Question for Cris and James R.,if possible...

[Canute]

Nice post. And is it even worse than this? To me it seems that not only can nothing happen in timelessness but nothing can exist, (as asserted by Buddhists).

The idea of eternal time seems wrong to me, but I can't figure out the alternative, unless our current ideas about cause and effect are somehow wrong, which they don't seem to be.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Cris,

We now know that thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc can all be generated and affected by brain activity.

How are these generated by the brain?

There appears to be no place where a soul could reside or that it would have any meaningful function.

That depends on who or what activates activates the above mentioned activities.

The concepts of both souls and gods combine to offer an afterlife environment where the soul would reside after death, and there are of course numerous imaginative fantasies that revolve around this basic concept.

You have a very narrow view of the soul and God. I believe it is because you only see their existence in the context of institutionalised religions, purely dogmatic. I can understand you not wanting anything to do with such institutions. But knowledge of the soul and God goes beyond the veil of those institutions and can be understood through developed intelligence. I believe modern science (especially this subject) is begining to uncover the mystery of what is real or imagined fantasy.

Reincarnation is of course a variation where the god concept is usually unnecessary.

I understand where you are coming from but God is necessary in that He is creating, maintaining and destroying the mechanism which induces karmic activity resulting in reincarnation.

It seems likely that as we unravel the mysteries of the brain, which to date show no need of a non physical component,

Do you think the brains make up is entirely physical?

that we will reach a full understanding and the concept of a soul will fade into irrelevance.

I sense some wishfull thinking in that statement. Maybe because of religion?

The question is unanswerable – what does ‘god’ mean? It is just a fictional fantasy.

Are you a conspiracy theorist?

Only if it is left to itself. If it was controlled by an intelligence with the deliberate intention of maintaining the matrix for that intelligence then the implication is that immortality is a possibility.

The thing is, we will never know if that can occur.

That sounds like a contradiction.

But a very good point.

Then we need to transfer consciousness into a more resilient medium, say silicon that does not suffer the fragility of biological structures.

You've yet to explain what consciousness is?

Perhaps we will eventually evolve into a god.

A great philosopher once said; "the final act of madness for mankind is believing they themselves are God."

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

How are these generated by the brain?

You need to ask a neuroscientist. It is only sufficient for this discussion to know that that is a function of the brain.

That depends on who or what activates the above mentioned activities.

Read the text from Boris, it certainly isn’t a soul.

You have a very narrow view of the soul and God.

If you mean that I see them as both imaginary then OK, but no one can show otherwise.

But knowledge of the soul and God goes beyond the veil of those institutions and can be understood through developed intelligence.

Again that is but your fantasy.

I believe modern science (especially this subject) is begining to uncover the mystery of what is real or imagined fantasy.

What beginning? As yet there is absolutely zero evidence that suggests anything non-material, or that souls could or do exist or that gods do or could exist. All you have are imaginative fantasies and baseless speculations.

I understand where you are coming from but God is necessary in that He is creating, maintaining and destroying the mechanism which induces karmic activity resulting in reincarnation.

But again no factual basis, this is just fantasy.

Do you think the brains make up is entirely physical?

There is no reason to believe otherwise. The fact that we haven’t finished unraveling how it functions is no reason to create a fantasy medium to explain what we don’t know.

I sense some wishfull thinking in that statement. Maybe because of religion?

That I look forward to the day when the brain is fully understood is indeed a real expectation, and in my lifetime I hope. But religion is of the past, when ignorance and superstition were dominant, and can have no future significant value for mankind. What we need to do now is move forward with the knowledge we are beginning to acquire about our universe and our own physiology and begin to direct our own future evolution and take responsibility for our actions instead of expecting fantasies to help.

Are you a conspiracy theorist?

So can you define exactly the characteristics of a god, from facts?

The thing is, we will never know if that can occur.

That we can achieve immortality? Perhaps not since we can never prove infinity. But open-ended lifespans should be possible fairly soon if anti-aging research and technology continue on their current path.

You've yet to explain what consciousness is?

Perhaps in a later post. It wasn’t a term I introduced here.

A great philosopher once said; "the final act of madness for mankind is believing they themselves are God."

Did he foresee the future end result of evolution?

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Canute
The idea of eternal time seems wrong to me, but I can't figure out the alternative, unless our current ideas about cause and effect are somehow wrong, which they don't seem to be.

If you look at time from the view of dimensions, mathematicians have demonstrated the possibility of the existence of millions of dimensions. Our dimension of time would be one of those. Our time dimension could be considered as a derivative of the higher dimensions. Somewhat like a plane existing and then you draw a line in it. That line would be our time dimension. Time existing within time.

... I don't really find it difficult to view existence outside of time. Everything would just be static (all motion stops... time stops). Maybe that's what hell will be like; the perfect preventive method [no more evil actions]

 

[Jenyar]

The soul is what we call the sum of the parts; the synergy of a living body. That's a minimalist definition, but the most useful for scientific debate. That's what Boris missed.

Soul in the Jewish literature didn't refer to much more than the divine spark of life - the "breath" that was infused at its creation by God himself.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
I believe the term ‘god’ is so ill-defined that to say one does or doesn’t exist is significantly premature.

... And since I made the mistake of posting here again... I look on in awe and wonder.

The concept of a specific god tends to depend on human imagination and never on direct observation. The chances of such a fictional object with such bizarre properties, as alleged by institutions like Christianity, actually being a reality is not worth serious consideration. As Einstein said such ideas are childlike.

I would argue that all 'observations' stem from human imagination. Your brain has to interpret it before you can observe it. The latter part sounded like a criticism of quantum physics (quite destructive).

Then we need to transfer consciousness into a more resilient medium, say silicon that does not suffer the fragility of biological structures. We can then look for something better after that, and so on. Perhaps we will eventually evolve into a god.

O.k... I'm done.

 

[Canute]

Chris

This is getting confusing so I won't argue with you for now. It might sound as if I'm arguing for God or a soul, which I'm not.

I'll just say that your view on brain/consiousness (and Boris's) is completely unproved and lacks evidence to support it. The article by Chalmers that I posted above is a famous one and worth reading. Nothing has changed since it was written.

Cheers

Canute

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
Read the text from Boris, it certainly isn’t a soul.

Unfortunately, Boris doesn't have an idea as to what the soul is.

What beginning? As yet there is absolutely zero evidence that suggests anything non-material, or that souls could or do exist or that gods do or could exist.

Boris said; "The functional portion of the brain is composed of vast and very complex networks of a total adult average of 10,000,000,000 special cells called neurons.......

......but neurons are what actually does all the work of cognition. Neurons work by sending electrical impulses to other neurons, and accepting similar messages.

My question to you is; are these electrical impulses material or non-material?

All you have are imaginative fantasies and baseless speculations.

So you keep saying, but you cannot tell me for sure how the brain can create a room full of objects, the atlantic ocean, a rainforest etc etc.

But again no factual basis, this is just fantasy.

What facts do you have why you confidently call it fantasy?

So can you define exactly the characteristics of a god, from facts?

Can you eloborate on that?
I could have sworn i asked you if you were a conspiracy theorist.......

Did he foresee the future end result of evolution?

I suspect he understood the decline (and eventual end) in the four intelligent principles of austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfullness and a rise in lust, greed and envy, resulting in adherants believing; "I am the master/controler of all that i survey," which can only end in madness.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Canute,

I had some reference material I was studying before I responded to you.

This is getting confusing so I won't argue with you for now. It might sound as if I'm arguing for God or a soul, which I'm not.

OK, yes I understood that.

I'll just say that your view on brain/consiousness (and Boris's) is completely unproved and lacks evidence to support it.

For the moment I’ll let a sense of perspective prevail – that the equivalent processing power of 10,000 super computers squeezed inside your head are very likely doing something pretty amazing. To then say it isn’t proven is like claiming that I know I have an engine in my car but since I don’t know how it works I’m not going to claim it makes my car move, perhaps it’s magic.

The dots are very large and in a straight line and it is only a small inductive leap to join them up.

Remember also that the only reason people are being distracted by the concept of the non-material is primarily because of thousands of years of past deep-seated superstition that to date has no observational basis.

PS. It's Cris BTW.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

If you look at time from the view of dimensions, mathematicians have demonstrated the possibility of the existence of millions of dimensions.

That isn’t accurate. Dimensions beyond the reality of 3 are only mathematical concepts. They have not been demonstrated to be possible.

Everything would just be static (all motion stops... time stops).

That motions stops is fine but time still passes, and the ‘…time stops’ does not follow from that.

To say that something exists infers the passage of time. There is dispute as to whether time can be considered a 4th dimension, it is tempting but there are difficulties. However, if we do say an object is defined by its 4 dimensions then to remove one of them would mean the object cannot exist. E.g. if you remove length for example the object no long has any substance, i.e. it does not exist. Similarly for each of the other dimensions which will include time if you choose to define time as a dimension.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

The soul is what we call the sum of the parts; the synergy of a living body. That's a minimalist definition, but the most useful for scientific debate. That's what Boris missed.

That could be interpreted as a material entity and is nothing like the dualist concept of soul which dominates philosophical debates on the issue and which Boris was assuming, i.e. something non-material that influences and controls human behavior and that survives the death of the physical body.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Unfortunately, Boris doesn't have an idea as to what the soul is.

Of course not, it is imaginary and I suspect your imaginary idea of a soul will differ from Jenyar’s or a Buddhist, or a Hindu. But there is a common theme in that it is separate to the physical body, i.e. is immaterial, and Boris was arguing from that classic age-old dualist concept.

My question to you is; are these electrical impulses material or non-material?

Electrical impulses are material. Do you want to argue that electricity is not material?

you cannot tell me for sure how the brain can create a room full of objects, the atlantic ocean, a rainforest etc etc.

You mean how our imagination works, right? Why wouldn’t this be a function of the brain?

What facts do you have why you confidently call it fantasy?

Imagine someone living 3000 years ago and they look at the moon and imagine it is an object and fantasize about building a large arrow and a powerful bow that could shoot someone to the moon so that they could walk around on it. This is a fantasy. It ceased to be a fantasy in 1969.

In the same way the ideas of gods and souls are also fantasy ideas and will cease to be fantasies if a soul or a god is ever revealed to be actuality.

Can you eloborate on that?
I could have sworn i asked you if you were a conspiracy theorist.......

Sorry I had no idea how your question related to anything we were discussing.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Cris
Canute, For the moment I’ll let a sense of perspective prevail – that the equivalent processing power of 10,000 super computers squeezed inside your head are very likely doing something pretty amazing. To then say it isn’t proven is like claiming that I know I have an engine in my car but since I don’t know how it works I’m not going to claim it makes my car move, perhaps it’s magic.

I see your point, but I can't see that anything follows from it. Our brains are amazing, it is true. Also it is obvious that our everyday state of experience in each moment is largely determined by the physical state of it.

The problem is that nobody has yet found a way of arguing from phsyical brain states to conscious experience. Every argument has been tried, from saying that experiences are physical, illusory, epiphenomenal, supervenient, heterophenomenological, 40 Khz oscillations in the hippocampus, computational self-reference, dual substances, and others I've forgotten about. However none of these answers is considered to the right one except by a few isolated disciples in each case. There is no agreement at all about what the right answer is. The only general agreement is that we don't know it.

The qualia problem, the binding problem, the freewill problem, the origins problem, the evolutionary problem, none of these have been solved. The arguments bounce back and forth in the journals but to no avail.

So I'm not saying that consciousness is immaterial, or fundamental, or causal or anything much else (whatever my beliefs). I'm just saying that there is no evidence at all that it isn't all or some of these things.

The dots are very large and in a straight line and it is only a small inductive leap to join them up.

That's what Newton thought, and what Popper warns us to beware of doing. Also, if it's so easy why hasn't it been done yet?

Remember also that the only reason people are being distracted by the concept of the non-material is primarily because of thousands of years of past deep-seated superstition that to date has no observational basis.

I doubt that you really believe that. It's not rational. There's obviously a number of perfectly good alternative explanations, I could write a list, and some of them are even simpler. You certainly have a preference for this view, but can you really back it up with any evidence? I think you'll find you can't.

We really don't know about all this stuff. Lots of people have some idea that there's an expert somewhere who has proved something about it. But nobody ever has, and nobody shows any sign of doing so. Many of those experts have given up completely, concluding that we cannot prove any link between consciousness and matter in principle. I believe this is true but I'm still checking my thinking, which is why I like arguing about it.

PS. It's Cris BTW. [/B]

Dang it, hunt and peck error no #6474839832.

 

[thefountainhed]

Chris,
I will present an argument to your Boris post when I have more time. For now...

You argued elsewhere that everything is cause and effect. If the big bang sprang into existence suddenly then what caused it?

I do not know what caused it, and using the methods from this context, I cannot know what caused it. I can only infer that it was caused.

Either it spontaneously came from nothing or something preceded it.

I cannot see how it could have been spontaneous.

But we have a basic difficulty here since there is an implication that the big bang was also the beginning of time and it would appear to make no sense to talk of a time before time began.

We are not talking of a 'time' before time began. We take the limit of time as it approaches 0. We are talking of the infinistemally-compressed mass before the big bang. The logic and methodology of this time does not apply to that--necessarily. In order words, do not talk of a time before this time began, for you would be applying notions of this context to a different context.

For any action to occur time must be present.

Why?

In its simplest form any action is a transition from one state to a slightly different state, and that requires time to pass.

Why?

The transition from no-time to time is an action that would require time to be present to be effective.

Why does it require time to pass for it to be effective? Also you are creating a paradox when you say you TIME to transition from NOTIME to TIME. If there is no time, then how can we have time to transition from NOTIME to TIME?

We now have a paradox since for time to come into existence time must be present.

You created the paradox with your reasoning

I would suggest here that there can never be a point where time did not exist otherwise time could never have begun.

Incorrect. There can never be an instant in this context when time(within) this context did not exist; otherwise this context would be nonexistent and therefore time within this context, nonexistent.

So how about a super being who can exist outside of time and could create time? But this would be incomprehensible.

Cris, I did not mention a super being; also I don’t really care to characterize the cause-- for I cannot within this context. Let me expand: Logic is based on axioms that are applicable in this universe for certain forms always hold true within this context. Logic relies on a premise. This premise must hold true for all logical conclusions to also hold true. The nature of the cause (to characterize the cause as a super being is to describe the nature of the cause) cannot be inferred, deducted, etc within this context; for the premise is undefined within this reality by virtue of existing outside this reality. Therefore, you are making two errors: 1. By assigning a nature to the cause. 2. By using logical reasoning to comprehend the nature of this cause.

Religion tries to explain this cause; I am as of now, trying to comprehend this, and therefore cannot support or deny.

For this being to have any meaning it must be able to invoke actions and every action requires time.

I do not understand this statement. For this being to have any meaning means that you must be able to comprehend this being. This does not impact the nature of the being's actions. Either way, we are speaking out of context...

Even in the creation of time there would be a ‘before’ and an ‘after’, i.e. time is involved.

You are limiting yourself. You cannot have time to create time. The premise of having time would mean that there is no creation of time. We cannot, I repeat, characterize the nature or the context within which the cause of this reality resides. We can only infer that there was a cause.

I simply cannot conceive of a scenario where time could not exist; and for anything to happen then time must have been present.

Neither can I conceive a scenario where time did not exist; but this again is irrelevant. I can only imagine or conceive within the allowable limits of this context. Imagine even trying to conceive an intelligent being within this universe that is without any of the 5 senses.

So can there have ever been a beginning to everything? No, since time must precede everything which means time must have always existed, i.e. is infinite.

This conclusion is of course invalid for the reasoning and premise it is based upon are invalid. Everything within this context must have a beginning--using the methodology developed within this context to explain this context. Until you can find one thing within this context without a beginning, this holds.

From this it follows that the big bang cannot have been the beginning of the universe, time must have preceded it.

The big bang was the beginning of this universe. Time exists within this universe. We can imply that the big bang was caused. But the nature of the cause, the context of the cause, exists outside the rules of this universe; and the two must be mutually exclusive as one is undefined within the other.

Perhaps the universe is cyclic

Perhaps

or perhaps there is a multiverse –

perhaps

Either way, the big bang theory is still evolving and morphing and it would be premature to conclude it is a beginning of anything, to do so would place us in the same category as those early theorists who claimed the earth was at the center of the universe. All we can claim at the moment is that we have reached the limits of what our measurement instruments can tell us. We don’t know what caused the big bang but there are plenty of cosmologists who have a wide variety of hypotheses

Whether the current theory of the big bang is incorrect, whether there exist parallel universes, or the universe is cyclic all also can imply a cause (well it gets tricky with a multiverse model).

 

[Canute]

Fountainhed

Don't mean to butt in but I thought this bit was interesting.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Cris, I did not mention a super being; also I don’t really care to characterize the cause-- for I cannot within this context. Let me expand: Logic is based on axioms that are applicable in this universe for certain forms always hold true within this context. Logic relies on a premise. This premise must hold true for all logical conclusions to also hold true. The nature of the cause (to characterize the cause as a super being is to describe the nature of the cause) cannot be inferred, deducted, etc within this context; for the premise is undefined within this reality by virtue of existing outside this reality. Therefore, you are making two errors: 1. By assigning a nature to the cause. 2. By using logical reasoning to comprehend the nature of this cause.

I agree completely. I haven't seen much use of this sort of epistemelogical argument here but I think it's a good one. It's been well argued by many people, Popper, Kant, Penrose etc. but seems to be largely ignored.

However I think Chris was basically right about time, there is a difficult question to answer about how things got started.

Perhaps the key to this is that if you analyse you're argument it doesn't entail that there isn't any answer to the question of our origin, or even that we cannot know it. It just entails that we cannot find it by reasoning alone, and that we can't ever prove it. Proving it would require the use of some axiomatic system and then, as you say above (and so did Plato), you're knackered. The thing you want to prove is just beyond your system of proof. You can know it, (as Goedel has proved), but you can't prove that you know it.

Hence the ultimate focus on personal experience in Eastern philosophies rather than reasoning, hypothesising, proving, or having faith in someone else's teachings.

What I mean is that I'd say that you're right to assert that by reasoning 'we can only infer a cause', but wrong if you're arguing that because of this we can never know what it is.

 

[everneo]

Cris : just a thought, not matrix, though resembles that

Year 2050 AD

You are invited to the LAB-VR to assess your endurance & performance while being inside a wierd world of virtual reality.

Wear the complete gear-set that, once started, takes you into a virtual world, with its own set of natural rules, its own history and a future that you could alter within the limits. your sensory feedback and thought process and all the feelings, matter and energy with different properties, characters and pheomena and other wierd things are controlled by VR world RULES. aborting the process in between is possible for you and considered to be your utter failure. for when to finish the game is in the hands of the examiner/system.

ready ? then go. start.

there you are. ........... enjoy arguing that you are in a real world and ask for the proof of existance of your other real existance. that completes your total detachment from the actual higher reality.

best of luck. only luck. Good luck Cris.!

PS : Would you consider that there is no ultimate reality that falsely enables you to consider other realities as fantasies.? What pervades thro' all these realities, brain.? you have your own different brain in virtual reality too, like other body parts (VR rules).

 

[spookz]

you will find that these religious types will insist on using "soul" as it is easier debunk. they will insist on using biblical definitions. anything remotely resembling a scientific approach will be resisted.



*excellent posts :m:HED

 

[thefountainhed]

What I mean is that I'd say that you're right to assert that by reasoning 'we can only infer a cause', but wrong if you're arguing that because of this we can never know what it is.

This is why I am studying the religions; we shall see...

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris

MarcAC,

... Great...

That isn’t accurate. Dimensions beyond the reality of 3 are only mathematical concepts. They have not been demonstrated to be possible.

Up to 4 dimensional [I consider time a dimension - it suits me] mathematical concepts have, obviously, demonstrated practical applicability. By simple [or maybe not so simple] extrapolation, as is the case in many trains of scientific thought, one has demonstrated the possibility of the existence of higher dimensions. The number one (1) is a mathematical concept, so is i. None is more 'real' than the other. In other words, if you can accept the existence of dimensions [albeit 3] in the first place, which stem from mathematical thought, why is it so difficult to accept the rest via mathematical thought? Three dimensions don't exist unless we define them as such, via mathematics. You can't seriously tell me you've looked ahead and seen three dimensions (you can... but...).

That motions stops is fine but time still passes, and the ‘…time stops’ does not follow from that.

If every element of motion in the universe stops, time loses it's definition [well... my definition]. There will be no visible passage of time - no way to measure it. In fact, nothing would change, time would not pass. This can only be escaped by accepting the view of time as a 4th dimension. Either way, there would be no way for us who exist within time to measure it if all motion within our existence ceases.

To say that something exists infers the passage of time.

Sure; this is where I try to remove myself from the pic., however difficult it might seem - as I attempt below.

However, if we do say an object is defined by its 4 dimensions then to remove one of them would mean the object cannot exist. E.g. if you remove length for example the object no long has any substance, i.e. it does not exist.

Sure, it exists as a three dimensional object, not as a four dimensional one. A tesseract is essentially a summation of points. Similarly, you suddenly remove time [stop it], you still have a man, a man stuck in his "definition" at that time (if time were to continue man might evolve). Time can be considered as non-existent as far as we're concerend. For a being existing in say, 5 dimensions, from his time dimension the being can see our time as static and we'd be static within one time dimension as he sees it. For us time doesn't exist, but we still exist. Of course the 5 dimensional being wouldn't see our time dimension as time. He'd see it just as say, length. Therefore no time.

It's lovely when you consider yourself a being of extra-dimensional existence. Logic seemingly becomes nothing. I'm a soul in a another dimension, a human in these dimensions, of time, plus the other 3 dimensions, otherwise, I don't know, but I'm absolutely defined by the common thread within these existences.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by Cris
Jenyar,

That could be interpreted as a material entity and is nothing like the dualist concept of soul which dominates philosophical debates on the issue and which Boris was assuming, i.e. something non-material that influences and controls human behavior and that survives the death of the physical body.

Quite. The dualistic interpretation isn't very biblical. It comes from Greek philosophy, and it proved useful as a mode of thought. That doesn't make it false - just like a metaphor isn't "false" - only unscientific.