and internal (rational) perceptions. If so, it seems awfully presumptuous to make the leap from "mysterious experience I have no category for" to "being which created the universe and is now communicating with me". Unless, of course those two categories are seen as semantically similar. But then "god" is nothing more than a synonym for "something we cannot explain".
Sorry for the long reply. I know it is difficult to read through all this stuff. I just find the topic irresistible! Also, kudos to you Ultramundane- you provide stimulating discussion points!
|
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
