The problem with atheism.

[lophie]

4th dimension is just time. We are all perfectly capable of experiencing it. Someone who actually exists on that level will just be able to see everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen at the same time. But they won't see the 5th dimension, which is all the other time lines running parallel and intersecting with ours.

Why do you guys say we don't understand what consciousness is? Our understanding of how the brain works is pretty advanced...

...Yet so limited?

Can we measure it?
E.g.: How many grams does consciousness weigh?
How much energy does it have?
During delicate surgical procedures (or epic parties), can it be safely stored in a freezer (or some other non-human vessel) and put back in later?
Can we transplant it from one person to another? Or across the species barrier?

Seems to me that there's practically zero evidence that it even exists in the "physical world" (zero mass and energy?!), yet it somehow exists. If it weren't for that, then my philosophical zombie body would gladly bow down to our new Atheist overlords

I am sorry are you trying to be "scientific" here or something? Who claimed that our "scientific" understanding of consciousness is something that we weight or it is measured by an "amount" of energy. Can you please pick an intro to neuro science in lament terms  before you post such nonsense. thnx

[1713945746]

1713945746

[the joint]

4th dimension is just time. We are all perfectly capable of experiencing it. Someone who actually exists on that level will just be able to see everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen at the same time. But they won't see the 5th dimension, which is all the other time lines running parallel and intersecting with ours.

Why do you guys say we don't understand what consciousness is? Our understanding of how the brain works is pretty advanced...

...Yet so limited?

Can we measure it?
E.g.: How many grams does consciousness weigh?
How much energy does it have?
During delicate surgical procedures (or epic parties), can it be safely stored in a freezer (or some other non-human vessel) and put back in later?
Can we transplant it from one person to another? Or across the species barrier?

Seems to me that there's practically zero evidence that it even exists in the "physical world" (zero mass and energy?!), yet it somehow exists. If it weren't for that, then my philosophical zombie body would gladly bow down to our new Atheist overlords

I am sorry are you trying to be "scientific" here or something? Who claimed that our "scientific" understanding of consciousness is something that we weight or it is measured by an "amount" of energy. Can you please pick an intro to neuro science in lament terms  before you post such nonsense. thnx

Saving a lengthy explanation, I think that consciousness is distributed across large swaths of spacetime.  Although I'm saving the lengthy explanation, this idea is foudned upon another idea, the idea of identity as a distributive, syntactic property of any system (in the easiest of conceptual terms, this is similar to how 1 multiplied by any number results in that number, and so 1 is thus analogous to a distributive property of identity).  

Energy, on the other hand, is something that I've been working on for the past few years, and I'm getting close to a point where I'll be ready to submit some models and equations for peer review.  The most interesting of these equations is an equation for Universal energy which I derived in part from Einstein's formula e=mc^2.  A graph of my equation for Universal energy suggests that perception itself is inherently entwined with energy and plays an important role in the distribution of energy among conditional events in the Universe.

On a serious note, I seriously hope that I've been on the right track, because I believe the models and equations give plausibility to zero-point energy systems.

[elektibi75]

The truth is no one knows the TRUTH.I think I am an Atheist,but not because i know there is no GOD,but because religion.Religion is the real problem in the entire world.We could have restaurants on the moon by now if there was no religion.Watch Zeitgeist 1 (it is a free movie) for more information about religion 

[Rassah]

...Yet so limited?

Not nearly as limited as you seem to believe.

Can we measure it?

Sure. In many different ways even, from complexity, to weight, to energy usage, to which parts are linked to which other parts.

E.g.: How many grams does consciousness weigh?

The machine that computes is weighs about 1300 to 1400 grams. Asking how much the actual processing weighs is like asking how much does a bitcoin blockchain weighs. It's software/information, being processed by a biological machine.

How much energy does it have?

Less than 80 Watts when dormant, and approximately 100 watts when doing normal everyday activities.

During delicate surgical procedures (or epic parties), can it be safely stored in a freezer (or some other non-human vessel) and put back in later?
Can we transplant it from one person to another? Or across the species barrier?

Theoretically, yes. We just don't have the technology yet, due to its complexity. To get a sense of what a brain is, imagine a huge cluster of tiny computers (neurons) all networked together in some specific way, where every packet sent from a source ends up passing through a bunch of other specific computers to its destination. The network cables get moved around as the network develops. So, let's say you want to think of a bear. Instead of just pulling up a data file on bears, a packet gets sent through the system, which passes through computers that store information on topics like: furry, brown, 4 legs, round ears, snout, teeth, claws, forest, dangerous, etc. As the packet travels through the system, it travels through specific network nodes and actives all the things that are related to "bear" that are deemed most important to the concept, allowing us to come to a general concept of a bear. That's how all information and all thought is stored and processed by our brains. In order for us to safely store that consciousness in a freezer, we would have to figure out how to freeze the wet network without the expanding water molecules (water expands when frozen) tearing the network up. We may figure out how to store brains safely without having to freeze them, or freeze them by some other method. As for transplanting, if we are able to scan the network structure and rebuild it from scratch, building a cluster with the same connections, then we can duplicate /transplant consciousness elsewhere. Likewise, if we are able to successfully disconnect and reconnect all the tiny nerve endings between the brain and the spinal column, then we can transplant brains. It's not a question of how, it's a question of do we have the technology.

Seems to me that there's practically zero evidence that it even exists in the "physical world" (zero mass and energy?!), yet it somehow exists.

LOL! Yeah, there is exactly the same amount of evidence as for the operating system running on your computer and the browser you're using to read this.

[the joint]

The truth is no one knows the TRUTH.I think I am an Atheist,but not because i know there is no GOD,but because religion.Religion is the real problem in the entire world.We could have restaurants on the moon by now if there was no religion.Watch Zeitgeist 1 (it is a free movie) for more information about religion 

The bolded snippet is an entirely false statement.  Basically, you are saying "it is the absolute truth that the truth is no one knows the truth."  Not all truth is relative, and to assert so is to immediately contradict yourself.

Don't just throw out cliches without realizing what you're saying.  Most atheists are bandwagoners whose only real rationale for believing no god exists is peer pressure.

[Rassah]

I wonder if blablahblah has me on ignore...

[Bjork]

I believe in God because the fact that we exist is a miracle.
Seriously who would have thought a bunch of feces throwing apes would evolve to build pyramids, computers, send a man to the moon...
By accident.

is this real life

[User705]

I wonder if blablahblah has me on ignore...

Possibly he suffers from a very immediate point of view.  If he was born a few hundred years ago he'd bring up the flies out of manure observation and claim that they were born from inanimate objects so that proves you don't need God to create life.  +1 to your response to him.  It's like that Futurama episode when Farnsworth discovers the unifying theory of the universe which begets the next questions "why is it that way and not another way"?  Future technology will always be something no one thinks is even possible otherwise it wouldn't be future technology.

[semaforo]

     I did an exercise with a class once where you draw a scale of consciousness that starts at subatomic particles and extends all the way to galaxies. Then you try to demarcate where consciousness begins and where it ends. Some people said that the lower limit is dogs and the upper limit is whales or other large organisms. Others said that social structures like nations or corporations could be conscious on the upper end, but on the lower level primates and other chimps are conscious, but not dogs and cats. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that on the scale of all that exists, every border you attempt to draw where you say this side is conscious and this side is not is debatable. The zombie argument is that nothing, including ourselves, is conscious, since we are all just automatons trying to reproduce, and the other extreme is that everything, including the earth, stars, galaxies and subatomic particles is conscious. I tended toward the latter conclusion, and it is corroborated by most mystical traditions that have passed the test of time. Maybe this field of consciousness that underlies all phenomena is what Chi, Tao, God, or the Force is referring to.

   Of course if everything is conscious, or everything is consciousness, how to distinguish humans from other animals? I think this is where self comes in. There is an old black and white french movie that is a retelling of the story of Orpheus. In it Death enters into peoples rooms through mirrors. This gave me the idea that the very existence of death depends depends on self reflection, or the ability to conceive of oneself as an self contained entity. It is only when you have a self that death becomes possible. It is only through the self that we have an existence separate to unity. Then the individual consciousness can be perceived as a conscious anomaly rising up from a field of consciousness, and the mental structures in our consciousness that then arise from our individual consciousness develop their own conscious structures, and hence the holographic universe model.

   This puts the first two lines of the Quran in perspective-  the Surah Al Fatiha, or "the opening," begins "Alhamdulilah- Rabbil alamin". This is sometimes translated as All praise and all thanks are due to The God, Ruler of all that exists.  Upon reading up on the etymology of these words, the first word refers to Allah, which is a word that is singular and has no plural. This singular is then referred to as presiding over Al alamin, or all that exists. This al alamin refers to everything that exists- alamin is a word which is plural and has no singular. So the first sentences of the Quran declare the praise to the singular and establish that it is over all that which is plural.

   In the same way, when people speak of ego death, which I think is called samadhi in Buddhism, they sometimes describe it as becoming one with the universe, because the ego is the barrier that allows us to view ourselves as separate from the rest of reality. People also commonly describe loss of all sense of the passage of time in states of ego death. Time only becomes real when we perceive it as having definition- and this definition can only be achieved through time having a beginning and and an end. In other words, there can be no time without timelessness. Or the prerequisite of all perception is a beginning and an end, or an alpha and omega if you happen to be using the Greek alphabet. Did anybody else ever play the game Xenogears?

[semaforo]

  By the way FinShaggy, I agree with thejoint that the universe is not to equated with god. This has become very trendy in new age circles where people "put intentions out into the universe" because words like "praying" and "god" have been spoiled by fundamentalist christians. This is called the immanence-transcendence debate in theology, and and I think that to define the Supreme as immanent and not transcendent is a serious mistake.

  As for the Most High being referred to as a He, it is impossible for the Truth to have a gender, but language is adapted to describe the phenomenal world, so it is necessary to use parable when speaking about the unspeakable. My own theory is taken from the 99 names/attributes of the Creator. The attributes are often grouped in pairs- the Delayer and the Expediter, the Giver of life and the Causer of death, the First and the Last, Causer of suffering and the Giver of relief, the Exalter and the Humiliator, the Hidden and the Manifest. The masculine quality is the apparent, and this is why is is used in the scriptures. The hidden quality is the feminine. In the Quran the voice of the narrator shifts between He, I, and We in different passages, since the revelation is being narrated by the All Knowing to the Angel Gabriel (the holy spirit). This emphasizes the facts that angels, while having distinct existence, are direct expressions of divine will.

Also as for interest, in my own reading of the bible, which was far from exhaustive, I found six references prohibiting interest, both the taking of and the giving. Interest was illegal in Christian Europe until the 1600's A.D. where people started to question the . This leads me to think that people have been interpreting the Bible to fit their financial agenda rather than trying to apply the wisdom of the texts to their lives. Now people say usury only applies to excessive interest... whatever. There are plenty of ways to get returns on capital without charging interest, and these methods usually help society much more than interest, which provides further evidence to the wisdom and truth of uncorrupted interpretation of the scriptures of the Abrahamic tradition. I also recently read Quranic exegesis which suggested that the phrase "spreading corruption in the land" as in 2:11 (And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers.") and other verses as referring, among other things, to the debasing of coins with less valuable metals, or in modern terms "quantitative easing." If you want to find out what happened to the people who practiced this corruption, you can read it yourself.

[RodeoX]

I'm curious about how many of you have read the gospels not included in the Bible? When the Roman government produced the official state document we call the Bible, they left out a lot of texts that contradicted official policy. The gospels of Mary, Peter's apocalypse, The Epistle of Barnabas and many other widely known scriptures were cut. I find them fascinating and very telling about the early Christians. Are you familiar with these?

[lophie]

This leads me to think that people have been interpreting the Bible to fit their financial agenda rather than trying to apply the wisdom of the texts to their lives.

Jackpot! This sums all the shit the happened and claimed to be caused by religions. Also there is the other part where people focus on the ritualistic nature of religions  and totally ditch their meanings and spiritual manifestation of them upon the way they interact with other creatures humans or others.

[lophie]

I'm curious about how many of you have read the gospels not included in the Bible? When the Roman government produced the official state document we call the Bible, they left out a lot of texts that contradicted official policy. The gospels of Mary, Peter's apocalypse, The Epistle of Barnabas and many other widely known scriptures were cut. I find them fascinating and very telling about the early Christians. Are you familiar with these?

Link please  . BTW we are getting away of the main subject here. guys focus on Atheism and not theism. or let us open another thread regarding theism.

For the curious about non-religous-like atheism. What I mean by that is not atheism in the sense of a fat guy promoting we ditch the idea of deities for a better life vehemently. Check this guy out

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hamza+tzortzis+atheism&oq=hamza+tzortzis+atheism&gs_l=youtube.3..0l2.1329.3228.0.3451.8.5.0.3.3.1.389.871.1j0j2j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.k068QMS1FQ4

[RodeoX]

I'm curious about how many of you have read the gospels not included in the Bible? ...

Link please  . ...

Here is a link to a site. I'm not familiar with this website, but it seems to have a variety of examples. There are thought to be about 200 texts that were left out during the meeting in Ephesus.  I have sat in the ruins of the room where it all took place. It is not much to look at now, but played a major role in shaping the world we live in now.

http://notinthebible.com/

[Rassah]

I think trying to find consciousness in the mechanics of the brain is kind-of barking up the wrong tree. A bit like looking for electricity in the metal of a conductor, and not noticing the magnetic field in the surrounding air and how it spreads throughout the observable universe.

And yet, we can measure the electricity, the magnetic field in the surrounding air around the metal, and can almost track individual electrons. Better yet, we understand it well enough to be able to calculate extremely precisely how that electron would move, and where exactly those magnetic fields will be generated and with what strengths, using detailed physics calculations derived from decades of testing and observation. I get the sense that you want to believe that consciousness is something unknowable, something greater than us, something that us mere mortals will never understand, while I believe that everything can be understood, measured, and eventually predicted with formulas and concepts after enough study.

Question: Once computer AI is able to compete with human intelligence, both on an intellectual and on an emotional level (i.e. it can solve complex problems, make complex decisions, AND feel good or bad about them), will you still think that consciousness is something more than a whole lot of computer code running on silicon (or carbon once we get that working)? Or would your definition of consciousness change from "this unknowable etheral thing of everything observing everything, where the whole universe is conscious" to something simpler and more mundane?

[lophie]

Or do you think Hatsune Miku-chain is without emotions  . Heresy!

[Rassah]

Or do you think Hatsune Miku-chain is without emotions  . Heresy!

Dear god I would NEVER suggest such a thing! 

[the joint]

Where typical atheists get off track:

1). They mistake evidence for fact and mistake models based upon evidence for fact.  The theory of evolution is a perfect example. We have a large set of evidence and people interpret this evidence to support evolution.  However, utilizing the exact same set of evidence we can formulate an equally valid, opposing theory, namely one in which evolved states of consciousness lead to evolves physical states rather than vice versa.

2).  They underestimate the soundness of logic.  Perception itself is inherently entwined with binary logic, for if it weren't, you'd never even be able to distinguish anything as different from everything else.  In fact, you could never even assert that you perceive anything at all.  

3).  They neglect experience as a means to knowing.  This is often ironic in that many atheists also claim things like 'truth is relative' or 'logic is abstract' and then utilize abstract interpretations of evidence to deny the existence of god.  

4).  They adhere to Cartesian dualism by which it is asserted that there is an unbridgable chasm between mental and physical reality.  This leads them to trying to argue against the existence of god as an entity that is somehow totally independent from reality, but at the same time has the capacity to intervene in reality.  I think the main reason for this is that they've heard god defined in this way by idiot Christians and other religious people who have poor reasoning ability.

5).  They emphasize the importance of math, but they fail to realize that the most basic algebraic structure is language.  In fact, every identifiable object or concept is, by definition, its own language.  "In the beginning was the word" is true as fuck.  Language (I.e. syntax + content + grammar) lays the foundation for all of reality, and it is far more important to have a solid grasp of syntactic operations than to know how to calculate specific math problems or formulate models.  You can't understand the universe without understanding language because the universe IS a language.  

6).  They use words like "supernatural" to refer to religious claims, but then they forget that 'chance' and 'probability' are just alternative words for unknown specific causation.  Furthermore, they experience cognitive dissonance in light of paradoxes which, contrary to popular belief, are self-resolving rather than impossible.

7).  They mistakenly study reality as if it is the input of our experience when it is actually the output of internally processed information.

8.)  They don't understand the relationship between subjects and objects in the universe, or at least they cease their understanding when objects are in close proximity to the subject.  For example, they will instantly assert they are different from a tree (an object) but not different than, say, their body (also an object).  This is a problem when they then assert that the death of the body equates to death of the subject.

I might post more later...

[lophie]

4).  They adhere to Cartesian dualism by which it is asserted that there is an unbridgable chasm between mental and physical reality.  This leads them to trying to argue against the existence of god as an entity that is somehow totally independent from reality, but at the same time has the capacity to intervene in reality.  I think the main reason for this is that they've heard god defined in this way by idiot Christians and other religious people who have poor reasoning ability.

I like this part. Most of them tell you that is faith where I tell them so you claim god to be asking you not to reason or discuss his existence?

5).  They emphasize the importance of math, but they fail to realize that the most basic algebraic structure is language.  In fact, every identifiable object or concept is, by definition, its own language.  "In the beginning was the word" is true as fuck.  Language (I.e. syntax + content + grammar) lays the foundation for all of reality, and it is far more important to have a solid grasp of syntactic operations than to know how to calculate specific math problems or formulate models.  You can't understand the universe without understanding language because the universe IS a language.  

I just want to kiss you for this part. Very nice.

I might post more later...

Please do. Thank you that was a good read .

[RodeoX]

Where typical atheists get off track:

1). They ...

I think you have some interesting criticisms. personally I like to be challenged in my assumptions.  But mythology from the bronze age is no answer to the perceived failings of science. The Bible is a collection of ancient mythic tales. Some are copies from earlier religions, most are clearly not "true", in the sense that they depict actual events.
For example, Noah and the ark. This story comes from Sumerian religion where it was called "The Epic of Gilgamesh".  Of course, there never was a global flood or a ship that carried the 8.7million species of living things. Like the thousands of other stories from antiquity, they seek to enlighten us with metaphor and symbolism.