The Atheist Book Club discussion
Science
>
I have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist...
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not saying that time and space do not appear to be intrinsically linked. They do appear that way, as I say. But they are also NOT the same thing. Even though they exist hand in hand and depend on each other, they are NOT the same thing. If that were the case, then someone waiting at a bus station, would be able to turn to the person next to them and say, "What space is the bus going to come?" and it would mean the same thing as if they had said "What time is the bus going to come?" But that is exactly what they are asking! What time will the bus arrive in this space is the same as asking please tell me the space/time co-ordinates of this event.
Again you are arguing from limited human perspective, a point of view you have vocally opposed.
Space and time are parts of the same thing. This can be amply demonstrated by time dilation and length contraction.
You may disagree, but physicists have ample evidence for our point of view.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Like I say 'force' isnt the best word choice. My point is that something had to start all this movement in motion in the first place. I called it a force, some might call it the Big Bang, maybe the best term to use is some Unknown (U)."
Again you are talking about "starts" which is again about creation which as I have repeatedly shown is an assumption not a given.
Spacetime indeed does expand from the T->0 point, but if you assume it must be put into motion then you must assume a time when it was still so it could be accelerated.
Now I could get sidetracked into inflationary models etc. but since you tend to be talking about T->0 and not the Big Bang I will not go down that path.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Whatever you want to call it, matter is moving"
Relative too?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Shouldn't these questions be at the heart of the reason that unified field theory has not succeeded?"
Nope. Because the questions you are asking have actually simple answers. Unified Field theory hasn't succeeded yet for different reasons.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Why arent general relativity and quantum mechanics compatible? What is the unknown here? Could it be that we just don't understand the 'why' behind the Big Bang?"
No.
You are again looking at putting an answer before asking the question. "Why" implies purpose. What we need to know is "How" are Quantum Physics and Relativity connected, and since both forces would have shared influence at T->0 knowing "How" they connect will undoubtedly shed light on "How" T->0 occurred.
They are not currently compatible because the models do not account for each other and when you try to model one with the other the calculations become infinite, indicating that the methodology is wrong.
However once electricity and magnetism where thought of as separate forces until electromagnetic theory came along, then that was combined into the electroweak force which links weak nuclear force with electromagnetics. Then the "Standard Model" of particle physics came up with a framework that explains every force except gravity, recently receiving a great confirmation from the Higgs Boson results.
With all of this information and understanding your concept of a ephemeral consciousness appearing to "start" everything off seems as silly and prosaic as you find the Biblical God which "seems more like a Fairy Tale or a Christmas story to me."
Ed Wagemann wrote: "How is certainly an important questions, but why is just as important - especially when it comes to the role that concsiousness plays in man's survival."
Why is only important when there exists purpose, so it assumes a consciousness in the question.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "For instance, if Iran develops a nuclear missile and them bombs Isreal with it, the question of 'why' they did it is an important one to ask. How they did it, after the fact, might not mean as much."
Again you assume.
For example if a 200kT explosion hits Tel Aviv do you want to know "why" it was bombed or "how"?
How may be an asteroid strike that had no consciousness guiding it, but your question assumes purpose so your method of questioning would potentially lead to a devastating war based on a terrible but hypothetical crime that no one committed.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "This question of why things happen IS central to mankind's consciousness. If our curiousity did not go beyond 'how' something happens, then the art of finding solutions would suffer severely. "
Actually many people have died from assuming "why" rather than asking "how".
Q: Why did the Black Death happen?
A: Because we are unrepentant sinners.
Result: Millions of deaths despite much prayer.
Q: How does plague spread?
A: Infection from fleas on the backs of rats.
Result: Rat control often via improved sanitation and discovery of vaccination saves millions.
Q: Why does lightening strike building?
A: Deus Vult.
Result: Thousands die needless deaths when lightening destroys a Church and detonates black powder.
Q: How does lightening occur?
A: Release of accumulated static charge, often to the highest point.
Result: Lightening rod.
Q: Why did you kill Bob?
A: You keep evading the question, so you must be guilty.
Result: National scandal of Bob murder hits media.
Q: How do we know Bob is dead?
A: We don't know which Bob you are talking about.
Result: We look suitably embarrassed.
If "How" is proved to be due to a conscious purpose, then it's time to ask "Why". Doing it the other way around is why people invent god's, elves, pixies, ghosts and other "Mysterious Things with Purpose".
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I don't have a problem with the thread title. God is a loaded word, sure. But it basically means the same as having consciousness at the Big Bang...plus the title might hopefully prompt people to look at this discussion from a different perspective. "
It is not just the "god" part, it's the "convincing argument" part. So far your "convincing argument" amounts to a slightly expounded version of "assuming it is possible god (or MTP) exists, it is possible god exists, and it is impossible to prove 100% that this is wrong." (Mainly because it is impossible to 100% prove any claim you care to make).
As an asideI've always found the presence of a lightning rod on a church and interesting dichotomy..
C.J. wrote: "Dear Ed,I am not convinced by your fairly convincing evidence :)"
Ok. Can you tell me specifically what you are not convinced about?
---
CrossProduct wrote: You do understand that there is no way to ever answer the "why?" question?
Also, if it would be proven there was a consciousness at the start of the big bang (not that I believe this), the question would just be "why was there a consciousness?". And if that would be answered. There will be another "why?"
So what are you saying? It is wrong to ask why? We should just ignore the question because it seems impossible to answer?
why should always follow how. First you work out how something happened, as that then informs how to go about answering the why question. Asking why before you know how means you are more likely to go off in the wrong direction.I will take CJ's point, and make it more direct. Should it be shown that there was conciousness at the big bang, if it was proven that was HOW the big bang came about, then why would the conciousness have done it? And why did the conciousness exist? And more importantly than why is how did the conciousness exist? If that is then answered, how did what created the conciousness come into existence, and why? And so on, back in an infinite regression.
Asking Why either before of after How, is fine with me - as long as it gets asked. I'm not against asking How. It is important to ask how. WHat I am saying is that it is also important to ask why...As to yoru second point, I would say that arguing that there was consciousness at the Big Bang is not the same as explaining why that consciousness was responsible for the big bang. Being conscious of something can simply involve observing it.
Shanna wrote: "As an asideI've always found the presence of a lightning rod on a church and interesting dichotomy.."
somewhat like the popemobile
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Asking Why either before of after How, is fine with me - as long as it gets asked. I'm not against asking How. It is important to ask how. WHat I am saying is that it is also important to ask why..."ok, so how would it have been there, considering Gary has already explained why it would be impossible.
ok, so how would it have been there, considering Gary has already explained why it would be impossible. Well first of all, I don't think Gary or any other human can say it is Impossible. In fact the possibilities as to how consciousness could have been present at the Big Bang are numerous.
For instance, we talked earlier in this thread about three interesting phenomenon:
1~ the double-slit experiment which shows that the simple act of consciously observing something can effect that thing which is being observed.
2~ virtual particle pairs, i.e. particles that pop into existence from nothingness.
3~ multiverses, and the idea that our universe was born from another universe - possibly like a white hole being born from a black hole.
Add these all together and the possibilities of conciousness being present at the Big Bang becomes something that deserves to be looked at.
Hazel wrote: "Shanna wrote: "As an asideI've always found the presence of a lightning rod on a church and interesting dichotomy.."
somewhat like the popemobile"
I once watch a doco about castle being fortified and the lord of the castle is reputed to have said something along the lines of "leave the chapel as it is, God ought to take care of his own" when questioned about fortifying the said chapel. Now there's some faith or pragmatism
Ed Wagemann wrote: "For instance, we talked earlier in this thread about three interesting phenomenon:
1~ the double-slit experiment which shows that the simple act of consciously observing something can effect that thing which is being observed.
There's already a problem with your construction here, Ed, because we don't necessarily require consciousness to require an observation. The Copenhagen interpretation states that even if we had a (non-conscious) Geiger counter doing the "observing," the necessary collapses in the wave-functions for quantum phenomena would still occur, no consciousness necessary.
The thing is that it seems not only plausible but all but necessary that interactions between particles will serve to collapse the wave functions in the necessary way, and that all of this can (and indeed does) occur without consciousness of any kind being involved. Particularly since all of the consciousness that we are aware of exists as a result of a living organism, we are put in the position of thinking that it is very, very likely that enormous numbers of such interactions had to take place before consciousness ever appeared on the scene.
2~ virtual particle pairs, i.e. particles that pop into existence from nothingness.
Yes, and so? What does that have to do with consciousness? Gauge theory does not make an underlying assumption of consciousness of any sort and yet depends upon this concept.
Are you implicitly trying to redefine "consciousness" to mean "that which enables fields (in the gauge theoretic sense)"? In that case, it's an odd definition, but no less peculiar than your utterly disingenuous shift from "God" to whatever you are meaning by "consciousness."
3~ multiverses, and the idea that our universe was born from another universe - possibly like a white hole being born from a black hole.
What does this have to do with consciousness? All it does it stick the question you're raising into a different universe, i.e. a regress. This regress is infinite, then, unless you decide to define "consciousness" as being a property that precedes existence, but that's another odd definition that you're going to have monumental amounts of trouble tying to anything else meant by that word.
It should be noted that this is exactly the same philosophical chicanery pulled by theologians who attempt to do the same trick upon the term "God," which you sort of are and sort of aren't doing yourself. The entire "Uncaused First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover" line of bollocks is simply a way to avoid the infinite regress by defining God (or in your case, consciousness, maybe) as the terminus of the regress. Fine, I guess, if that's what you want to call it. You've got two impossible hurdles in front of you, then: (1) show that there's evidence for this hypothesis, and (2) tie this definition to everything else meant by the word "God," or in your case "consciousness."
Add these all together and the possibilities of conciousness being present at the Big Bang becomes something that deserves to be looked at.
No, actually, it doesn't, at least not in this manner where we just play word games with you.
I'd urge you, if you are actually serious about this, to start your investigation not by engaging in a long, circular thread on a forum on the internet (or some of them, as it were) but rather by attempting to figure out how you would actually go about this investigation or consideration. Until then, you're just blustering.
conciousness has been defined as a process within this thread, a process requires both time and space in which to occur, there was no time and space for the process to occur within until after the big bang, thus conciousness cannot have been present at the big bang.Gary explains this better, but has already done so within this thread. I suggest you go read it.
Rock wrote: "What I would like to know is this: Since no one here has ever defined what consciousness is, then how can anyone here say that they have any evidence that consciousness was or was not present at t..."Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I'll add: if no one (read: the thread-holder) is going to clearly define the concept at the center of the discussion, why are we having the discussion at all? It should have ended a long time ago.
The answer, if you wonder, is that it is abundantly clear that the moment a definition for what is meant by "consciousness" is proposed, it will be able to be rejected for the purpose it is being proposed.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary's explanation as to why the universe could not have been created is not convincing enough for me to beleive it. For starters there are too many other viable possibilities that can not be ruled out. ..."
Ed, you are right, there are many other possibilities, but the only possibilities that an atheist would consider are those backed by observation, i.e. scientific alternatives. Now I don't pretend to understand these things to the depth Gary does, but i do know that the possibilities furthered by other physicists all demonstrate an internal consistency backed up by mathematical expressions that embody a logic that must respect all the thinking that has gone before. If it present a contrary interpretation it does so by addressing all the points that the alternative theory does. In other words, another possibility must have all the explanatory power of the one it seeks to replace. None of your 'explanatory power' derives from mathematical logic, so while being a perfectly valid opinion, it is in no way a proof of anything. If you are seeking to prove something you had better accept the premises of logic and the consequences of mathematics. You seem like a nice fellow, but from what I've read, you are consistently ignoring the logic of the arguments presented. I applaud Gary's patience and enjoy reading his backstories....but really, the point you are trying to progress was soundly defeated many entries ago.
Rock wrote: "I've never heard of consciousness defined as a "process" before. What is the rationale behind that? Getting into college is a process. Winning over your wife's parents is a process. Changing a baby's diaper is a process. But consciousness?Doesn't make sense. "
This is the logical fallacy called "argument from personal incredulity."
When I talk about "consciousness," I refer to what is called a "conscious mental state," since there seems to be absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any other kind of consciousness worth talking about.If it is a "mental state," then it arises from a mente, i.e. a mind, which arises from a brain. Since a brain is a chunk of meat and that does nothing (but eventually rot) when dead, we can surmise that the consciousness arises from the brain as a function of its being alive, which means, as clearly as we can know, as a function of the processes taking place in it while it is active.
That is a plausible enough reason to believe that consciousness is a process on information holding and distributing networks of certain kinds.
Maybe you'll tell us that photosynthesis isn't a process too?
Rock wrote: "I'm not sure why you are so sarcastic, but maybe it is because nothing you said in the last post makes one damn ounce of sense."To you.
A small omission but a vital one.
Rock wrote: "First of all, the mind and the brain are not the same thing. That is your first fallacy."
What is a fallacy is assuming is that because mind and brain are nouns, they are both "things". A brain is an organ that is part of the process we label "mind". Why is it a process? Because what we call mind is a label for something that is "thinking" or "aware". To be able to think one requires memory to hold initial concepts and ideas, requires senses to form further ideas, an ability to process said information, and then memory to record the updates.
Without this process there cannot be any thinking, without thinking there is no mind.
Rock wrote: "Second, you say that consciousness is a mental state. Well, a mental state is not a process. Its a state of being."
That's word play, not science. A mental state requires an ongoing process. A static mental state is what is known as death.
Rock wrote: "Third, a brain doesn't rot when a person dies."
With due apology for the pun, that is utter rot.
The brain, being one of the most hydrated and delicate structures in the body decomposes extremely rapidly. Once the heart stops, chemical changes occur within the body and result in changes in pH, causing cells to lose their structural integrity. The loss of cell structure brings about the release of cellular enzymes capable of initiating the breakdown of surrounding cells and tissues. This process is known as autolysis.
Rock wrote: "So basially everything you said in your last post is nonsense.
Not if you have some grounding in the sciences.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Well first of all, I don't think Gary or any other human can say it is Impossible." If you're sole evidence is "you can't prove me wrong" then you are not arguing from knowledge or logic you are arguing from ignorance. Hence why your claim to have a "convincing argument" is completely false.
Now you can claim I am wrong in the above assessment, but as you cannot prove I am wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt then you may begin to see how empty that argument is.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "In fact the possibilities as to how consciousness could have been present at the Big Bang are numerous."
The only possibilities involve either science somehow going in the wrong direction for decades and yet still somehow getting answers that were right and demonstrably advantageous, or (actually more likely) a deliberate massive conspiracy of the levels that get their believers sat in airless flats with tin foil on their heads.
If you want to assert the possibilities are numerous you are forgetting to mention the fact that the possibilities that there was something other than consciousness, or nothing, are infinitely far more numerous (containing every possibility thought of and as yet unthought of).
Therefore you are pre-choosing a preferred option and then trying to find rationale to support your preferred idea and deliberately ignoring or even rejecting any rationale or evidence that does not support your option.
That is not logic, rationale or science, that's just faith.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "1~ the double-slit experiment which shows that the simple act of consciously observing something can effect that thing which is being observed."
James covered this excellently already, suffice it to say, you're incorrect that this "shows" conscious effect. It is one possible interpretation but not the only one, and not even a particularly satisfactory one.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "2~ virtual particle pairs, i.e. particles that pop into existence from nothingness."
No they don't. They pop into existence from something not nothing. They pop in from space/time and then re-annihilate returning the "borrowed" energy in a time period inversely proportional to the amount of energy "borrowed". (Except in regions of highly accelerated spacetime like Black Hole Event Horizons where it is possible for one of the pair to be emitted as Hawking radiation)
This "froth" of virtual particles also means that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is observed as "empty" space would be a known position and velocity "0,0" otherwise. Known as a "Quantum Degeneracy Effect"
Ed Wagemann wrote: "3~ multiverses, and the idea that our universe was born from another universe - possibly like a white hole being born from a black hole."
"White Holes" are completely hypothetical and mathematically unlikely. "Multiverse" hypotheses are certainly interesting but they are also completely hypothetical at this time.
If your evidence for you hypothetical consciousness is more hypothetical entities then you are building a house of cards ready to tumble.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Add these all together and the possibilities of conciousness being present at the Big Bang becomes something that deserves to be looked at."
How can you "look" at it when there is no evidence, or even ways to look for evidence?
In science a hypothesis is made and then you try to find out some way to falsify it, each time it survives such a test the hypothesis is strengthened until it reaches the statistical level that we consider it "proved" and the hypothesis matures into a Theory (often called a Law if the theory is simple to codify)
Your repeated claim is that it cannot be falsified, which makes it utterly useless as a hypothesis, as all you can do with it is build increasingly hypothetical hypothesis heaped upon a foundation that has no basis other than a claim.
In the meantime your "looking at" this claim that you're so irrationally fond of blinds you to all the myriad other possibilities that you are so quick to dismiss that by your own argument deserve equal (and therefore infinite) consideration time.
Rock wrote: "Third, a brain doesn't rot when a person dies."With due apology for the pun, that is utter rot.
The brain, being one of the most hydrated and delicate structures in the body decomposes extremely rapidly. Once the heart stops, chemical changes occur within the body and result in changes in pH, causing cells to lose their structural integrity. The loss of cell structure brings about the release of cellular enzymes capable of initiating the breakdown of surrounding cells and tissues. This process is known as autolysis.
This process begins with in moments of the cessation of circulation and as little as four minutes without oxygen these changes begin to damage the brain. The brain as well as being delicate and hydrated is the one organ that percentagewise is the single largest resource user as far as oxygen and blood sugars and other nutrition, which is why starvation and dehydration can induce altered mental states and (think metabolic keto-acidosis in diabetics) and damage the brain and longterm chronic starvation and/or hydration can "stunt" brain growth(physical size) development(brain structure) and cognition (brain function).
Michael wrote: "Ed, you are right, there are many other possibilities, but the only possibilities that an atheist would consider are those backed by observation, i.e. scientific alternatives....but really, the point you are trying to progress was soundly defeated many entries ago."Well, I certainly agree with you that I seem like a nice fellow.
But I disagree with you that the point I'm trying to make has in anyway been defeated here.
To restate my point: It is possible that consciousness was present at the Big Bang.
And here is one of the "scientific alternatives" that would most likely support that:
Our universe is born from a previous universe-like phenomenon. Physics have given us theories involving "white holes" - which can serve as models for this type of occurrence. If this scenerio is accurate then that would wipe out Gary's argument that consciousness could not have possibly been present at the Big Bang because time and space did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
But honestly, the thing that really confounds me here is the arrogance that any human being demonstrates by claiming that they are so all-knowing that they can inequivically rule out the possibility.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Our universe is born from a previous universe-like phenomenon. Physics have given us theories involving white holes - which can serve as models for this type of occurrence. This would wipe out Gary's argument that consciousness could not have possibly been present at the Big Bang because time and space did not exist prior to the Big Bang. "White holes are entirely hypothetical and not widely accepted even as hypothetical objects, Professor Hawking argued that the time reverse of a black hole in thermal equilibrium is again a black hole in thermal equilibrium. This implies that black holes and white holes are the same object.
So trying to "wipe out" my argument by hypothetical postulation is still groundless. Your argument amounts to "assuming you are wrong therefore you are wrong".
Besides, if Time and Space existed before the alleged T->0 event that you continue to mislabel "the Big Bang" then we are into a "oscillating universe" model which does not then require creation or a creator consciousness. So this argument also makes your assertion unlikely.
What will "wipe out" my argument is evidence and you have none.
Rock wrote: "Yet no one here has made Step One in confronting this issue of consciousness. "Gary wrote: Agreed. Which is why it is putting the cart before the horse somewhat to assume that this unknown quantity existed in an unknown form at an unspecified epoch of the early universe.
I disagree. It seems to me that most of astrophysics is using what we have now and looking back to try and explain things with those things. Consciousness is obviously one of the things that we have now. Without consciousness how could anything exist? How can we know that the Big Bang existed, if not for consciousness? How can we be sure that ANYTHING existed prior to consciousness? No one here has been able to point to a specific time and place when consciousness first came into being. And even if they could then then how would they be able to prove that ANYTHING existed prior to that point?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "1~ the double-slit experiment which shows that the simple act of consciously observing something can effect that thing which is being observed."Gary wrote: James covered this excellently already, suffice it to say, you're incorrect that this "shows" conscious effect. It is one possible interpretation but not the only one, and not even a particularly satisfactory one.
I have James blocked so I was not able to read his rebuttal of this.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I disagree. It seems to me that most of astrophysics is using what we have now and looking back to try and explain things with those things."Actually most of it is looking back at then, not now. When you look up into the distance of space you are looking back in time. Right back to the Big Bang Fireball remnant which existed well before many things we take for granted now existed.
So no.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Consciousness is obviously one of the things that we have now."
So are Bic Biro's, but are you alleging that Bic biros exist now because they existed before there was carbon to make the plastic they are formed from?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Without consciousness how could anything exist?"
The old "if a tree falls in a forest" argument, fun for philosophy, relatively meaningless in cosmology.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "How can we know that the Big Bang existed, if not for consciousness?"
We can see it?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "How can we be sure that ANYTHING existed prior to consciousness?"
Because the hypothesis that the universe is real and exists beyond our personal perceptions is the one that answers the most questions while not raising more.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one here has been able to point to a specific time and place when consciousness first came into being."
So? You keep trying to imply consciousness as this big magical force, but with no evidence beyond one of the hypothetical interpretations of a quantum experiment.
In fact from your "consciousness" argument it is far more likely that if consciousness collapses the waveform then;
(1) The conscious observation of the universe by the first entity to achieve consciousness in the universe then collapses the waveform of the entire universe into what we observe as it's history. Therefore the first "potential" consciousness in the phasespace of possibility becomes the first consciousness in the universe no matter how many millions of years it took for the possibility to occur.
(2) There is only one consciousness (me or you) and everyone else is illusory.
Both hypothesis are far more likely based on your arguments than a consciousness at T->0 as evidences by the maps of fossil quantum fluctuations recorded in the microwave background, thereby disproving their conscious observation at the earliest epoch of the universe.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And even if they could then then how would they be able to prove that ANYTHING existed prior to that point? "
Because we can look back in time by looking at far away objects?
Again though, you are arguing from ignorance to support a preferred hypothesis, you are not looking at the evidence, science or even other mythological possibilities with an open mind.
C.J. wrote: "How long will humanity continue to wait on the false holy books' promises? In 1000 years, will we still be waiting on the return of Christ?"Matthew 16:28 fairly clearly says that they expected Christ's return before his generation was entirely gone (despite the Gospels being formalised sometime after this had happened). There was doomsayers and millenialists in abundance when 1000AD approached and then again in 2000. I can only hope that by 3000 we have not been dragged back into a theocratic Dark Age to go through it all again.
C.J. wrote: "What I believe really needs to happen is contact with another evolved species (yes,alien). I have no doubt they would have a DIFFERENT God or gods than we have on Earth. Or maybe all atheists...who knows, but it would definitely put an end to the false religions of our world, and theirs too."
I doubt it. If certain evangelical Christians are anything to go by then I can guess the initial response. There was a heavy critique of "Star Trek" in presenting a secular future society, with overtones of socialism, and the obvious representations of "Demons" in the guise of aliens. The evangelists went on to speculate that the media's portrayal of benevolent aliens was a satanic plot for Demons to be accepted as alien visitors in the end days.
C.J. wrote: "Imagine the consequences of finally discovering another intelligent species and find out most of their world is also deluded by alternate religions. If that would not prove The Bible and Koran false, what would?"
The Bible and Qu'ran contradict themselves and both are contradicted by followers who cherry pick their preferred attributes for their deity and ignore other parts of the doctrine. Whether it is conscientious people ignoring, re-interpreting or "contextualising" violent or hateful doctrine, or whether it's selfish cynical people doing the same to ignore the good parts.
The Bible and Qu'ran will never be disproved to believers, because they believe, which means they will choose to ignore or reject ideas that do not fit within their pre-selected belief. Only by replacing belief with reason and faith with healthy doubt or scepticism will we see an end to the harm of these scriptures.
Though I would say that without belief or faith, there are parts of both works that could still inspire great good. Fictional heroes can still inspire and inform real ones.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I have James blocked so I was not able to read his rebuttal of this."Ah apologies for the assumption.
To put it simply the double slit experiment does not "prove" that consciousness has an effect on quantum states, only that measurement does. The same effect occurs when an unobserved measurement is made of the slit. It appears that the interaction between the measurement at the slit means that the associated quantum wave "collapses".
The relationship of consciousness to quantum theory is purely hypothetical and contentious at best. There are many other interpretations that do not require a conscious observer. The only true problem with disproving the hypothesis is that eventually you need to "observe" the experiment at some point to get the data, which means that "delayed choice" hypotheses then come into effect.
There have also been many experiments where individual quantum effects happen to fast to be "consciously" observed but can be measured. These make an aggregate effect which would make it appear that the act of measurement does the collapsing, not the conscious observation.
Quantum effects are indeed strange, and as yet not entirely explicable, but building a hypothesis based on just one hypothetical effect that does not have clear support is again building speculation upon speculation.
Just as an aside Ed, I was watching an interesting interview with Penn Jillette where he put the agnostic/atheist question into a simple light that I had not thought of before but made a lot of sense."Agnosticism and Atheism is actually the answer to two different questions. If you are asked 'is there a god?' and you say 'I don't know' then you're an agnostic, however if you are asked 'do you believe in a god? then you have to answer yes or no, and if your answer to the first was 'I don't know' then the answer to the question is pretty much 'no'" - Penn Jillette
All I can say is that "pretty much no" isn't no. ---
The only true problem with disproving the hypothesis is that eventually you need to "observe" the experiment at some point to get the data
Isnt there some principle that the more times something cannot be disproved, the more likely it is that it is true? Maybe I'm thinking of something else - involving law. Whatever the case, its nto important to my argument.
My argument would be that a tool for measurement is simply just a mechanized man-made middle man, isnt it? Instead of going from the phenomenon to the observation, you have this middle step. But that extra step is simply a middle man - it isnt neccesary. What IS necessary is the observation.
Ed wrote: It seems to me that most of astrophysics is using what we have now and looking back to try and explain things with those things.Gary wrote: Actually most of it is looking back at then, not now. When you look up into the distance of space you are looking back in time. Right back to the Big Bang Fireball remnant which existed well before many things we take for granted now existed.
Well that is what I mean. We are looking back at the past and trying to come to grasps with it using our present perceptive ability.
I have to question how effective our current perceptive ability is in regard to judging far distances. Time and space can be warped by distance. A perfect example is that the further one moves away from Earth, the slower they age biologically. I beleive there have been experiments done that show that life forms that spend a long time in outer space come back to earth having aged at a slower rate. Correct?
And this also relates back to whether we can tell if consciousness was present at the Big Bang or not. Consciousness - human consciousness at least - heavily relies upon our perceptions. So when you say that the "oscillating universe" model does not require creation or a creator consciousness, I have to be skeptic of this. The greater the distance we "look" back, the less reliable our perceptions are.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "My argument has nothing to do with unicorns or harry potter...Here let me repeat myself, step by step, and then you tell me exactly what you disagree with.
1. The universe exists.
2. Science tel..."
You are fixating on the fact (undisputed) that it is POSSIBLE for consciousness to have played a role in creating the universe. it is also possible that you or I (or XoX or Hazel or anyone else)created the universe in another incarnation of which we are unaware. But there is no evidence for that and no evidence for a consciousness being present except in our minds. And there is evidence, in the post-Big Bang era, that natural forces are responsible for the universe as we see it today. As someone else has noted, the burden of proof is on the person asserting the claim, just like in any law court. And while we all must remain open to possibilities that we have not conceived of, the test is whether evidence exists for a "consciousness" to have played a role. And it doesn't. "God" is a vocabulary--our vocabulary in ancient times for understanding things that were mysteries to us. God is neither an entity nor a consciousness. God only exists in our minds.
Timothy wrote: God only exists in our minds. Well, it can be argued that the universe only exists in our minds as well. For instance if we did not have consciousness, would the universe exist? What proof would there be?
Timothy wrote:...there is no evidence for that and no evidence for a consciousness being present except in our minds.
How do you define consciousness?
Also, IF you think consciousness did not exist at the Big Bang, THEN do you think we can be conscious of something that existed at a time before consciousness even existed?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Timothy wrote: God only exists in our minds. Well, it can be argued that the universe only exists in our minds as well. For instance if we did not have consciousness, would the universe exist? ..."
You are saying two things: one is that our notion of the universe is subject to our consciousness. This is a given. But you are also saying that "consciousness" existed at the big bang. This assumes that an entity existed to have consciousness. There is no evidence for that. Not at all. Our consciousness is biological, a consequence of a well-evolved mind. Other creatures certainly have consciousness, but in a more limited way. Rocks, however, do not have consciousness, as far as we can tell. Consciousness evolved, just like us. It evolved from the elements of nature. It is a fascinating development, but it has nothing to do with God. There is no "consciousness hovering out there. It came with the evolution of tangible, biological creatures with minds that grew over time. Before that, no. Nothing.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "All I can say is that "pretty much no" isn't no."Which is again the argument from the stance of "you can't prove it 100%" which is a dishonest argument as nothing can be proved 100%. You can say that the world is a Spheroid and still people will claim you cannot 100% prove that, citing lack of direct evidence for the majority of the population, massive conspiracies and potential brainwashing.
Again, did you murder Bob? Prove you didn't to 100% certainty. Impossible. Prove you didn't to reasonable satisfaction, a lot easier and more informative.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Isnt there some principle that the more times something cannot be disproved, the more likely it is that it is true?"
No.
The more times that a hypothesis makes a falsifiable prediction and is correct the more likely it is to be true. A hypothesis that cannot be tested cannot be evidenced and so is completely worthless.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Maybe I'm thinking of something else - involving law. Whatever the case, its nto important to my argument."
No it's not because your argument at the moment amounts to you cannot prove my argument false because I will not accept or address any counterpoint except to claim ignorance when convenient.
Ed Wagemann wrote: " Instead of going from the phenomenon to the observation, you have this middle step. But that extra step is simply a middle man - it isnt neccesary. What IS necessary is the observation. "
I covered that.
Certain experiments can be run far faster than we perceive, and then the aggregate result is observed. (The boiled kettle/laser trap experiment)
Now you can claim that the trillions of measurements are then observed as a summary by a consciousness, but the arbitrary accuracy of that then means that the waveform should be collapsible by vague rumour too, and perhaps even by imagination. (A common hypothesis of modern Chaos Magicians using Quantum Theory to explain true magick)
It still is not evidence of an effect of consciousness because the experiment is not falsifiable as you have no way for the experiment not to be eventually observed consciously if you (or anyone else) wants to know the result.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Well that is what I mean. We are looking back at the past and trying to come to grasps with it using our present perceptive ability."Yes. Which is how we do things every day. Everything you see is in your past. The light takes time to travel from the object and your brain takes finite time to process this into meaning to be aware of. Therefore the only difference is how far away and how far back in time you look.
So if your argument is that our present perceptive ability is unable to make a hypothesis about an earlier time and prove it, well you have (again) proved your own argument wrong.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I have to question how effective our current perceptive ability is in regard to judging far distances."
Some extremely clever ways have been devised, but I don't think I should go into them now as you haven't grasped most of the things I have told you so far.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Time and space can be warped by distance."
Wrong.
Spacetime is warped by acceleration, not distance.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "A perfect example is that the further one moves away from Earth, the slower they age biologically."
Wrong. The closer to a warped spacetime the faster we age, reaching infinitely fast at a event horizon. The distortion fades as we move away from Earth but since the Earth has a (relatively) tiny mass the distortion compared to 'flat' spacetime is tiny but significant.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I beleive there have been experiments done that show that life forms that spend a long time in outer space come back to earth having aged at a slower rate. Correct?"
I am really starting to see that your grounding in science was less than I imagined. No you are not really correct as the time distortion between Earth Orbit and Earth surface amounts to not even a minute in a century. So the effect on a lifeform would be insignificant.
However, the distortions can be measured by sensitive atomic clocks, and indeed the distortion needs to be taken into account to calculate accurate GPS co-ordinates.
This distortion of course is part of the evidence you previously denied that indicates the impossibility of a creation event.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And this also relates back to whether we can tell if consciousness was present at the Big Bang or not. Consciousness - human consciousness at least - heavily relies upon our perceptions."
Exactly, now you're getting it. Since our perceptions could not exist within the conditions at the Big Bang we have no reason to assume the complex arrangement of consciousness could exist there. Especially as the imprint of such complexity would then be a falsifiable test predicting a remnant of that complexity on the Big Bang Remnant, but all we see is the faint traces of very simple quantum fluctuations, not a highly complex ordered system.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So when you say that the "oscillating universe" model does not require creation or a creator consciousness, I have to be skeptic of this. The greater the distance we "look" back, the less reliable our perceptions are. "
So why are you not skeptical about the existence of a creator? After all you've just shown that the further our perceptions are away the harder it is to observe yet you favour one idea over another with no evidence and no way to get evidence.
Because you are choosing to believe in one and trying to turn lack of evidence into a virtue.
That is not agnosticism because you are claiming to know, and believing in it. That's religion.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Well, it can be argued that the universe only exists in our minds as well. For instance if we did not have consciousness, would the universe exist? What proof would there be?"Exactly! At last!
The idea that the universe exists in only our minds cannot be 100% disproved either, so now you will hopefully see how silly your argument from ignorance is.
Especially as you started this thread mocking traditional religions (and belief in Santa to boot*)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Also, IF you think consciousness did not exist at the Big Bang, THEN do you think we can be conscious of something that existed at a time before consciousness even existed? "
Well can you be conscious of something that existed before your consciousness existed? Yes. Look up. Therefore it is silly to assume that other consciousness could not also perceive stuff that existed before it.
C.J. wrote: "Ed,Do you believe this alien/ancient consciousness is still around or possibly dead/terminated?"
I don't know. Like I say, I don't even know if there was a consciousness present at the Big Bang. I am simply arguing that it was possible.
---
Gary wrote:Which is again the argument from the stance of "you can't prove it 100%" which is a dishonest argument as nothing can be proved 100%.
If this is the case, then all of your arguments are dishonest also, because you cannot prove anything 100% either.
Ed wrote: Well can you be conscious of something that existed before your consciousness existed? Gary wrote: Yes. Look up. Therefore it is silly to assume that other consciousness could not also perceive stuff that existed before it.
But WHEN did MY consciousness first come into existence? Or yours? Can you point to a specific point in time and space where you went from NOT having consciousness to having it?
Wasn't the seed of YOUR consciousness already there in your being at the point of your conception?
And can't its origins be traced back to the dna in the sperm and egg of your parents and then even further back to the dna of your grandparents? And then even further back all the way to the very first humans on Earth? And can't that be traced back further to the chemicals in the cells that went to make up the sludge that humans first arrose from. And can't be traced back further and further, eventually to the point of the Big Bang?
Which would mean that the seeds of consciousness existed at the Big Bang?
If it is possible that YOUR individual consciousness is a product of human consciousness, then isnt it also possible that human consiousness is a product of a greater universal consciousness?
ALSO, can you explain what this "other consciousness" is that you are referring to in your reply?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If this is the case, then all of your arguments are dishonest also, because you cannot prove anything 100% either."No because I am not claiming they are right just because they cannot be proved wrong. My arguments have evidence.
Gary wrote: "No because I am not claiming they are right just because they cannot be proved wrong. My arguments have evidence. "Evidence is subjective. From my perspective your evidence that consciousness was not present at the Big Bang is not convincing.
Gary wrote:but all we see is the faint traces of very simple quantum fluctuations, not a highly complex ordered system.
"ALL WE SEE" that is the key phrase. What about what we can't see? Like 95% of the what makes up our current universe - dark matter/dark energy.
Man only uses one-tenth of his brain at any given time. Imagine if we were using even two-tenths of our brain at this very moment instead of just one-tenth? Imagine if the gates of perception opened up so that twice as much infomation was flowing into our consciousness as compared to what is flowing in now (some have argued that something similar to this is what happens when a person takes LSD)? Imagine if our 5 senses (or ten as Hazel argues) developed in such a way that we were able to percieve several times more than what we percieve today. Can we even imagine how our consciousness would be changed? What if instead of the 10 senses that Hazel says we have, we are in the process of evolving 20?
If you believe in evolution then you must think that mankind did just not pop up one day with all our five (or ten) senses in tact. These senses must have evolved. And if we have evolved 5 senses, then what would make anyone think we are not in the process of evolving more?
On top of that when considering "ALL WE SEE" we have to take into account that what we see is warped. Not only is it warped, but it limited to a fairly fixed position in the universe.
Have you ever looked at an object, maybe an apple, or a piece of art, or anything that you have looked at from one perspective and then moved away or turned the object around and then looked at it again from that different perspective? The changes can be dramatic.
What if we looked at the Big Bang from the other side of it - instead of looking back to the past and observing it, what if WE were in the past looking into the future at it? What if we were looking at it from an entirely different point in the universe?
I mean just a few hunderes years ago, mankind thought the world was flat. But our perspective has changed. Up until the 1960s there werent any actual photogrpahs of our planet Earth taken from outer space. We did not know what it looked like from a distant perspective. Now just 50 years later, from our still incredibly limited perspective and from our limited carbon-based reality, shouldnt we take this into consideration when we hear these grand, sweeping generalities about the origins of the universe that phsyicists are making?
Gary wrote:
So why are you not skeptical about the existence of a creator? After all you've just shown that the further our perceptions are away the harder it is to observe yet you favour one idea over another with no evidence and no way to get evidence.
Because you are choosing to believe in one and trying to turn lack of evidence into a virtue.
That is not agnosticism because you are claiming to know, and believing in it. That's religion.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
:-)
I AM skeptical of a "creator". You continue to make these false assumptions about my beliefs. I am simply open-minded enough to explore the possibility until such a possibility seems impossible. So far nothing I have read comes close to making it seem that it is impossible that consciousness was present at the Big Bang. And I have been careful throughout this thread to use the word a "consciousness" and not a "creator" btw.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "But WHEN did MY consciousness first come into existence? Our yours? Can you point to a specific point in time and space where you went from NOT having consciousness to having it?"No which is the exact point. In your model consciousness is a "thing" which means it either has a clear origin, or it is eternal. In my model consciousness is what is known as an emergent process, which means that there will not be a clear delineation between non-conscious and conscious but instead a continuum of increasing consciousness from a state of non-consciousness.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Wasn't the seed of YOUR consciousness already there in your being at the point of your conception?"
The seed. An acorn does not contain a mini-oak tree complete with acorns that contain even small oak trees. An acorn contains the instructions which code for the formation of a tree, but not a "design" as clones of two trees will not result in the same structural design.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And can't its origins be traced back to the dna in the sperm and egg of your parents and your grandparents? And then even further back all the way to the very first humans on Earth? And can't that be traced back further to the chemicals in the cells that went to make up the sludge that humans first arrose from. And can't be traced back further and further, eventually to the point of the Big Bang?
Which would mean that the seeds of consciousness existed at the Big Bang?"
Yes but these things are built on each other, not derived from. Just as the works of Shakespeare is composed of less than 40 symbols in a specific arrangement, but those 40 symbols do not contain the instructions to create the works of shakespeare.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If it is possible that YOUR individual consciousness is s subset of human consciousness,"
Do you mean a variation, or part of some mystical whole? One has evidence, the other doesn't.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "then isnt it also possible that human consiousness is a subset of a greater universal consciousness? "
Universal consciousness? No. Consciousness is a process and a process requires communication, universal consciousness would not be able to get over the horizon problem.
So possible? Only in the sense that technically unicorns and pixies are possible (and in fact more likely).
Ed Wagemann wrote: ""ALL WE SEE" that is the key phrase. What about what we can't see? Like 95% of the what makes up our current universe - dark matter/dark energy."Yes but why do we know about Dark Matter and Dark Energy? Because we can see it's effects. Scientists haven't just made them up because they have assumed they are there, they saw evidence and advanced a hypothesis to explain it. The exact opposite of what you are doing.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Man only uses one-tenth of his brain at any given time."
Wrong.
This is one of those "commonly known things" that is now known to be false.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What if instead of the 10 senses that Hazel says we have, we are in the process of evolving 20? "
Evidence? Apart from New age drug/hippy ideas.
We have more than 5 "traditional" senses because certain senses like smell, taste and touch are actually combinations of different sensing systems. We also forget about senses that are so intrinsic we don't even know they are senses, like the sense of what the position of our arms or legs are at any particular moment.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If you believe in evolution..."
No.
Again I do not "believe" in it. Evolution is a highly successful theory that is falsifiable, but has never been falsified, and best explains many aspects of life and indeed other processes.
It is not a belief though, it is an accepted theory. It may be wrong, but a better theory needs to explain everything we see explained by evolution.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "then you must think that mankind did just not pop up one day with all our five (or ten) senses in tact. These senses must have evolved. And if we have evolved 5 senses, then what would make anyone think we are not in the process of evolving more? "
Because that is based on the idea that evolution is directed from "worse" to "better" which are value judgements and beliefs. There is no evidence that we are developing new senses and there is evidence that certain senses have atrophied because they are no longer that useful.
So no.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "On top of that when considering "ALL WE SEE" we have to take into account that what we see is warped."
Warped in a mathematically predictable and consistent way which means it is warped but not distorted or obscured.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Not only is it warped, but it limited to a fairly fixed position in the universe."
Except that very warping has been used by clever astronomers to magnify even more distant objects by using the distortion of mass in between as a giant lens. So the warping actually makes things clearer.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Have you ever looked at an object, maybe an apple, or a piece of art, or anything that you have looked at from one perspective and then moved away or turned the object around and then looked at it again from that different perspective? The changes can be dramatic."
Yes, this is all part of a theory called symmetry and several cosmological models take this into account. In all of the cases you cite above it is still possible to make reasonable ideas of what is visible from another perspective based on various measurements. In fact thanks to super-highspeed photography and lasers we have developed the beginnings of a camera that can look around corners and see the change in perspective you describe.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What if we looked at the Big Bang from the other side of it - instead of looking back to the past and observing it, what if WE were in the past looking into the future at it?"
Again you need to read what has been written if you were in the past before the Big Bang then the Big Bang is not creation obviously.
Further I did some reading on your conjecture about White Holes and found some further information. For example based on the time distortion if the universe was a White Hole then the "creation" would have to be infinitely far in the past, which is not what we see.
Secondly a "White Hole" would need to be connected to a "Black Hole" which is effectively the point of creation which would require your "consciousness" to create such a complex object yes?
Except a Black Hole is the simplest object in the universe, pretty much defined by only two properties, Mass and Spin. It forms by a simple process, the collapse of matter under its own gravity. So there is no requirement for a complex creator.
Also lets say that in the universe of the Black Hole someone did cause the collapse from which it formed. One of the big questions of a Black Hole is did it violate the laws of Thermodynamics as surely dropping a complex object such as a teacup into a black hole would result it the complex information of the cup being turned into a simple increase of mass, meaning entropy had decreased non-locally. This question led to the discovery of Hawking Radiation and the fact is that the complexity of the cup is re-radiated into the universe via hawking radiation, preserving entropy while the mass passes through.
So if by a series of comically unlikely assumptions your pre-White Hole god exists, he would never be able to effect our universe subsequently being forever bound in its own universe which would explain the complete lack of evidence of its existence.
Of course a lack of existence would explain it better.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Wrong, wrong, wrong!
:-)
I AM skeptical of a "creator". You continue to make these false assumptions about my beliefs."
Because of what you called the thread. You claimed to have a convincing argument for the existence of god and your argument amounts to "you can't prove he doesn't". There are infinite things you can't prove do not exist, in fact everything imaginable and yet to be imagined. Yet you clearly state you do have a case for the existence of god, not that you lack an argument that it doesn't.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I am simply open-minded enough to explore the possibility until such a possibility seems impossible."
No. You just arbitrarily assign an unreachable level of proof in order to preserve your preferred idea. That is exactly how religious apologists and flat earthers argue for their preferred ideas.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So far nothing I have read comes close to making it seem that it is impossible that consciousness was present at the Big Bang."
Possibly because your understanding of science is woefully inadequate. Do you understand what the Big Bang was, do you know what we mean by Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the inflationary epoch? Do you understand the evidence for the enormous simplicity and homogenisation of the Big Bang even 400 millenia after T->0? Do you understand the difference between T=0 and T->0?
If you don't comprehend the Big Bang then shouldn't you learn about it before you try to make grandiose claims about it?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And I have been careful throughout this thread to use the word a "consciousness" and not a "creator" btw. "
Intentional obfuscation of an idea isn't open mindedness. Religious apologists do this all the time. They use a commonly mistaken assumption that sounds reasonable (e.g. "something cannot come from nothing") and then build a series of conclusions based on that misconception that takes them to where they want to go. This means that they tend to succeed with people who have not studied such things, but then fall completely flat when somebody notices the flaw in their argument from the start.
You mocked the idea of "Jehovah", "God" or "Jesus", being like "Santa" at the start of your argument because you thought those ideas were silly compared to what you know about how the universe works. Instead you moved to what doesn't sound silly, but instead mysterious and ineffable from your level of knowledge. What you have to understand is that for people who have studied such things your arguments given thus far are just as silly to us, as Santa is to you.
What would you think about an adult who believes in Santa and then when you point out the obvious logical inconsistencies in Santa's existence they just say "Well you cannot prove 100% he doesn't exist, unless you search every inch of the North pole personally" or "Well none of your arguments satisfy me" when he shows he hasn't understood the mathematical impossibilities of delivering 7 billion presents within 24 hours.
If you really want to have an open mind, or claim to be agnostic then perhaps you shouldn't claim to know when your argument shows that you don't.
Gary it seems like you are trying to make this personal. Saying I personally have inadequate knowledge, comparing me to religious apologists, etc. I'm not sure as to the reasons for that, but since you are making it personal, isn't it only fair to question your personal motives as well? Gary wrote: No.
Again I do not "believe" in it. Evolution is a highly successful theory that is falsifiable, but has never been falsified, and best explains many aspects of life and indeed other processes.
It sounds like you are saying you dont believe in any theories then. That you have NO beliefs whatsoever. Is that what you are saying?
Gary wrote: Because that is based on the idea that evolution is directed from "worse" to "better" which are value judgements and beliefs.
So here you implying that the theory of evolution is invalid because it is based on judgements and beliefs? I'm not sure what you are getting at there.
Gary writes:"Possibly because your understanding of science is woefully inadequate."
But aren't you making a judgement yourself here? Why is it okay for you to make judgements then?
I think this brings up the question of what is the nature of judgements? Why do humans make judgements?
For instance, when I say that if you believe in evolution then you must believe that mankind did just not pop up one day with all our five (or ten) senses in tact why do make the judgement that I am implying something in regard to "worse" to "better" which are value judgements and beliefs.
That jump seems like an irrational judgement in regard to what I am saying because all I am saying is that life has adapted to its surroundings. And developing senses have been a part of that and if we are going to continue to adapt to our surroundings as time and space change then it only makes sense that further develope will be in order.
But we know that "judgements and beliefs" play a big role in developing our senses, because once we percieve something we then have to make a judgment about it. Right?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I am simply open-minded enough to explore the possibility until such a possibility seems impossible."
Gary wrote: No. You just arbitrarily assign an unreachable level of proof in order to preserve your preferred idea.
I don't have a preferred idea. And the fact that I require a high level of proof does not make it arbitrary. Didn't you say yourself that nothing is 100% provable?
Brain scans have shown that no matter what we're doing, our brains are always active, but they have also shown that some areas are more active at any one time than others. My point is that there are parts of the brain that are not continually in use - which means that we have room to evolve. wikipedia says:Although parts of the brain have broadly understood functions, many mysteries remain about how brain cells (i.e., neurons and glia) work together to produce complex behaviors and disorders. Perhaps the broadest, most mysterious question is how diverse regions of the brain collaborate to form conscious experiences. So far, there is no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort.
Gary wrote: Consciousness is a process and a process requires communication, universal consciousness would not be able to get over the horizon problem.
I have not seen any "evidence" that supports that statement. I'm not seeing convincing evidence that consciousness is a process instead of a state of being.
Gary wrote:Do you understand what the Big Bang was, do you know what we mean by Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the inflationary epoch? I know enough about them to know that they are theories and beliefs. Not facts. And relatively recent theories in the history of mankind at that. And as we briefly talked about earlier, in regard to the ancient Greeks, theories and beliefs don't always last. The ideas and beliefs of the sharpest minds among the ancient greeks as you pointed out proved to be wrong minded as mankinds understanding of the universe evolved. This was just a few thousand years ago, so would it be any wonder that the theories and beliefs of today's physicists will be proven just as wrong-minded a couple thousand years from today as we evolve a greater understanding of our universe? Especially considering that our current understanding of our universe is from such a limited perspective?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Brain scans have shown that no matter what we're doing, our brains are always active, but they have also shown that some areas are more active at any one time than others. My point is that there are parts of the brain that are not continually in use - which means that we have room to evolve."'Room to evolve' implies that there is a capacity and therefore goal for evolution which is again a misconception of how evolution works. Evolution does not need "room", evolution opens up new phase spaces to develop into when the opportunity arises.
Try reading http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16...
This is an excellent book on evolution, complexity and consciousness.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So far, there is no evidence that there is one site for consciousness, which leads experts to believe that it is truly a collective neural effort."
Exectly, which is why consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the complex interaction of communication and perception with a complex brain.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I have not seen any "evidence" that supports that statement."
The evidence is the "horizon problem", if we look out in one direction we see a region of space that cannot be in communication with a region of space in the opposite direction without FTL travel. Therefore a universal consciousness would violate known laws of physics.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not seeing convincing evidence that consciousness is a process instead of a state of being."
Define "state of being" scientifically. The 6 states of being I know of are,
Bose/Einstien condensate
Solid
Liquid
Gas
Plasma
Q/G Plasma
The reason that I define consciousness as a process is because it is comprised of processes.
Thinking - a process starting with an initial state of ideas memories and then ending with conclusions or new memories of what has been thought of.
Awareness - a process of gathering sense information and recording it so thinking can be carried out.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary it seems like you are trying to make this personal."
I'm afraid that you have (perhaps unintentionally) done this yourself. You started off by claiming a definition of what atheists were, that many disagreed with, and then using that definition to accuse them of being close minded or flawed in their thinking.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Saying I personally have inadequate knowledge,"
You do. You claimed that time distorts over distance, which isn't true. This and many other flawed statements about science shows me that you haven't studied it as much as others.
Now there is no problem with that, until you claim to know better than people who actually have studied what you are talking about. Which you have done repeatedly.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "comparing me to religious apologists, etc."
I compared your arguments to the same arguments used by religious apologists. I can provide many references. I just watched a youtube video where a Christian apologist tried to logically prove the existence of god with a more sophisticated yet equally flawed argument similar to the one you put here.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not sure as to the reasons for that, but since you are making it personal, isn't it only fair to question your personal motives as well?"
What are your personal motivations for continuing to misquote, misrepresent, ignore or dismiss the points I raise with nothing better than "you can't 100% prove it"? Why did you ignore my questions? Why did you not honestly address any of the criticisms I made?
I am interested in informed debate and development of ideas, that is my purpose here.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "It sounds like you are saying you dont believe in any theories then. That you have NO beliefs whatsoever. Is that what you are saying?"
Yes, I specifically endeavour not to "believe" in things, which again if you read my comments about Penn above explains why I sometimes call myself an atheist. I accept the consensus scientific theories, but I realise that they are models and not necessarily complete models yet.
So I try to hold opinions, not beliefs as opinions keep an open mind to new ideas.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So here you implying that the theory of evolution is invalid because it is based on judgements and beliefs,"
No I said your interpretation of evolution was wrong because your definition implies judgements and beliefs on what has value, but the theory of evolution does not include these aspects.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "yet below you aren't you making a judgement yourself when you write:
"Possibly because your understanding of science is woefully inadequate." "
Which is an opinion which is evidenced by your incorrect use of scientific knowledge.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "There seems to be a contradiction here."
No, again you are using a flawed understanding to make a judgement which can be easily reconciled with appropriate data.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So it brings up the question of what is the nature of judgements then?"
We are back to the "did you kill Bob" metaphor which I note you completely avoided.
If you make a judgement on whether someone killed Bob, you would hope to have reasonable evidence yes? (i.e. a dead Bob, signs of violence, and evidence linking the deed to the killer).
Your judgements have been based on the argument "supposing you killed Bob, you cannot prove 100% that you didn't".
Which court would you want to appear in, mine or yours? (Hint: in mine you probably wouldn't have been arrested in the first place)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "When I say that if you believe in evolution then you must believe that mankind did just not pop up one day with all our five (or ten) senses in tact I am not implying anything in regard to "worse" to "better" which are value judgements and beliefs. I think you are making some irrational assumption about what I am getting at there."
No your argument was based on the idea that once we had less senses, and now had more and therefore could we be evolving toward having more.
That is a value judgement that "more senses are better".
Evolution does not do that, evolution explores the complete phase space. Only when a sense becomes (a) possible and (b) advantageous will it likely evolve in some branch of the population. In fact it is just as likely that we could get less senses if it is more advantageous to have the spare capacity thus freed.
However, based on the range of vertebrate senses it is more likely that it will remain in equilibrium as our senses have remained broadly static since our genus evolved.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What I am saying is that life has adapted to its surroundings. Developing senses have been a part of that and if we are going to continue to adapt to our surroundings as time and space change then it only makes sense that further develope will be in order."
Only if those surroundings change to warrant such change. You are still assuming that evolution moves along a path from worse to better, however this is a misconception. In fact organisms remain broadly similar in structure and ability unless their environment changes which is why their tends to be rapid bursts of evolutionary diversity after a disaster.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Interestingly enough, "judgements and beliefs" play a big role in developing our senses, because once we percieve something we then have to make a judgment about it. Right?"
Exactly, which is why scientists rely on evidence before making a judgement, not making a judgement and then searching for evidence to justify it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I don't have a preferred idea. And the fact that I require a high level of proof does not make it arbitrary. Didn't you say yourself that nothing is 100% provable? "
Your proof varies from "practically none required" when postulating one of infinite possibilities, yet your proof demands become "practically infinite" when someone offers counterarguments.
Your claim is that you have a "convincing argument" but your argument quickly descended into claims that we don't have enough knowledge to prove you wrong to your satisfaction. Hence it's a preferred idea.
Are you aware of Donald Trump's preferred theory? Are you aware of the way every time he has been offered proof that his theory is wrong he increases the demands for more proof that its wrong, while having woefully little evidence that he was right in the first place?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I know enough about them to know that they are theories and beliefs. Not facts."Really? Name a fact and I will show you a theory or belief.
You keep committing the same cognitive dissonance. Ideas you like you try to quote evidence for, ideas you don't you claim there isn't enough evidence to know anything.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And relatively recent theories in the history of mankind at that. And as we briefly talked about earlier, in regard to the ancient Greeks, theories and beliefs don't always last."
yet you are sticking to one of the oldest ones that has been contested for almost as long as its existed and has no evidence.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The ideas and beliefs of the sharpest minds among the ancient greeks as you pointed out proved to be wrong minded as mankinds understanding of the universe evolved."
Yet you forget that I said it was often ancient greeks that pointed it out.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Especially considering that our current understanding of our universe is from such a limited perspective? "
And back you vanish into the safety of ignorance.
Either you have evidence that you can support, or you can say that evidence doesn't matter. If you say the latter that is just belief not logic or science. Trying to claim evidence and rationale (as you have in the thread question) and then denying reason and evidence just proves yourself wrong in one neat circle.
You say you don't beleive in anything Gary. What about love? Do you believe in love? Do you believe in taking care of children? Do you believe in emotions?I know you are probablly going to try and weasel out of this by some semantic jibber jabber, but at some point if you don't exhibit these human characteristics then aren't you going to live a life of meaninglessness and sorrow. Unless you are a robot.
Gary writes"You do. You claimed that time distorts over distance, which isn't true. This and many other flawed statements about science shows me that you haven't studied it as much as others.
When you travel away from Earth time is warped. You age slower. Now, you have tried to say that time and space cannot be seperated. Distance is a part of time and space though. So distance does warp time. If you are at one place time is moving at a different rate than if you are in another place.
Gary writes: And back you vanish into the safety of ignorance.
Come on Gary, you are taking personal shots again. I'm not vanishing anywhere and I'm certainly not vanishing into the safety of ignorance. I'm simply confronting mankind's lack of perceptive ability head on, which is something you have continually dismissed as though it does not exist.
You keep committing the same cognitive dissonance. Ideas you like you try to quote evidence for, ideas you don't you claim there isn't enough evidence to know anything.
I disagree. In fact I'm pretty sure you have almost no idea about which ideas I like and which ones I don't. Your arguments have continually been boiling down to personal assumptions about me that are totally off the mark. Oftentimes this is because you exagerate something I say to the point of irrational hyperbole.
Consciousness is a state of being. By definiton it is a state of being. To call it a process is to try and change the English language. Here are links to several of the most used definitions of Consciousness, all of which describe it as a state of being - not a process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciou...
http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
cross product wrote:We can by now fairly convincingly say that your fairly convincing proof isn't convincing anyone.Well, I disagree. My fairly convincing argument is that it is possible that consciousness was present at the creation of the universe.
These folks seem to be convinced of that as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9bVd3...
---
Gary wrote:No your argument was based on the idea that once we had less senses, and now had more and therefore could we be evolving toward having more.
That is a value judgement that "more senses are better".
Again you are making false assumptions. Are you just trying to be a contrarian at this point? Because its a pretty simple concept. The more senses a living thing has the more information it can process about the universe. The more information a living thing has the more options it has. The more options a living thing has the easier it is to survive. Im not talking about rocket science here...
CrossProduct wrote: "We can by now fairly convincingly say that your fairly convincing proof isn't convincing anyone."I'm afraid I have to agree. God exists in our (well, some people's) minds, nowhere else.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "You say you don't believe in anything Gary. What about love? Do you believe in love? Do you believe in taking care of children? Do you believe in emotions?"I don't believe them, I observe them or experience them, I don't need to believe them (and in fact many people who do 'believe' in emotions end up trapped in abusive relationships where they believe they are in love but in actual fact they are afraid or dependent)
I don't 'believe' in taking care of children, I make the moral choice that taking care of them is a good thing. So instead of just assuming it's a good thing, I actually understand why.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I know you are probablly going to try and weasel out of this by some semantic jibber"
jabber"
If that's what you call logic and understanding.
I note again you have started with the ad hominim insults, if you're willing to stop it, then so am I.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "but at some point if you don't exhibit these human characteristics then aren't you going to live a life of meaninglessness and sorrow. Unless you are a robot."
Which is a common counterargument of spiritualists and religious people who cannot understand that you don't have to 'believe' something to experience it. In fact the wise man experiences first, and then finds knowledge, the believer assumes knowledge then looks for confirming experience.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "When you travel away from Earth time is warped. You age slower."
Again, wrong.
If you could survive travel to the surface of the Sun, or Jupiter, or near to a Black Hole you will age quicker, in fact if you fall into a black hole you will likely outlast the entire universe (unless the hole rips you apart with tidal forces first).
So, you are wrong. Please look up in a book on elementary relativity.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Now, you have tried to say that time and space cannot be seperated. Distance is a part of time and space though. So distance does warp time."
Does height warp width? That argument makes no sense.
Spacetime is warped by acceleration or by gravity which is in the theory of relativity indistinguishable from acceleration.
Please read about General Relativity, one of the pillars of modern physics.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "If you are at one place time is moving at a different rate than if you are in another place."
Not if those two places are in the same reference frame. Time only moves at different rates when those frames are travelling with respect to each other. (Which is another reason for time distortion in orbit, the fact that you are travelling in a different reference frame from Earth.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary writes: And back you vanish into the safety of ignorance.
Come on Gary, you are taking personal shots again."
Admittedly that may seem a bit harsh, but it does become frustrating when you use incorrect science (as above) to justify your beliefs and then as soon as I point out the flaws or use correct science you fall back to the apologists favourite argument of "science doesn't know everything."
Please tell me if science and logic are in your mind applicable to the discussion of a supposing argument that establishes the existence of god.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm simply confronting mankind's lack of perceptive ability head on, which is something you have continually dismissed as though it does not exist."
No I acknowledge it, however I do not think you can use logic and science to justify an argument and then dismiss it if somebody uses the same to counter your argument.
You've now tried that within this post, first you are making erroneous claims about time dilation in support of your point and now you're arguing against the use of your own argument based on the argument of limited perception.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I disagree. In fact I'm pretty sure you have almost no idea about which ideas I like and which ones I don't."
An assumption based on the fact that you have claimed to have a convincing argument and then fiercely defended that argument giving no quarter and repeatedly ignoring what is said.
This assumption is also one of many, many assumptions that you have not advocated.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Your arguments have continually been boiling down to personal assumptions about me that are totally off the mark."
No the main ones have been boiling down to science, logic and the framework of philosophical debate, but you seem to be ignoring all of that.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Oftentimes this is because you exagerate something I say to the point of irrational hyperbole."
Your 3 line argument that supposedly does what scientists and philosophers have not managed in three millennia appears to me to be irrational hyperbole. In fact several people have demonstrated how your logic can be used to "prove" just about anything could have been there at the beginning of the universe.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Consciousness is a state of being. By definiton it is a state of being. To call it a process is to try and change the English language."
So? Language changes on almost a daily basis, language is ideas and sometimes ideas are wrong and mistaken. This is why we have Science.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Here are links to several of the most used definitions of Consciousness, all of which describe it as a state of being - not a process:"
From your first link;
The validity of the concept
Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is. While most people have a strong intuition for the existence of what they refer to as consciousness, skeptics argue that this intuition is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions. Gilbert Ryle, for example, argued that traditional understanding of consciousness depends on a Cartesian dualist outlook that improperly distinguishes between mind and body, or between mind and world. He proposed that we speak not of minds, bodies, and the world, but of individuals, or persons, acting in the world. Thus, by speaking of 'consciousness' we end up misleading ourselves by thinking that there is any sort of thing as consciousness separated from behavioural and linguistic understandings. More generally, many philosophers and scientists have been unhappy about the difficulty of producing a definition that does not involve circularity or fuzziness."
Moreover, every link you gave reference consciousness being equivalent to awareness and thought. Both awareness and thought are demonstrably processes.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "cross product wrote:We can by now fairly convincingly say that your fairly convincing proof isn't convincing anyone.
Well, I disagree."
Hint: if it's not convincing then you disagreeing is superfluous.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "My fairly convincing argument is that it is possible that consciousness was present at the creation of the universe. "
Yet you omit "possible" from your thread title, and your argument can just as easily say that anything was possible at the "creation" of the universe.
Plus you have argued both for and against creation within this thread, depending on the counterpoint you were trying to dismiss.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "These folks seem to be convinced of that as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9bVd3..."
Did you see their other videos, about "911 conspiracies", "Illuminati", "the New World Order", "FEMA concentration camps"... etc.
Personally I will trust the judgement of Einstein and Hawking before I trust the judgement of YouTube conspiracy theorists.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Again you are making false assumptions. Are you just trying to be a contrarian at this point?"
No I am giving you the respect of answering your point as written. You are claiming it's a false assumption that you are saying that evolution proceeds from worse to better and then you repeat the exact claim that you said was a false assumption.
I am really just asking you to pick up a book on Evolution and how it actually works, not how creationists assume it works (I am not saying you're a creationist, but you are - probably unintentionally - using their same misconceptions).
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Because its a pretty simple concept. The more senses a living thing has the more information it can process about the universe."
And the longer it takes for that living thing to comprehend and process that information in a usable manner, and the more food and metabolism it needs to fuel all these sensory organs and the neural matter to process them and the less neural matter it has free for abstract thought.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The more information a living thing has the more options it has."
Which can quickly kill that living thing, more options means more decisions which means slower reactions which means more efficient living things have an evolutionary advantage.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The more options a living thing has the easier it is to survive. Im not talking about rocket science here... "
No we're not. Rocket science is actually quite simple BtW. Evolution and other sciences we've discussed are a lot more complex and sometimes counter-intuitive.
I was not intending to be rude when I said it, but your conclusions were based off a misconception with how evolution works.
For example if sight evolved over 700Ma ago (and actually evolved several times independently) then why do modern humans have a worse eyesight than animals that evolved earlier in the fossil record? Why are their animals now with better vision (Eagles) or the ability to see more than a tiny narrow band of the EM spectrum (some insects can see into the UV, some Birds can see light polarisation)
This is because evolution does not proceed from worse to better, or from less to more like you assumed. It evolves to best fit the current environment of the organism. Often that requires compromise between efficiency, inherited difficulties and effectiveness.
The Atheist Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Why Evolution Is True (other topics)Why Evolution Is True (other topics)
Evolution the Human Story (other topics)
The Incredible Human Journey (other topics)
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (other topics)
Gary wrote: This has been disproved by Einstein and any hypothesis that says different would have to explain why space and time appear to be intrinsically linked.
I'm not saying that time and space do not appear to be intrinsically linked. They do appear that way, as I say. But they are also NOT the same thing. Even though they exist hand in hand and depend on each other, they are NOT the same thing. If that were the case, then someone waiting at a bus station, would be able to turn to the person next to them and say, "What space is the bus going to come?" and it would mean the same thing as if they had said "What time is the bus going to come?"
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Some force (for lack of a better word) propels matter through time and space."
Gary writes: By basic Newtonian physics this is wrong. A moving object will continue to move in the same manner with no forces acting upon it. Forces do not move matter, forces accelerate matter.
Like I say 'force' isnt the best word choice. My point is that something had to start all this movement in motion in the first place. I called it a force, some might call it the Big Bang, maybe the best term to use is some Unknown (U).
Whatever you want to call it, matter is moving - and sure, the question of where, when, how and why did these forces that accelerate matter come about is interesting. But what about the question of where, when, how and why does this matter move without these forces? Shouldn't these questions be at the heart of the reason that unified field theory has not succeeded? Why arent general relativity and quantum mechanics compatible? What is the unknown here? Could it be that we just don't understand the 'why' behind the Big Bang?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I mean, isn't one of the vital characteristics of consciousness our ability to ask the question "why"?
Gary writes:No.
The question "how" is far more important and informative mainly because it does not presume purpose.
How is certainly an important questions, but why is just as important - especially when it comes to the role that concsiousness plays in man's survival.
For instance, if Iran develops a nuclear missile and them bombs Isreal with it, the question of 'why' they did it is an important one to ask. How they did it, after the fact, might not mean as much.
This question of why things happen IS central to mankind's consciousness. If our curiousity did not go beyond 'how' something happens, then the art of finding solutions would suffer severely.
---
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'm not trying to convince people that god exists."
Gary writes Then you need to change the title of this thread rather urgently don't you think?
I don't have a problem with the thread title. God is a loaded word, sure. But it basically means the same as having consciousness at the Big Bang...plus the title might hopefully prompt people to look at this discussion from a different perspective.