The Hard Problems Of Consciousnes - One of the best cases for Intelligent Design
- Thread starter LFiess1942
- Start date
So you think God is merely electromagnetic radiation???
And it's good to know that you think photons have infinite mass.
I did not say that. He did.
“ I the Light, have come down to the World so that all who believe in me won’t have to stay any longer in the dark.” John 12:46:46.
I take it metaphorically and literally.
You can, through Epistemology and Logic.
Got to protect my rights.
BIGFOOT How, if at all, do your ideas differ from Bishop Berkeley's or more specifically from those expressed below:
(He wrote Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous before publishing it 1713.)
Berkeley was a mathematician and good scientist too:
Wiki does not tell what I think was Berkeley's most interesting idea (at least for a Physist like me, who has actually read some of his works, not just, wiki, "Cliff notes," etc.) That is his explanation as to why what we now call the "laws of physics" / natural laws, even exist: They do so, according to him as if they did not, God could not occasionally "work miracles." I. e. Miracles are by definition violations of the laws of physics - no such laws, then not even God could make miracles!
I don't know if it is interesting, but it was my desire to know how our perception of a 3D world "out there" is achieved by brain cell neurons that lead me to the belief that I am not a body, but information in a Real Time Simulation, RTS, that "runs" in parietal cortex when my body is wake or dreaming. (At other time, I don't exist.) The accepted POV of cognitive scientists is this hand waving non-sense: Perception "emerges" following many stages of neural computational transforms of sensory input signals." "Emerges" just pins a name on what they can't explain at the neural level.
The good Bishop and I differ only in that I need to postulate a real brain, sometimes running the RTS, but not a god.
More on my RTS and some facts that support it and refute the hand-waving "emerge" non-sense at links given on page 1, but copied here for your (et. al.)'s convenience:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 where I explain and justify my RTS view of perception with focus on showing genuine free will is not necessarily inconsistent with the natural laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body. Then see:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...e-will-an-illusion.104623/page-5#post-2644660 and posts 84,86 & 94 where I clarify my POV more.
There are no logical inconsistencies in his position (nor yours if it is the same)- at least not in more than 300, years of effort by others to logical expose one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley said:
(He wrote Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous before publishing it 1713.)
Berkeley was a mathematician and good scientist too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley said:
Wiki does not tell what I think was Berkeley's most interesting idea (at least for a Physist like me, who has actually read some of his works, not just, wiki, "Cliff notes," etc.) That is his explanation as to why what we now call the "laws of physics" / natural laws, even exist: They do so, according to him as if they did not, God could not occasionally "work miracles." I. e. Miracles are by definition violations of the laws of physics - no such laws, then not even God could make miracles!
I don't know if it is interesting, but it was my desire to know how our perception of a 3D world "out there" is achieved by brain cell neurons that lead me to the belief that I am not a body, but information in a Real Time Simulation, RTS, that "runs" in parietal cortex when my body is wake or dreaming. (At other time, I don't exist.) The accepted POV of cognitive scientists is this hand waving non-sense: Perception "emerges" following many stages of neural computational transforms of sensory input signals." "Emerges" just pins a name on what they can't explain at the neural level.
The good Bishop and I differ only in that I need to postulate a real brain, sometimes running the RTS, but not a god.
More on my RTS and some facts that support it and refute the hand-waving "emerge" non-sense at links given on page 1, but copied here for your (et. al.)'s convenience:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 where I explain and justify my RTS view of perception with focus on showing genuine free will is not necessarily inconsistent with the natural laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body. Then see:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...e-will-an-illusion.104623/page-5#post-2644660 and posts 84,86 & 94 where I clarify my POV more.
Last edited by a moderator:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This is complete gibberish, and a travesty of the relevant physics.
Post 182 by BIGFOOT attributed to me, is not exactly what I said. It appears BIGFOOT has erroneously put the quotation thingy in the wrong place...
What I said....
As exchemist has said, your stuff is gibberish.....We have no evidence for any existence of any God of any type, nor do we have any evidence that this magical pixie in the sky you delude yourself into thinking exists, does not take the form of the Sun, Moon, Light, Mountains, Oceans, or any other physical object you care to name.
What I said....
As exchemist has said, your stuff is gibberish.....We have no evidence for any existence of any God of any type, nor do we have any evidence that this magical pixie in the sky you delude yourself into thinking exists, does not take the form of the Sun, Moon, Light, Mountains, Oceans, or any other physical object you care to name.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
My point was a bit different, actually. Plenty of scientists believe in God. But they do not resort to woolly and unscientific nonsense to support their belief. There is no evidence in science to support belief in God and there never will be, full stop. Such belief relies on subjective judgements about human experience that are nothing to do with the scientific way of looking at the world.
As is common among mathematicians and physicists, Berkeley vastly and misleadingly oversimplifies biological phenomena.
God needing human to formulate "laws" of nature so as to be able to work miracles is an absurdity. Try an equivalent argument with another deity: Zeus had to create humans in two sexes, because otherwise he would not have been able to rape any women - the deed would not exist as a category of deity endeavor.
"Emerges" extends the common observation of emergent patterns at successively higher logical levels, to the level of interest. It may be mistaken to do that, a wrong approach, but it isn't handwaving - it's perfectly reasonable to attempt explanation in ways that have worked very well in apparently analogous situations, when confronting a new one not yet explained.
You did say that. You said that "God, is light, and God just is."
At least stand by what you say, and also accept that if you quote someone in support your position then it is akin to you saying it.
If you take it literally then you are saying it, despite you saying to the contrary in your previous sentence.
Again, have the decency to stand by what you say.
So, is God only certain frequency of EM radiation, or is he the entire spectrum?
Or are there a multitude of Gods covering the entrepreneur range?
And how are photons of infinite mass, as your argument would have us accept?
BIGFOOT How, if at all, do your ideas differ from Bishop Berkeley's or more specifically from those of his expressed in two Wiki quotes in post 187?
I, and most here, are not interested in your views on quantum mechanics but you are not very clearly presenting your religious views when they are mixed in with your false understanding of physics. Please don't just quote Bibical text; instead tell where your POV differs from that of Berkeley's, if there is any difference.
I, and most here, are not interested in your views on quantum mechanics but you are not very clearly presenting your religious views when they are mixed in with your false understanding of physics. Please don't just quote Bibical text; instead tell where your POV differs from that of Berkeley's, if there is any difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most of what I am saying is actually not original at all. I am just a fun of science, (Not even a scientist at that. My field is different. Maybe, the reason why some guys think am gibberish) So, I am not inventing things here. I only found these so-to-speak, "pieces of puzzle" which I have been putting together, just like you scientists have been endeavoring to. So, if Bishop Berkeley said something that makes sense, I pick it up. If Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz improved it and it made further sense, I accepted it. If Emmanuel Kant improved it further and made thing clearer, I accepted it. If other scientists like David Bohm pushed it further, I accept the idea. So, actually, very little if any, is my own . So, when you guys claim that I sound gibberish, most likely you have not read some of this stuff. Or rather, you are a hard-core atheist very afraid, that God might after all, make sense. Well, sorry, He does to me. And He does sol logically, scientifically, legally philosophically, and epistemological. If guys insist that am gibberish, it could be that in my my excitement I may not be very clear.
As I said, on my thread down here, most of what I have used to argue my case, is from other "experts" I quote them, (Including God) just in case you think I am "making up stuff" So, is God Light? Yes! Why? He said so.
Photons, I know have no mass. I borrow from other scientist argument, (But of course there is no consensus) That mater, is made of light. Until proved otherwise, I am going along with that.
“If you want to relate it to modern physics, light and more generally anything moving at the speed of light, which is called the null-velocity, meaning null-distance, the connection might be as follows. As an object approaches the speed of light, according to relativity, its internal space and time change so that the clocks slow down relative to other speeds, and the distance is shortened. You would find that the two ends of the light ray would have no time between them and no distance, so they would represent immediate contact. You could also say that from the point of view of present field theory, the fundamental fields are those of very high energy in which mass can be neglected, which would be essentially moving at the speed of light. Mass is a phenomenon of connecting light rays which go back and forth, sort of freezing them into a pattern. So matter, as it were, is condensed or frozen light” David Bohm, (See Marks Weber “Dialogues with saints and sages: The Search for Unity)
Some of you just want to bully, and discourage non-physicists from scientific discussion.
But all that is illusion.
No. All is Unity. Objectivity is an illusion.
No. God did not say so. In order for a god to be regarded as an expert in anything, it must 1st get up the courage to come out of hiding & show itself. Scientific discussions do not involve unsupportable claims from the HolyBabble.
Alpha, is Omega. The Beginning is the end. Infinity is Zero. So, it sound gibberish, but there.