There is no soul and no afterlife.

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
That's really not what he seemed to be saying but I can go with either take on the matter.

At some point all theories of existence require the arbitrary assumption of the property of self-causation or being eternal. At this level of reduction all theories are equal.

I agree with the first sentence except for the word 'arbitrary'. The second I disagree with. Some theories can be shown to be logically impossible, and some can be shown to be plausible. It is enough to judge them on their usefulness, their explanatory power, and by Occam's razor, as for all theories.

[However, the collective consciousness theory poses several further conundrums. Not the least of which is that it creates the necessity for a non-existent reality... a plane of consciousness from which existence is created from what?

~Raithere [/B]

Agreed, in a way. The theory supposes that the substrate of existence is scientifically undetectable and unprovable. However these two conditions do not logically entail true non-existence.

As for how physical reality arises from a conscious substrate I have nothing to contribute, it's mind-boggling. But panpsychism, a still respectable theory with many high-powered supporters in philosophical circles, is obviously implied.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by ccmayer
This concept that nothing exists outside of our mind (either one person's mind or all of our minds) has been kicked aroung for thousands of years. Once again, this is a case of humanity trying to feel superior and important to the function of this universe.

No it isn't. It's a case of humanity trying to find a workable explanation of the facts. No more and no less.

[Why would the absense of intelligent life in the Universe mean that there is nothing left? Where did this life come from?? If you believe in God, then there certainly was plenty going on before intelligence showed up. If you do not believe, then how did life form? What was here before intelligence?[/B]

Don't confuse consciousness with intelligence. Intelligence is irrelevant, sentience is the issue, and God has nothing to do with it at all. Whatever the real truth the fact remains that it is impossible to prove that anything can exists in the absence of sentience. That is not a proof of anything, but it shows that we are free to explore the possibility that it doesn't.

[Clearly, no matter what you believe in, something had to exist before us, even before intelligence in the Universe. Stars existed way before intelligence, but I guess those won't exist once we're gone. Plenty will exist once we are gone, too. Stars, blacks holes, and dark matter will be here long after intelligent life has ceased to exist in this universe. Once the universe collapses in on itself, there will still be SOMETHING, which will probably begin the huge cycle of life all over again.[/B]

Perhaps you're right. However as it stands this is just a collection of unsupported assertions.

[Maybe you people who need to believe that our existence must be important, that we are God's chosen people, and/or that the collective minds of all intelligent life are the Universe have inferiority issues. [/B]

Who is 'you people'? Me? I think you do not undertand the issues here. They have nothing to do with God, self-importance or being the chosen people. You should make your argument logical, not temperamental, and you shouldn't let your anti-religious tendencies get in the way of your logic.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
If by this you mean that any scientific theory must assume that existence does indeed exist and that we can attain knowledge of the universe by observation, then fine.

This is true by definition .

[But science has been shown to be the best way to attain knowledge. [/B]

Pardon! How are you defining 'knowledge' here?

[Believing that true knowledge lies outside of this existence is fine if that's what will make you happy, but it doesn't do you a lot of good in the "real world", or at least the world that is "real" as far as we can know it to be. [/B]

I don't believe I ever suggested such a thing. I certainly didn't mean to.

 

[VitalOne]

The evidence is anecdotal at best and does not qualify as science.

Why doesn't it qualify as science? Go on and deny it, but please use evidence to support your claim.

 

[ccmayer]

To VitalOne: I have to admit, the "evidence" presented in those links is very interesting and seems to have been pursued in a scientific manner. Unfortunately, the only real evidence I read about was the similar handwriting, all the rest sounded like hearsay at best. What I'm curious about is whether a child's handwriting is as unique as an adult's. If so, then you have very compelling case to be made, but then again there is much more compelling evidence that Bigfoot exists or that aliens have visited. I would love to believe that aliens are visiting and that Bigfoot does exist, but until a Sasquatch is captured or an alien is on the news, I'll still have my reservations. The same goes for this reincarnation theory.

Of course, I totaly bought into a story I saw on the discovery channel about a real life zombie that was proven false. They showed this man who an entire town swore dies, was buried, and then came back due to being drugged with the Japanese Puffer fish's poison. Eventually, it was realized that the man was lying and his grieving family bought into it. I think the same thing is happening with the reincarnated boy. Oh well, it's still fun to read about. Keep it coming!

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
I agree with the first sentence except for the word 'arbitrary'.

All we know is that something must have either come from nothing (self-causation) or always have existed (eternal).
The assignment of either of these properties to any particular thing is arbitrary.

Agreed, in a way. The theory supposes that the substrate of existence is scientifically undetectable and unprovable. However these two conditions do not logically entail true non-existence.

But in addition to being undetectable and unprovable this theoretical 'substrate' is unwarranted.
There is nothing to suggest that it does exist. It's an unnecessary complication.

As for how physical reality arises from a conscious substrate I have nothing to contribute, it's mind-boggling. But panpsychism, a still respectable theory with many high-powered supporters in philosophical circles, is obviously implied.

As I mentioned above I find it to be extraneous. Show me some reason to think otherwise for it doesn't matter to me who might believe it.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by VitalOne
Why doesn't it qualify as science? Go on and deny it, but please use evidence to support your claim.

Because personal accounts, even first hand, are not scientific evidence. For something to count as science it must be consistently repeatable. It is not enough that one person, or even many people, claims that some phenomena happened that phenomena must be duplicatable, testable, and the explanatory theory must falsifiable; otherwise it's simply not science.

Further, the preponderance of what is being taken as 'evidence' here comes from hypnotic past life regression. A technique that is notoriously faulty and even sometimes harmful as victims generate false memories that are sometimes psychologically damaging.

http://skepdic.com/pastlife.html
http://www.skeptic.com/02.3.hochman-fms.html
http://members.aol.com/tbskep/Past_Lives.html
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9803/reincarnation.html

Finally, the conclusion is being assumed in these cases. Alternative explanations (even supernatural ones) are not even considered, much less explored or refuted. It is quite simply, not up to the standards of scientific rigor. It is not science.

~Raithere

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by ccmayer
Once the universe collapses in on itself, there will still be SOMETHING, which will probably begin the huge cycle of life all over again.

Actually, the most recent evidence indicates that the geometry of the universe is flat; therefore there will be no Big Crunch where the universe collapses in on itself. This is also supported by the evidence that the expansion of the universe is, in fact, accelerating.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Canute
No it isn't. It's a case of humanity trying to find a workable explanation of the facts. No more and no less.

Don't confuse consciousness with intelligence. Intelligence is irrelevant, sentience is the issue, and God has nothing to do with it at all. Whatever the real truth the fact remains that it is impossible to prove that anything can exists in the absence of sentience. That is not a proof of anything, but it shows that we are free to explore the possibility that it doesn't.

Unfortunately for supporters of this idea, the explanation is completely anthropocentric and does not fit with what we observe about reality, specifically, that the universe functions independent of the presence of conscious beings. There is nothing to indicate that the universe would cease to exist if conscious beings no longer existed. The claim is also unfalsifiable, and therefore not good science.

Perhaps you're right. However as it stands this is just a collection of unsupported assertions.

I wouldn't say that the assertion that the universe and stars existed before conscious beings developed is unsupported. In fact, there is overwhelming support for this. Also, there is no reason to believe that once conscious beings become extinct, so too will all stars, black holes, and dark matter.

I think you do not undertand the issues here. They have nothing to do with God, self-importance or being the chosen people.

I can't quite see how thinking that the existence of the universe is the result of conscious beings, despite the fact that there is no evidence for this and plenty against, cannot be seen as misguided feelings of self-importance.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Canute
Pardon! How are you defining 'knowledge' here?

In its usual sense, being aware of the truth or factuality of something, truth being the degree to which something corresponds to reality.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
All we know is that something must have either come from nothing (self-causation) or always have existed (eternal).
The assignment of either of these properties to any particular thing is arbitrary.

I'm suggesting that the reason this question is undecidable is that it is the wrong question, as both of these alternatives represent one half of the truth, or are two aspects of it. In other words I am suggesting that there is a plausible hypothesis that explains why this question is undecidable, and why it doesn't need deciding, for they are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

[But in addition to being undetectable and unprovable this theoretical 'substrate' is unwarranted.
There is nothing to suggest that it does exist. It's an unnecessary complication.[/B]

In your first para. you say that either energy is eternal or it came from nothing. I agree. But in either case it must have a simplest possible state, a limit case if you like, which can be considered to be a substrate, the minimum state of energy that can exist without quite being nothing. If energy is eternal the fact that there is a minimum state explains why it is eternal, for 'nothing' is therefore an impossibility, there must always be energy. If it came from nothing then its most primitive initial state can be considered as a substrate, although in a more historical sense.

[As I mentioned above I find it to be extraneous. Show me some reason to think otherwise for it doesn't matter to me who might believe it.

~Raithere [/B]

If such hypotheseses are extraneous then we must accept that the scientific model can have no logical or metaphysical foundation. I find this unlikely.

Bear in mind that consciousness itself is an extraneous hypothesis in the current model. Perhaps we should start by arguing whether that exists or not.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Unfortunately for supporters of this idea, the explanation is completely anthropocentric and does not fit with what we observe about reality, specifically, that the universe functions independent of the presence of conscious beings..

We do not observe this, we hypothesise it. It is nothing to do with anthropomorophism. It is to do with panpsychism.

[There is nothing to indicate that the universe would cease to exist if conscious beings no longer existed. The claim is also unfalsifiable, and therefore not good science.. [/B]

I agree. The same is also true for the opposite hypothesis.

[I wouldn't say that the assertion that the universe and stars existed before conscious beings developed is unsupported. . [/B]

No, it isn't unsupported. However for some strange reason it is forever unprovable.

[In fact, there is overwhelming support for this. . [/B]

Support yes, overwhelming no.

[Also, there is no reason to believe that once conscious beings become extinct, so too will all stars, black holes, and dark matter. [/B]

There are a number of reasons for believing this, but it's a huge discussion. Personally I don't think consiousness can cease to exist, but I'll leave that as an unsupported opinion for now.

[I can't quite see how thinking that the existence of the universe is the result of conscious beings, despite the fact that there is no evidence for this and plenty against, cannot be seen as misguided feelings of self-importance. [/B]

If the existence of the universe is the result of conscious beings I don't see why this should make me feel any more or less important. I'm not arguing for some anthropomorphic God here, or for the 'importance' of human beings. In many ways I am arguing for the individual's fundamental unimportance.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
In its usual sense, being aware of the truth or factuality of something, truth being the degree to which something corresponds to reality.

In that case you are on dodgy ground claiming that science is the best way to achieve knowledge. It is certainly one way, but the limits to scientific knowledge are well documented by philosophers, and generally accepted by scientists.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
I'm suggesting that the reason this question is undecidable is that it is the wrong question, as both of these alternatives represent one half of the truth, or are two aspects of it. In other words I am suggesting that there is a plausible hypothesis that explains why this question is undecidable, and why it doesn't need deciding, for they are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

Quite possibly. If the inception of the Universe included the inception of time then any question regarding the causal or temporal aspects of this inception are meaningless from a temporal/causal perspective. Such inception would be both and neither. Still I do not see that this necessitates any reference to the supposed metal or spiritual realm we are discussing.

In your first para. you say that either energy is eternal or it came from nothing. I agree. But in either case it must have a simplest possible state, a limit case if you like, which can be considered to be a substrate, the minimum state of energy that can exist without quite being nothing.

I find nothing that would require a 'simplest possible state'. Of course 'simplest' is a relative term. While we might consider a fluctuating field of background energy without matter to be 'simplest' it can hardly be called simple. In fact, everything we see now might be considered to be simple as all the apparent complexity we see actually stems from a basic set of forces which might turn out to be expression of a single force (if G.U.T. turns out to be accurate).

If such hypotheseses are extraneous then we must accept that the scientific model can have no logical or metaphysical foundation. I find this unlikely.

I find no logically unassailable position that indicates otherwise. Science works the issue from the opposite end, working with what is apparent (directly or indirectly) rather than from some ultimate metaphysical position. Although it is rarely expressed, science is merely a model of reality not an actual description of it. The development of quantum physics brings this conundrum into acute focus, so much so that Einstein refused to accept it.

Bear in mind that consciousness itself is an extraneous hypothesis in the current model. Perhaps we should start by arguing whether that exists or not.

Sure, but first we need to define what consciousness is. Unfortunately definitions of consciousness are typically dependant upon the underlying argument in the first place.

~Raithere

 

[wayne_92587]

Originally posted by Raithere
However, the collective consciousness theory poses several further conundrums. Not the least of which is that it creates the necessity for a non-existent reality... a plane of consciousness from which existence is created from what?

~Raithere

The collective consciousness, the Universal Mind belongs to those that see Reality as it is not as they imagine it to be.

Those that speak of a Reality created in the Mind speak of Illusion, Deception, Lies, Graven Images of Reality.

People that see Reality from the same point of View will see the same Reality.

Those that see reality as though it were was an inkblot, create a non-existent reality, a World of Illusion, deception, Lies, are not a part of the Collective, Universal, Mind, Consciousness.

Where is the plane of consciousness, the parallel Universe, from which non-existent, Graven Images of Reality are created?

The Temporal Zone, the World of the Imagination, the Twilight Zone, the Fourth Dimension, the Third Element of the Space-Time Continuum.

Reality that grows on Trees, is picked right out of rarified, thin, air as if by magic is as real as Money that grow on trees.

Realities created in the Mind, abracadabra, meaningless talk; gibberish; just so much Babel, nonsense, a confused mixture of sounds or voices, a scene of noise and confusion, tumult, turmoil, uproar, bedlam, clamor.

Babel, Reality that exists only in the mind, Reality that exists only because it has been deeply impressed, fix, tattooed on the forehead, in the mind, deception, Lies, Illusion, identifies, marks the Reality of the Beast, Hocus-pocus, make it so, so be it, Amen.


The Mark that identifies the Beast is the Reality that is created, that exists only because it is fixed in the Mind by the Imagination, the Adulterator of Reality, the Whore that Babels-On.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by wayne_92587
The collective consciousness, the Universal Mind belongs to those that see Reality as it is not as they imagine it to be.

From what presumptions do you base your thoughts and actions upon in such a Nihilistic reduction? You have no position from which to begin. I have no difficulty with the self (collective or singular) as the foci of reductionism but it leaves one with no operational frame of reference.

~Raithere

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Canute
We do not observe this, we hypothesise it. It is nothing to do with anthropomorophism. It is to do with panpsychism.

I find that the whole concept of panpsychism is itself anthropocentric because it assumes that conscious beings are fundamental to existence.

The same is also true for the opposite hypothesis.

No, it isn't unsupported. However for some strange reason it is forever unprovable.

Support yes, overwhelming no.

We know that if one person dies and therefore loses consciousness, the universe keeps right on going. We know that if many people die and therefore lose consciousness, the universe keeps right on going. What reason would be have to believe that the universe would no longer exist if all conscious beings died and therefore lost consciousness? I understand it is improvable because conscious beings would need to be around to prove it, but it seems to me that everything we have indicates that the universe would keep right on existing.

There are a number of reasons for believing this, but it's a huge discussion.

If you don't mind, I'd like to hear some of these reasons. I honestly cannot think of any.

If the existence of the universe is the result of conscious beings I don't see why this should make me feel any more or less important. I'm not arguing for some anthropomorphic God here, or for the 'importance' of human beings. In many ways I am arguing for the individual's fundamental unimportance.

I understand. I meant the "self-importance" that results from being a member of the conscious elite that keeps the universe going.

Originally posted by Raithere
In fact, everything we see now might be considered to be simple as all the apparent complexity we see actually stems from a basic set of forces which might turn out to be expression of a single force (if G.U.T. turns out to be accurate).

Or more basic yet, the TOE.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
Quite possibly. If the inception of the Universe included the inception of time then any question regarding the causal or temporal aspects of this inception are meaningless from a temporal/causal perspective. Such inception would be both and neither. Still I do not see that this necessitates any reference to the supposed metal or spiritual realm we are discussing.

I don't agree with your example, it still begs the question of how something can come from nothing. You cannot give a strictly physicalist account of the universe a beginning, as you do here. It isn't possible.

[I find nothing that would require a 'simplest possible state'. Of course 'simplest' is a relative term. While we might consider a fluctuating field of background energy without matter to be 'simplest' it can hardly be called simple. In fact, everything we see now might be considered to be simple as all the apparent complexity we see actually stems from a basic set of forces which might turn out to be expression of a single force (if G.U.T. turns out to be accurate).[/B]

Agreed. I shouldn't have said simple.

[I find no logically unassailable position that indicates otherwise. Science works the issue from the opposite end, working with what is apparent (directly or indirectly) rather than from some ultimate metaphysical position. Although it is rarely expressed, science is merely a model of reality not an actual description of it. The development of quantum physics brings this conundrum into acute focus, so much so that Einstein refused to accept it.[/B]

I think this is absolutely true. Plato expressed it as studying the shadows on the cave wall.

[Sure, but first we need to define what consciousness is. Unfortunately definitions of consciousness are typically dependant upon the underlying argument in the first place.

~Raithere [/B]

It is generally accepted that the safest definition of consciousness is 'what it is like to be' after Nagel. Some people prefer 'experience' or 'being' or some such but they all amount to the same thing.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by Canute
I don't agree with your example, it still begs the question of how something can come from nothing.

It the above example, causality is irrelevant since time is not a factor until its inception. However, there is always the popular "the universe is a quantum fluctuation" theory as one possible explanation of where the "something" "came from".

It is generally accepted that the safest definition of consciousness is 'what it is like to be' after Nagel. Some people prefer 'experience' or 'being' or some such but they all amount to the same thing.

I am of the opinion that consciousness does exist, but as a subjective state that we use to describe the result of the complex interactions of neurons in our brains.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
I find that the whole concept of panpsychism is itself anthropocentric because it assumes that conscious beings are fundamental to existence.

Panpsychism is not anthropomorphic, that is fairly obvious if you consider it. Anyway whether it is or not hardly does not affect its likelyhood in any way.

[We know that if one person dies and therefore loses consciousness, the universe keeps right on going. We know that if many people die and therefore lose consciousness, the universe keeps right on going. What reason would be have to believe that the universe would no longer exist if all conscious beings died and therefore lost consciousness? I understand it is improvable because conscious beings would need to be around to prove it, but it seems to me that everything we have indicates that the universe would keep right on existing..[/B]

You're right, it does indicate that. But it doesn't prove it, it is not inevitably true. If you take a brick out of a wall the wall keeps right on standing. That does not mean the wall is not made of bricks.

[If you don't mind, I'd like to hear some of these reasons. I honestly cannot think of any..[/B]

Sorry but I can't find my way back to the what I said. Can you remind me.

[I understand. I meant the "self-importance" that results from being a member of the conscious elite that keeps the universe going.[/B]

If one supposes that there is nothing else except the 'conscious elite' then there is no elite. It is the phsyicalists who are guilty of elitism, by considering the intellect as the measure of superiority.

[Or more basic yet, the TOE. [/B]

Exactly.