Post Reply
Page 7 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Materialism vs Idealism
3 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2011 - 12:33AM #61
TransJ
Posts: 731

Blu: It keeps coming down to this.

You keep wanting to anthropomorphize the universe


TransJ: Not at all, I'm talking about a non-human universal mind. 


to imply that it knows what it's doing, that it deliberately created sentient beings, that it's aware of itself.


Sorry, but  these are your words not mine, at this point in our debate. However I will add that I'm building my case one point at a time. 


I collide with this view at every turn, and I keep asking you to show it's true, but I get unintelligible replies eg -


Actually what you are colliding with is the essential universals (generic) for any mind to exist and even matter. 


mind in the human or animal sense is derived from activity and so would be the cosmic mind, which means we are talking about mind generically...The universe is a reality and as such it can affect itself and so do human or animal minds...Sentience in the generic sense is a capacity of some kind. The sentience of the universe is its capacity for creating an intelligible reality out of itself.


I think all those propositions are false


Thats your option. You should have no trouble proving me wrong, if they are indeed all false.


However I would add the proposition  that the cosmic mind is the generic  unity in reality.  What I mean by unity is that the parts act  as a single unit of activity, if they do not than what we have is “merely a physical reality” or a heap of stuff. 


and the last one doesn't refer to sentience but to some entirely different concept. Whatever it is, I suggest you rename it 'furp' to avoid confusion with real sentience.


It stands as it is unless you can provide sufficient reasons for it to be other wise.

Reality is not intelligible until evolution happens to produce a nervous system sufficiently complex to understand things (ie to make them intelligible). As far as we know, the universe was over 13 billion years old before that happened.  Until then the universe could not be intelligible - the concept didn't exist, because it needs a brain to exist.


So according to you the intelligibility of the universe is just a concept in human brains just like Donald Duck. And as such it is not the objective nature of reality but it is what we imagine reality to be, by your way of thinking. So you and Scientist  are not observing an intelligible reality but imposing intelligibility on reality. How then are you and Scientist making objective observations about reality, if you are correct?


How do you know that gods are impossibilities?


I don't...


Then we agree gods are possible.


I feel pessimistic that this conversation is going to result in my understanding what you're saying.


I hope that is not the case Blu.


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2011 - 1:23AM #62
Blü
Posts: 24,861

TransJ


mind in the human or animal sense is derived from activity


Very specific activity, from very specific evolved neural systems, designed primarily for survival and then for generation, with enough left over for conversations like this.


and so would be the cosmic mind


Then specify the activity and explain exactly how it brings into being anything analogous to a human brain in action.  When you do that, I'll understand you for the first time.


which means we are talking about mind generically


That's exactly what we're not doing.  Instead we're talking about specifics - what nervous system, what mind, what thoughts and powers, exactly?


if they do not than what we have is “merely a physical reality” or a heap of stuff.


That's exactly what we have.  All the evidence says so.  And its chemicals are capable, under particular happenstances, to form self-reproducing cells - after which evolution cuts from the bottom and life evolves in various directions.  It's not mystical.


So you and Scientist  are not observing an intelligible reality but imposing intelligibility on reality.


We're observing reality, and finding that we understand parts of it.  Further, we've learnt how to check whether our understanding is correct or not. When we find that we understand it we say say it's intelligible to us.  Science can, to a markedly greater degree than any other system of  thought, maximize the objectivity of our information and the correctness  in reality of our conclusions.  When we put a lander on Mars, or  discover how human memory works, or find a 96% hole in our cosmological  theories,  we're doing something right.


 


Then we agree gods are possible.


Then we agree that a real and present Donald Duck is even more possible.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 18, 2011 - 10:50AM #63
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,585

Jul 18, 2011 -- 12:33AM, TransJ wrote:


So according to you the intelligibility of the universe is just a concept in human brains just like Donald Duck. And as such it is not the objective nature of reality but it is what we imagine reality to be, by your way of thinking. So you and Scientist  are not observing an intelligible reality but imposing intelligibility on reality. How then are you and Scientist making objective observations about reality, if you are correct?




TransJ,


Like mankind being at the physical center of the universe - a concept only recently dispelled by science - Blu is quite positive in his belief at being at the center of all universal meaning, as a human with our "objective" nervous system of "magic" matter.


Rather than see the obvious - from a thermodynamical view - where normative chemical and matter/energy processes - transforms states of "REAL and OBJECTIVE" information and meaning, according to logic and information processing rules.


I see no reason to think he will have the obvious logic of your comment hit home.  His belief is too strong.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 10:42AM #64
Blü
Posts: 24,861

ncg


I see no reason to think he will have the obvious logic of your comment hit home.  His belief is too strong.


Bold words, mon brave.


All I've done is present a reasoned case and invited you to refute it, but no such luck - you still can't show us that naked two in reality, so perhaps your judgment is a tad premature.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 1:53PM #65
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

Ronald Lewis Tarter in his 2002 monograph titled "The God Theory," presents one interesting, though admitedly far fetched, possibility for a sentient universe.  He proposes that if the hypothetical and yet to be discovered energy strings that are thought to form the basis of the universe were interconnected in the manner of the neurons in the human brain, then a stupendous sentient intelligence could arise.   No doubt Blu will rush to say that there are lots of ifs there, still....

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 5:12PM #66
JCarlin
Posts: 6,527

You would still have the problem of proving that this stupendous sentient (I think you mean sapient) intelligence even noticed an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in a commonplace galaxy to even begin to prove God as humans understand God. 


Jul 19, 2011 -- 1:53PM, JimRigas wrote:

He proposes that if the hypothetical and yet to be discovered energy strings that are thought to form the basis of the universe were interconnected in the manner of the neurons in the human brain, then a stupendous sentient intelligence could arise. 




J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 5:20PM #67
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,585

Jul 19, 2011 -- 1:53PM, JimRigas wrote:


Ronald Lewis Tarter in his 2002 monograph titled "The God Theory," presents one interesting, though admitedly far fetched, possibility for a sentient universe.  He proposes that if the hypothetical and yet to be discovered energy strings that are thought to form the basis of the universe were interconnected in the manner of the neurons in the human brain, then a stupendous sentient intelligence could arise.   No doubt Blu will rush to say that there are lots of ifs there, still....




 


Jim,


We already know the universe is interconnected in a very weak way through gravity.  At the edge of modern research is the Holographic Principle.  IF - one accepts information as real (sorry Blu and others) than there is another level of universal interconnectedness.


This is not wishful or metaphysical - it is approaching science fact.  S. Hawking thought inforamtion could be lost - and after 30 years admitted he was wrong - that the Holographic Principle was right!!


from the Wiki article



The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals." Bekenstein quotes William Blake and asks whether the holographic principle implies that seeing "the world in a grain of sand," could be more than "poetic license".[12]


Unexpected connection


Bekenstein's topical overview "A Tale of Two Entropies" describes potentially profound implications of Wheeler's trend in part by noting a previously unexpected connection between the world of information theory and classical physics. This connection was first described shortly after the seminal 1948 papers of American applied mathematician Claude E. Shannon introduced today's most widely used measure of information content, now known as Shannon entropy. As an objective measure of the quantity of information, Shannon entropy has been enormously useful, as the design of all modern communications and data storage devices, from cellular phones to modems to hard disk drives and DVDs, rely on Shannon entropy.



Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 19, 2011 - 9:58PM #68
Blü
Posts: 24,861

Jim


No doubt Blu will rush to say that there are lots of ifs there, still....


Thanks for saving me the trouble.


If the universe is a single brain, how is its thought manifested?  Does it give a dang about living things or is it just randily hunting for another universe to copulate with?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 12:02AM #69
JimRigas
Posts: 2,950

Blu,


Who knows.  Maybe it has a yen for black holes.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jul 20, 2011 - 12:19AM #70
Blü
Posts: 24,861

Jim


Ah, the things young universes get up to these days!  Why, I tell you, when I was a kid ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook