Proof (Blog)

[Mark Lapierre]

Uplift, please stop intentionally misinterpreting what I say. I have no problem with you asking me if I might not have considered a different point of view, or if I realise that something I said may make my message unclear. But instead of asking, you continually misrepresent what I say (not to mention doing the same to what Dan said). Though we almost always disagree I have tried to be civil with you ever since you were banned. I don't appreciate your antagonistic approach.

Ok. Dan and his comments about robots. Firstly there seem to be two separate issues. (1) What did Dan mean when he said we're made up of robots? And (2) does the fact that robots are designed allow us to conclude we were designed?

(1) He used the comparison between cells and robots in the context of consciousness to highlight the point that cells, like robots, don't have individual consciousnesses, yet somehow once trillions of them come together to form an individual, that individual has a consciousness. If you disagree with my understanding of what he said that's ok, it's really not relevant to (2), which is the main point. Hence my suggestion that we agree to disagree. It doesn't matter which of us is right.

(2) The difference between the evolution of humans and the evolution of robots is that the former can be explained without the intervention of an external agent. The processes of natural selection and random mutation (and the other processes involved in evolution) account for everything that we see in nature related to natural evolution. However with robots, evolution is always the result of human intervention. I don't know of any examples of evolution of man-made constructs which resembles natural evolution.

I agree that looking inside a robot for a designer would be fruitless. I didn't say we could find a designer by dismantling robots. However, comparing different models of robots would raise heaps of questions about how they could have changed designs on their own. Looking as dismantled robots would show that they were dismantled by something other than themselves. And finally, looking at designs of robots would close the case. That's not the case with humans. We can plot our evolutionary progress, and account for the changes involved, without needing to include a designer to explain any part. And there's no extra evidence for a designer.

But I do concede that there might be a designer who created the universe in a way that let us evolve apparently unaided. But if that's the case the designer's existence is irrelevant. He's obviously not actively involved in the evolutionary process in a way that we need to take into account, so there seems to be no point in doing so.

So back to the topic of proof. Even if no proof has been requested, it exists, accounts for what is observed, and does not leave anything unaccounted for which is better explained through the invocation of an undefined designer.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Uplift, please stop intentionally misinterpreting what I say. I have no problem with you asking me if I might not have considered a different point of view, or if I realise that something I said may make my message unclear. But instead of asking, you continually misrepresent what I say (not to mention doing the same to what Dan said). Though we almost always disagree I have tried to be civil with you ever since you were banned. I don't appreciate your antagonistic approach.

Ok. Dan and his comments about robots. Firstly there seem to be two separate issues. (1) What did Dan mean when he said we're made up of robots? And (2) does the fact that robots are designed allow us to conclude we were designed?

(1) He used the comparison between cells and robots in the context of consciousness to highlight the point that cells, like robots, don't have individual consciousnesses, yet somehow once trillions of them come together to form an individual, that individual has a consciousness. If you disagree with my understanding of what he said that's ok, it's really not relevant to (2), which is the main point. Hence my suggestion that we agree to disagree. It doesn't matter which of us is right.

(2) The difference between the evolution of humans and the evolution of robots is that the former can be explained without the intervention of an external agent. The processes of natural selection and random mutation (and the other processes involved in evolution) account for everything that we see in nature related to natural evolution. However with robots, evolution is always the result of human intervention. I don't know of any examples of evolution of man-made constructs which resembles natural evolution.

I agree that looking inside a robot for a designer would be fruitless. I didn't say we could find a designer by dismantling robots. However, comparing different models of robots would raise heaps of questions about how they could have changed designs on their own. Looking as dismantled robots would show that they were dismantled by something other than themselves. And finally, looking at designs of robots would close the case. That's not the case with humans. We can plot our evolutionary progress, and account for the changes involved, without needing to include a designer to explain any part. And there's no extra evidence for a designer.

But I do concede that there might be a designer who created the universe in a way that let us evolve apparently unaided. But if that's the case the designer's existence is irrelevant. He's obviously not actively involved in the evolutionary process in a way that we need to take into account, so there seems to be no point in doing so.

So back to the topic of proof. Even if no proof has been requested, it exists, accounts for what is observed, and does not leave anything unaccounted for which is better explained through the invocation of an undefined designer.

Okay, where did Danny say that. That it is an analogy. Or use words that infer it. I can show you where he says we are robots. That, all we are is robots, nothing else. Pointedly. Exact statements. The statement you obviously and understandably don't want to, or cant see, the statement that you claim isn't there. You actually provided it. Its in writing and on tape. So where have I changed and misrepresented his words. You are the one misrepresenting them and changing them, by claiming, to know the hidden, true meaning, which conveniently just happens to suit your constant, antagonistic arguing with anyone mentioning a Spiritual outlook. His only use of analogy is his reference to bacteria.

Like I said, show examples. You know, this is what I belief, this is what I do, this is my result. Rather than constantly, antagonistically arguing with everyone else, about their results, and beliefs, claiming they are deluded or wrong, and that you know the real truth behind their results. Which is always the easy, non accountable thing to do.

Again, a quick look through your posts will show exactly that.

As for Danny, a broke, physical wreck, claiming to be the expert on me and everyone else, that we all know nothing, and debunking others for misrepresentation, (what a sales pitch) and then, having the gumption to ask the ignorant ones for handouts...

Likewise, when analogy suits your constant, antagonistic badgering, its a great thing... when it doesn't suit your constant, antagonistic arguing it isn't, its useless.

And you demand consistency from others.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I have lots of dream characters that don't exist in the physical world. Erin does too. In a lucid dream, we can even create fresh characters from scratch just by materializing them. They needn't have physical counterparts.

Who is this imaginary character Erin?

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

During a dream (lucid or otherwise), I can have a conversation with a dream character and not know what the character will say in advance or what memories it will claim to possess. Does that prove the dream character exists independently of my mind? Would you assume the dream character possesses its own memories that I'm not aware of, or is it just a simulation of sorts? Why should the physical world be any different?

Conversations and characters are mostly made up of stuff of what you've read and saw already. Pay close attention. I usually in my lucid dreams can spot that. Brain creates stuff based on things I observed.

Did you notice when kids start dreaming and what they dream of? They start dreaming when they are old enough to have input about this real world to make stuff up in dream. I am wondering what blind person that have never seen anything dreams about?

You are taking the subjective thing too far and you alone are not convinced in validity of your claims, otherwise we would not have this conversation at all

Piece!

[Max Power]

It's the perfect self belief.

I don't have to prove anything so everything is possible.

I can write about anything, call it anything, say you can't prove it and admit I can't prove it.

Everything exists but nothing does, there are no rules, but you break them at your peril.

Can you dodge bullets?........when the time comes and you know yourself properly, you won't have to.

Can I bend spoons?......Of course not, there is no spoon.

I bought into SR, through SP, but I see it now as just another label for fear, just like proof seeking, the ultimate human based fight or flight.

It's not the truth we seek, but the labels and bullshit definitions that bore us too death.

Max

[Toine]

Dear Steve,

If your theories are based on your own experience, how can you tell others what reality is really like? You are assuming your experience is real. How would you know this is actually the case? You could be imaging it. There is no way for you to check, nor is there anyway for us. So stop telling us what subjective reality really is. You simply do not know! You seem very keen on defending your point of view however. Does that not mean you are still trying to convince yourself? It is like your mind that never seizes to think. Your forum is a physical manifestation of the conversations going on in your head! Stop it!

If I stop pointing at you for a second, I am actually talking about the conversations in my head. I grew tired of them and turned my back to your blogs and forum for a while. Now that I have returned nothing seems to have changed. It is an ever going discussion about something that cannot be proven, simply because it is based on personal experience. What is the point?

Let us not end it here, but say for a minute that my life is but imagination. If my mind is imagining all things - this must also include me and my mind is part of me - how can my mind imagine my mind?

One could also ask, if life is like a dream then who is the dreamer? If you have an answer to this question, have you actually experienced the dreamer and if so, how do you know you did not imagine it? If there is no dreamer however, how can there be a dream?

Perhaps the question is: how can I be sure of anything, even of consciousness?

[qed]

Experience and create reality

This is a small technicality, but perhaps it is where most proof-seekers and objectivists are getting stuck. No one is "creating" reality. It already is. It does not need anyone creating it, nor does observation (as in quantum physics) create anything.

IMO, a better word is "reveal" reality, a subjective/relative one... The process is similar to revealing a picture "hidden" inside a 3D stereogram. Well, nothing is hidden of course. You just have to look at it a certain way.

[seeker5]

Is Steve trying to prove in this thread that there's no need for proof?

[eternomi]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Is Steve trying to prove in this thread that there's no need for proof?

Everyone is stating how things are from their own perspectives and everyone is "correct" from within their points of reference. Each perspective is proof onto itself. Each perspective is self-reinforcing. Each perspective persists until the person experiences something that doesn't fit his perspective and he either rejects it or changes his perspective to include the anomaly (which is no longer an anomaly).

Steve is trying to inject anomalies into others' perspectives in the hopes that they'll assimilate it and grow so that they can experience more..

Incidentally, this is what science does too.. that is, explain what is being observed. Everything goes well until someone experiences something that doesn't quite fit the current model. Others investigate whether they experience the same thing or not. If enough many scientists experience it, they turn the new experience into a new model which usually envelopes the previous one... unless of course the previous one is so incorrect that it has to be abandoned.. Usually, it turns out that the previous model is a subset, a special case of the new model (Ex: Newton's laws of motion and relativistic motion).

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

That 'simplest' explanation requires that the designer be explained, which automatically increases the complexity of the explanation beyond the thing being explained.

Consciousness is not a mechanism. Complexity implies moving parts, how the gears mesh. I don't know what god is but I know what god is not ie a machine or physical object. To objectify the designer with words like "complex" or "simple" is not to grasp the concept of a designer. However, the alternative explanation that the designer provides is a lot simpler than a coincidence which is highly improbable.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Being unable to fully explain consciousness in purely materialistic terms does not mean that what we can explain is invalid.

I simply meant that you cannot completely explain what I am through the theory of evolution alone.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

The difference between the dream world and the real world is that the real world is consistent.

Consistency does not equal validity.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Who is this imaginary character Erin?



Conversations and characters are mostly made up of stuff of what you've read and saw already. Pay close attention. I usually in my lucid dreams can spot that. Brain creates stuff based on things I observed.

Did you notice when kids start dreaming and what they dream of? They start dreaming when they are old enough to have input about this real world to make stuff up in dream. I am wondering what blind person that have never seen anything dreams about?

You are taking the subjective thing too far and you alone are not convinced in validity of your claims, otherwise we would not have this conversation at all

Piece!

I didn't want to not to defend Steve points for him but I will anyway.

Tekomino- You cannot a prove that a dream character is conscious or unconscious. You can't prove whether I'm conscious or not. The only person you know is conscious is you. Therefore, it is to quick to assume that a dream character is any less valid than p physical person. Do understand the point now?

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

You cannot a prove that a dream character is conscious or unconscious. You can't prove whether I'm conscious or not.

Yes you can. Consciousness recognizes consciousness and dream is a dream. You recognize consciousness because you are conscious.

BTW, even dogs dream...

[tekomino]

BTW, there is no way to tell objectively tell whether some entity is conscious. Why? Consciousness is necessarily subjective. You alone are aware of what you see, hear, smells, feels and that happens inside your head.

We can only guess but not test. I know you are conscious because you are human. And since I am human and I am conscious, you must be conscious too...

[Dan.Linehan]

Imagine this: a two dimensional being shaped like a sheet of paper is watching a human being dive off a board into a swimming pool, only being able to see a tiny slice of reality at any given time.

First he sees a slice of the fingertips, slivers of the hands and forearms as they drop towards the water, a slice of the arms on either side of the head. The torso, buttocks, legs, feet. Two dimensional slices of water splashing up from the impact.

The result would be very mysterious; an ever shifting flat shape appearing to lack any predictable continuity. If divers were walking up and jumping off the board at somewhat random intervals some scientific patterns might emerge, but it would still be totally impossible for the two-dimensional being to fully model what reality looked like from that limited viewpoint.

We're in the same situation. Walk across a room for 10 seconds. Even though you only see a slice of yourself at any given point you're actually creating a four dimensional shape in space time with your actions. Happens every moment of your life.

These fourth dimensional shapes are literally all around us, billions of years old, and we keep creating them with every move we make. Or maybe they were already created and we just chose to experience one unique part firsthand.

Either way, arguments for proof seem somewhat inane to me.

Two sheets of paper arguing whether what they are seeing is spiritual or scientific is ridiculous; someone diving into a pool could be considered both or neither even from a 3-d perspective, let alone in 2-d. They don't even know what they're seeing.

The more we learn scientifically the more we come back to the idea that something can't be created from nothing. And so we begin again looking for a first cause. Who's to say that observation isn't the first cause? Not me..

[Stephen]

Sorry if this contribution is short but I tend to think along the lines of 'proof' as more like 'highly probable'.

I am an atheist because, although I have no absolute proof, I believe that the probability of there being a Omnipotent, Omniscient, etc etc being is highly improbable which is good enough to convince me otherwise.

I believe in Darwin evolutionary theory because the available evidence points to a highly probable theory, without actually slam dunk complete evidence....but almost.

So FWIW, I think that using the probability yardstick allows us to avoid being stuck in either the agnostic or absolutist camps.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Two sheets of paper arguing whether what they are seeing is spiritual or scientific is ridiculous; someone diving into a pool could be considered both or neither even from a 3-d perspective, let alone in 2-d. They don't even know what they're seeing.

I think that deeper understanding of mind itself and consciousness are far reaching and have lot of implications for our fundamental view of ourselves. That is why I seek to discover and that is why I question... Can't comment for anyone else...

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Yes you can. Consciousness recognizes consciousness and dream is a dream. You recognize consciousness because you are conscious.

BTW, even dogs dream...

No, you are assuming. The statement that "a dream is a dream" is what is at issue here. Why don't we consider a dream to be a valid, "real" thing?

You don't know I'm conscious, I could simply be simulating conscious behavior. Just because I'm human it doesn't follow a priori that I must be conscious. You cannot really know I'm conscious unless you measure my thoughts, which you cannot. So, I am no more valid than a dream character. You might have good reasons to think I'm conscious but currently you have no means of testing that. Therefore it is a leap of faith to reject the consciousness of a dream character out of hand. Your argument is one from ignorance.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

No, you are assuming. The statement that "a dream is a dream" is what is at issue here. Why don't we consider a dream to be a valid, "real" thing?

Um, there is no reason to consider that. The dream is real and valid but it is not reality itself. It is product of your brain and based on the reality. It has its function but it is not reality itself.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

You don't know I'm conscious, I could simply be simulating conscious behavior. Just because I'm human it doesn't follow a priori that I must be conscious.

Read my previous post, I do not know, I cannot test it. But I can guess with high confidence. Yes because you are human it does follow that you are conscious. Consciousness is fundamental to being human, sorry

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Um, there is no reason to consider that. The dream is real and valid but it is not reality itself. It is product of your brain and based on the reality. It has its function but it is not reality itself.

Dreams are product of the brain? Your evidence is for this is what? A correlation between brain-activity and dreaming during sleep no doubt. Sorry to break it to you but a correlation isn't a cause. We don't know what the mind is or its exact relationship to the brain so your assumption is not justified.

How do you know "reality itself" is an objective thing independent of your mind? Obviously, we do not know. Again, dreams and waking reality are on an even playing field ontologically. You just happen to be more inactive in your waking environment.

Originally Posted by tekomino

Yes because you are human it does follow that you are conscious. Consciousness is fundamental to being human, sorry

Prove it.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Um, there is no reason to consider that. The dream is real and valid but it is not reality itself. It is product of your brain and based on the reality. It has its function but it is not reality itself.

There was a period in my life where the dreams that I managed to remember appeared to reliably and accurately predict events that happened a month later. It was a touch disturbing, and since I no longer remember most of my dreams, irrelevant, but your argument of being able to determine a dream as a dream by a reference to an alternate reality doesn't hold water.

Morpheus: "Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real. What if you were unable to wake from that dream. How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?"

Epistemology 101: You cannot prove reality.

Also see: RavenBlack - Novel Samples And read the samples.

[The Universal Call]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Consciousness is not a mechanism. Complexity implies moving parts, how the gears mesh. I don't know what god is but I know what god is not ie a machine or physical object. To objectify the designer with words like "complex" or "simple" is not to grasp the concept of a designer. However, the alternative explanation that the designer provides is a lot simpler than a coincidence which is highly improbable.

I simply meant that you cannot completely explain what I am through the theory of evolution alone.

I will lay it out easy for ya.

There was nothing, no time and no space. There's no way anything "complex" can be performed in this "nothingness". There is no foundation even for something "simple" to happen, afterall there is no time and no space. But... think about this. One thing and one thing only could happen, it requires no time, and it requires no space, no complexity, nothing to be initiated. It isn't anything "simple" or of the sort, it is not a concept or a thought - it just happens. Randomness (note: not coincidence). It requires nothing, in this sense it surely is rather illogical and works against what can be measured in our human sense - but seen at this level it is also the most simple, yet fundamental and obvious solution.

Tragically, the common notion of a "God" is pictured as something human, something with a mass or body. For some, the idea that there was nothing or "yadda yadda something" before God and then after God, "bam! humans come alive and Jesus was sent to Earth" is quite enough. Creating the world in seven days, yes, a designer. But there's a stop in this logic! Hey, what created "God"? What was before him, did someone design him too? If someone did create him we just get the same question; who created that fella? But people foresee this, something divine is an "explanation in itself" and no more logic is desired - tell me, why is the idea of a randomness less logical than "Bam! There God was"? If anything that's not only random but also silly. I hate to see people dismiss the Big Bang theory because "randomness is illogical and cannot happen", heh, okay....

So obviously a God cannot be something with a human form like Mr. Mustache so friendly informs us. The "concept of God" must be something more towards the sole "consciousness" direction, what else could it be? The only thing without shape or mass that I know of in my petty little human life must be one of those "consciousnessers" [sic]. Now say we wanted to apply this to a "god" or "divine consciousness" (or you can just call it consciousness). A designer created the universe, a consciousness without any constraints of mass or body (compare: space and time, hmm?)

So, let us dig deep into this! But, we must... explain what created this consciousness... uhm... and in your case it cannot be anything that is RANDOM, because that's just so improbable, isn't it? So, something unrandom created a consciousness, wait a sec, I don't understand... That doesn't only sound illogical but it is otherwise completely unreasonable and impossible unless we throw randomness in there. Or are you trying to say that time is infinite and "it was always there"? Yeah, good luck bringing that argument to the table, it's just as sane as the idea of God being a human being.

So, I will take one more take on this perspective... consciousness doesn't need to be created, it just is there, once again that cannot be explained but let's move on. So, we have a consciousness, now we need it to be a designer, that was the whole point wasn't it? And you mean to say that a human being (you) cannot be explained through the theory of evolution alone? I am only guessing here but I guess you are referring to your consciousness, your ego, because all other things sure can be explained with the theory of evolution (brain, body, etc., all that have mass, which consciousness seemingly doesn't (?)). Let me ask, what is a consciousness without perception? This "God" didn't see, it didn't have eyes. This "God" didn't imagine, it didn't have a brain. This "God" didn't have touch, it didn't have a mass. Take all of these things away and you have a designer that cannot design! How did you expect something that cannot observe and doesn't have a creative mind to create something? And don't dare to give this consciousness human attributes! And why would you, consciousness is not relative to a brain and body is it? Quite frankly, as you can see - it is. It amuses me to think that a consciousness without a brain would be able to think, or have human attributes, be able to see the relation between sun, gravity, and Earth - do you think a consciousness that is unable to store memories or have thoughts could be a designer? In that case this consciousness created everything by random because he simply cannot have a conscious influence on the situation.

Now there's one more question about this all... What about astral projections (AP)? In the astral world you dont have a mass or a body, only a conscious projection (but you can still store memories and have thoughts) - what if that "God" was something like this? Well, maybe, I have no idea (who could, more than philosophe about it like I do now?). The idea is plausible in that context, but that should at most only be able to mean that a consciousness created an astral world to begin with, and how this "Earth" that we humans in mass-constrained-form look at was created in relation to the astral world - well I have no idea. Maybe Erin has more ideas on that than I do, maybe even Steve Pavlina could think of something (but I doubt he'll claim anything other than that he's observing his creation, so whatever ).

To finish, is a randomness so "highly improbable"? Given my deductions it is the only (and therefore simplest and most possible) "action" that can happen in a world without time and space. On the other hand, I seriously see no arguments that a "designer" is somehow "simpler" or that it would make "more sense" - both seem inane at first and second and third glance and truly show no consistency or logic. But in its own context then randomness could be plausible, and I guess if you wanna be stubborn then there's always the excuse of a "God" (just as randomness sound as an excuse for the Big Bang, I totally realize that myself!) - but the real interesting thing in all of this is that we, humans, can observe effects of some sort of "Big Bang", whilst a designer leaves no marks.

Conclusions:
1. A consciousness was randomly created and randomly created the universe. or
2. Randomness created a flix flax flux (interesting note: flax is a synonym for "luck" in Sweden, hehe ) and Big Bang was initiated.
If someone have an alternative to these conclusions or see a fault in the premises and arguments then please tell me so. Otherwise we should be able to agree that either of these should have happened, no? (without bringing in the Astral World, please)

[Cron]

I do believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Philosophy of science, science, law and just about every serious human endeavor that has provided people with worthwhile results for the better part of 3000 years of civilization have validated the idea of proof and what makes make proof, proof.

When I read the header "what is proof anyway?" in Steve's Blog I was shocked.

I'm sorry when I read things like that, I see a red flag that someone is trying to pull something over on me or convince themselves.

No offense to Steve. I thank him for graciously making this useful forum available at his own expense and his own efforts.

[Angela]

Claims don't require proof, people do!

And even people don't, not really; it's just a preference. You gonna die without proof? someone gonna take your children away?

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

I will lay it out easy for ya.

There was nothing, no time and no space. There's no way anything "complex" can be performed in this "nothingness". There is no foundation even for something "simple" to happen, afterall there is no time and no space. But... think about this. One thing and one thing only could happen, it requires no time, and it requires no space, no complexity, nothing to be initiated. It isn't anything "simple" or of the sort, it is not a concept or a thought - it just happens. Randomness (note: not coincidence). It requires nothing, in this sense it surely is rather illogical and works against what can be measured in our human sense - but seen at this level it is also the most simple, yet fundamental and obvious solution.

Tragically, the common notion of a "God" is pictured as something human, something with a mass or body. For some, the idea that there was nothing or "yadda yadda something" before God and then after God, "bam! humans come alive and Jesus was sent to Earth" is quite enough. Creating the world in seven days, yes, a designer. But there's a stop in this logic! Hey, what created "God"? What was before him, did someone design him too? If someone did create him we just get the same question; who created that fella? But people foresee this, something divine is an "explanation in itself" and no more logic is desired - tell me, why is the idea of a randomness less logical than "Bam! There God was"? If anything that's not only random but also silly. I hate to see people dismiss the Big Bang theory because "randomness is illogical and cannot happen", heh, okay....

So obviously a God cannot be something with a human form like Mr. Mustache so friendly informs us. The "concept of God" must be something more towards the sole "consciousness" direction, what else could it be? The only thing without shape or mass that I know of in my petty little human life must be one of those "consciousnessers" [sic]. Now say we wanted to apply this to a "god" or "divine consciousness" (or you can just call it consciousness). A designer created the universe, a consciousness without any constraints of mass or body (compare: space and time, hmm?)

So, let us dig deep into this! But, we must... explain what created this consciousness... uhm... and in your case it cannot be anything that is RANDOM, because that's just so improbable, isn't it? So, something unrandom created a consciousness, wait a sec, I don't understand... That doesn't only sound illogical but it is otherwise completely unreasonable and impossible unless we throw randomness in there. Or are you trying to say that time is infinite and "it was always there"? Yeah, good luck bringing that argument to the table, it's just as sane as the idea of God being a human being.

So, I will take one more take on this perspective... consciousness doesn't need to be created, it just is there, once again that cannot be explained but let's move on. So, we have a consciousness, now we need it to be a designer, that was the whole point wasn't it? And you mean to say that a human being (you) cannot be explained through the theory of evolution alone? I am only guessing here but I guess you are referring to your consciousness, your ego, because all other things sure can be explained with the theory of evolution (brain, body, etc., all that have mass, which consciousness seemingly doesn't (?)). Let me ask, what is a consciousness without perception? This "God" didn't see, it didn't have eyes. This "God" didn't imagine, it didn't have a brain. This "God" didn't have touch, it didn't have a mass. Take all of these things away and you have a designer that cannot design! How did you expect something that cannot observe and doesn't have a creative mind to create something? And don't dare to give this consciousness human attributes! And why would you, consciousness is not relative to a brain and body is it? Quite frankly, as you can see - it is. It amuses me to think that a consciousness without a brain would be able to think, or have human attributes, be able to see the relation between sun, gravity, and Earth - do you think a consciousness that is unable to store memories or have thoughts could be a designer? In that case this consciousness created everything by random because he simply cannot have a conscious influence on the situation.

Now there's one more question about this all... What about astral projections (AP)? In the astral world you dont have a mass or a body, only a conscious projection (but you can still store memories and have thoughts) - what if that "God" was something like this? Well, maybe, I have no idea (who could, more than philosophe about it like I do now?). The idea is plausible in that context, but that should at most only be able to mean that a consciousness created an astral world to begin with, and how this "Earth" that we humans in mass-constrained-form look at was created in relation to the astral world - well I have no idea. Maybe Erin has more ideas on that than I do, maybe even Steve Pavlina could think of something (but I doubt he'll claim anything other than that he's observing his creation, so whatever ).

To finish, is a randomness so "highly improbable"? Given my deductions it is the only (and therefore simplest and most possible) "action" that can happen in a world without time and space. On the other hand, I seriously see no arguments that a "designer" is somehow "simpler" or that it would make "more sense" - both seem inane at first and second and third glance and truly show no consistency or logic. But in its own context then randomness could be plausible, and I guess if you wanna be stubborn then there's always the excuse of a "God" (just as randomness sound as an excuse for the Big Bang, I totally realize that myself!) - but the real interesting thing in all of this is that we, humans, can observe effects of some sort of "Big Bang", whilst a designer leaves no marks.

Conclusions:
1. A consciousness was randomly created and randomly created the universe. or
2. Randomness created a flix flax flux (interesting note: flax is a synonym for "luck" in Sweden, hehe ) and Big Bang was initiated.
If someone have an alternative to these conclusions or see a fault in the premises and arguments then please tell me so. Otherwise we should be able to agree that either of these should have happened, no? (without bringing in the Astral World, please)

I think the fault is in the language and meaning. Our culture, so focused on the physical, sees nothing as the lowest state. No thing. Many, me included see it as the highest state. The state so advanced, it can spawn and enable anything. And when anything is gone, nothing has the property and ability to remain untouched. And create anything. Believing the physical body's grossest senses are the ultimate and only sensing device leads to being unable to focus on nothing.

I believe otherwise, and am awesomely stoked with my results at learning to understand the so called nothing. I've mentioned the results enough times. I love to keep trying to learn more about it.

[wolfgang]

Experience vs. proof

Since you cannot prove that objective reality actually exists, any proof you attempt to stack upon that assumption is merely a house of cards. You can get some mileage out of that approach, but the whole stack always remains in doubt. You can never feel 100% secure about statements that all trace back to a single, unprovable assumption. So in terms of discovering ultimate truth, this path is necessarily a dead end. It goes off track in the very first step.

I’m not arguing that you can’t get some useful results from pursuing the lens of objective reality. Certainly you can. However, whenever we discuss proofs, we must not forget that we’re still dealing with a lens and not with reality itself. To mistake the lens for reality is to make ourselves partially blind.

Is it really a matter of Experience versus Proof? What is proof anyway? Isn't proof just that you can expect that from your experience something will happen again, like the sun rising? Can I prove the sune will rise? Not really but most people would say there's proof that it will. What is objective about the sun rising? We can't devorce ourselves from being subjective about experiencing the sun rising - it is a subjective experience, just like all personal experience is. Proof is the way to try to take a subjective experience and transfer that to another person. To do that you have to separate the experience and label it and tells someone else that you think it will happen again that way and is provable to the degree that it always happens that way (which is an asumption of coarse).

I got the feeling from the blog that one must either be subjective or be objective. Why not both at the same time? This is what occurs to me.

It's like light behaves like a particle and a wave but both seem to not be possible at the same time.

It's like a Christian will say they are holy with God and also a complete individual.

It's like saying our ego is a complete separate identity (a particle) and at the same time I am one with everything (the universe or wave or field or source or God).

The ego has the proof from experience for itself and tends to be objective. The spirit can lead us into other experiences that can become proof to our selves - that is subjective reality. It is faith to follow subjective spirit into these objective experiences.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

To finish, is a randomness so "highly improbable"? Given my deductions it is the only (and therefore simplest and most possible) "action" that can happen
Conclusions:
1. A consciousness was randomly created and randomly created the universe. or
2. Randomness created a flix flax flux (interesting note: flax is a synonym for "luck" in Sweden, hehe ) and Big Bang was initiated.
If someone have an alternative to these conclusions or see a fault in the premises and arguments then please tell me so. Otherwise we should be able to agree that either of these should have happened, no? (without bringing in the Astral World, please)

First of all I'm never dissed the big bang hypothesis and I disagree with people who reject it out of hand. Anyway, randomness is coincidence. The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe. Saying that "it just happened" takes a leap of faith.

The biggest problem with the "it just happened" hypothesis is that it conflicts with the law of conservation of energy. If you can provide me with any evidence that energy can just appear magically out of 'nowhere" then I'll grant your theory a little more weight. The concept of a creator as something non-physical and outside the realm of cause and effect seems more likely.

I'm also not claiming "god just did it" obviously there are mysteries out there that we are not able to solve at present but there is no reason to think that god (or consciousness or whatever you idea of god) works by magic. For example a forth-dimensional object might appear to do magic things when interacting with a third-dimension but it isn't magic. I believe gods methods are similar.

Concerning your problem of "who created god" argument. The first cause, that of creation (the big bang scientists believe) probably didn't happen by itself. If it didn't just cause itself then the "first cause" emerged outside of space-time as we know it. Only within the context of space and time does "who created god" sound like a good argument. It just isn't.

I also do not concede that consciousness (or gods consciousness) needs to be "explained" implying a physical object. We don't know what consciousness is so concluding that I need to somehow show you a mechanism by which god works is illogical.

Next you assume consciousness needs a brain. Why? There is no evidence backing that up. I on the other hand have evidence for consciousness being separate from body. That is the phenomenon of NDEs, ESP, PK, spontaneous remembrance of past lives in children etc. but I'll just quickly go over NDEs, which haven't been explained (as of yet) by physical means. As i mentioned in another post, some of NDEs occur when there is no detectable brain-functioning, casting doubt that the brain created the experience (in some cases like Pam Reynolds it was impossible). (Some NDEs also have verifiable features, although it they are contested by some and I don't want to go over all the arguments but it is worth noting). Anyhow, your conclusion is irrational ie that mind needs brain. You don't have enough evidence to make such a broad assumption.

To answer you question: yes randomness seems very improbable, your argument for such a conclusion is based on nothing but your distaste for the possible (and more likely) existence of designer (whatever the designer might be exactly). Nothing warrants your end conclusions.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

The biggest problem with the "it just happened" hypothesis is that it conflicts with the law of conservation of energy. If you can provide me with any evidence that energy can just appear magically out of 'nowhere" then I'll grant your theory a little more weight.

Quantum physics actually describes that. I'm no physicist but a couple of them succeeded in creating matter from light.

Fred Alan Wolf also describes this in his book Taking the Quantum Leap, whereby energy/matter can appear from, well, nothing. I have the book but, frankly, can't get through. Hawking apparently describes this process in one or more of his books as well.

I don't understand it either...

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Quantum physics actually describes that. I'm no physicist but a couple of them succeeded in creating matter from light.

Fred Alan Wolf also describes this in his book Taking the Quantum Leap, whereby energy/matter can appear from, well, nothing. I have the book but, frankly, can't get through. Hawking apparently describes this process in one or more of his books as well.

I don't understand it either...

I was actually aware of that. Quantum vacuums, I believe you are referring too. Within the quantum vacuum virtual particles pop up seemingly out of nowhere and usually annihilate themselves when their opposing particle collides with it. I believe there are different interpretations of that which I don't want to get into.

I think other dimensions come into play somewhere in there but I'm really no less confused as you are on this. Many physicists are probably confused as well but they hide it better lol.

For the sake of our discussion though, that is the law of conservation being broken on a macro (not quantum) scale I believe my point was valid.

Another thing to note is that QM also blurs the lines between the observer and observed which would actually help my overall case. Although, I don't want to really argue anything technical dealing with a subject where I have only a laymans knowledge, I'm trying to keep things high and dry.

[Tynan]

Absolute proof is impossible. This is obvious. I'm confused as to why you people are all still wrestling with this.

The only purpose of knowledge and intelligence is PREDICTION. Your brain is there to predict its own future input. That's it.

The easiest, simplest, most accurate way to do this is:

1. Posit the existence of an external objective reality
2. Understand the rules that govern that reality (currently the accepted natural laws of physics)
3. Apply these laws to any situation to determine what will happen.

This is not the ONLY method of predicting your future observations. But it is the easiest and simplest and most accurate. Why confuse yourself with supernatural ideas that lead to all sorts of niggling contradictions?

OBSERVATIONS of astral projection, lucid dreaming, out of body experience, psychic phenomena, etc, are all easily predicted by this simple three-point method once you factor in the imperfect nature of the human brain and the way our mind generates processes perceptions.

i.e. just because you think you see a ghost doesn't mean you have to believe it was actually there. Believing that brings up a whole bunch of other questions and will draw you into a long and impossible to win battle against logical contradiction. You can hide those contradictions but they will never go away. Instead, it is a lot easier to explain these phenomena naturally.

Proof has nothing to do with it because proof doesn't exist. Nor does the concept of 'real' objective reality. SR is technically what we live in. But OR is the most useful thinking tool we have.

[Tynan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mustache

The biggest problem with the "it just happened" hypothesis is that it conflicts with the law of conservation of energy. If you can provide me with any evidence that energy can just appear magically out of 'nowhere" then I'll grant your theory a little more weight.

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Quantum physics actually describes that. I'm no physicist but a couple of them succeeded in creating matter from light.

Fred Alan Wolf also describes this in his book Taking the Quantum Leap, whereby energy/matter can appear from, well, nothing. I have the book but, frankly, can't get through. Hawking apparently describes this process in one or more of his books as well.

I don't understand it either...

Just FYI, creating matter from light does not break conservation laws. Light is energy and can be transmuted into matter according to Einstein's equation e=mc^2. It's the reverse of the principle which drives nuclear weapons and reactors.

As for virtual particle pairs - this is why they are PAIRs. The two halves balance each other in every way (charge, etc). Once again nature avoids breaking conservation laws. Otherwise space itself would glow with new energy all the time.

Originally Posted by Mr. Mustache

First of all I'm never dissed the big bang hypothesis and I disagree with people who reject it out of hand. Anyway, randomness is coincidence. The constants of nature are so fine-tuned that a slight deviation (and I mean ridiculously slight) would make life impossible in the universe. Saying that "it just happened" takes a leap of faith.

The life forms to follow the laws. Not the other way around.

Also note that there are many modern physics theories that posit multiple universes. Under this model, most universes are empty of life. We think ours is perfect for it because it just happens to be the one that we are in. But it's not that improbable because there is either a very large number or an infinite number of universes.

Originally Posted by Mr. Mustache

Next you assume consciousness needs a brain. Why? There is no evidence backing that up. I on the other hand have evidence for consciousness being separate from body. That is the phenomenon of NDEs, ESP, PK, spontaneous remembrance of past lives in children etc. but I'll just quickly go over NDEs, which haven't been explained (as of yet) by physical means. As i mentioned in another post, some of NDEs occur when there is no detectable brain-functioning, casting doubt that the brain created the experience (in some cases like Pam Reynolds it was impossible). (Some NDEs also have verifiable features, although it they are contested by some and I don't want to go over all the arguments but it is worth noting). Anyhow, your conclusion is irrational ie that mind needs brain. You don't have enough evidence to make such a broad assumption.

These observations are much more easily explained as hallucinations than as verifiable experiences. If we are following Occam's Razor here, there is no reason to believe that consciousness can exist outside a brain.

Concerning your problem of "who created god" argument. The first cause, that of creation (the big bang scientists believe) probably didn't happen by itself. If it didn't just cause itself then the "first cause" emerged outside of space-time as we know it. Only within the context of space and time does "who created god" sound like a good argument. It just isn't.

Try to understand that the big bang posits a small beginning of spacetime. Not space. Time itself did not exist 'before' the big bang. The concept of 'before' the big bang is meaningless.

I realize that 'the universe just was' doesn't seem that much more satisfying than 'god just was'. I am not a physicist so I can't explain this more clearly. What I do know is that 'the universe just was' is a hell of a lot SIMPLER than the god hypothesis (any of its many variations). Once again, if we're following Occam's Razor, God is as unnecessary as the dragon in the garage.

Also note that the big bang theory is not a philosophical idea. It is an expression of mathematical models which have been developed to match our observations of our universe very precisely. If we take these models (which consist of an expanding spacetime universe governed by relativistic laws) and extrapolate them backwards, we find a point of infinite density and temperature and a universe of zero size about 13 billion years ago. At this point our models break down.

---------

Note a continuous Occam's Razor theme here. I'm saying that many beliefs are UNNECESSARY, not that they are provably wrong. They are not disprovable because they don't make real predictions. This means they contain no information. Better to forget them completely. They're just cluttering your brain.

[Cron]

Originally Posted by Angela

Claims don't require proof, people do!

And even people don't, not really; it's just a preference. You gonna die without proof? someone gonna take your children away?

I mean this with no offense and no negative emotions, but I think that attitude is ridiculous.

in other areas of your life you wouldn't let someone tell you something way out there and accept "proof, who cares?" as a response.......unless you were a literal fool.