The problem with atheism.

[Rassah]

Where does the operating system and software come from, if not from the CPU? Is computer software just an illusion being experienced by a computer?

given the often unpredictable behaviours of computers, I would have to say yes! 

No, computers are perfectly predictable. If they weren't, they'd be of no use.

Which presents a huge problem to AI designers 

[dank]

I think uploading your brain to a machine would cause too many "BAD SECTOR" errors  

Yes, the negative areas are tuned out.

A fake one?

Nothing fake about someone who found the answer to life through psychedelics, learned that he was god and lived his life to teach everyone the same workings of life death and our universe.

Nothing fake about performing miracles, I have done the impossible, surely Jesus could have.

Then again, all signs point to me being the second coming of Christ.  For I am the only person who has laid down in complete utter peace to let CIA/drug cartels kill me as a sacrifice for the rest of the world, yes for you.  I am one of the few people who fully understands the universe.  I am the only one, at 19 years old and a good life to go, who is in the position to speak out and reach the minds and souls of those around him.

Most importantly, I am the only one who believes in myself to the extent I do.  I have flown in dreams, done the impossible.  I have understood death dreams and all conscious states of reality.  I have experienced the eighth, probably tenth dimension during my first ego death.

I ask, what better candidate?  I've seen the competition and I wasn't impressed.

The world is going to end.  Period.  There are two paths, humans can destroy the world, or we can ascend as the conscious being we are into a new state of consciousness, simply by unconditional love.  So death, or walk into heaven.

I already know whether fear or love will win, I can't say I know which will win you, that choice is yours.

[Rassah]

Miind = blown!!!


no, not really.

Dank, better than Jesus. But is he still better than The Beatles?

[termhn]

I think uploading your brain to a machine would cause too many "BAD SECTOR" errors 

Yes, the negative areas are tuned out.

A fake one?

Nothing fake about someone who found the answer to life through psychedelics, learned that he was god and lived his life to teach everyone the same workings of life death and our universe.

Nothing fake about performing miracles, I have done the impossible, surely Jesus could have.

Then again, all signs point to me being the second coming of Christ.  For I am the only person who has laid down in complete utter peace to let CIA/drug cartels kill me as a sacrifice for the rest of the world, yes for you.  I am one of the few people who fully understands the universe.  I am the only one, at 19 years old and a good life to go, who is in the position to speak out and reach the minds and souls of those around him.

Most importantly, I am the only one who believes in myself to the extent I do.  I have flown in dreams, done the impossible.  I have understood death dreams and all conscious states of reality.  I have experienced the eighth, probably tenth dimension during my first ego death.

I ask, what better candidate?  I've seen the competition and I wasn't impressed.

The world is going to end.  Period.  There are two paths, humans can destroy the world, or we can ascend as the conscious being we are into a new state of consciousness, simply by unconditional love.  So death, or walk into heaven.

I already know whether fear or love will win, I can't say I know which will win you, that choice is yours.

I don't even...

[hawkeye]

 
It sure seems to be an active research area for philosophers, but what can scientists actually do with their good intentions if they want to study the ego/consciousness and discover what it is?
Behavioural science can't research something that is "non-behavioural" so that seems to be out.
Similarly, Empirical science relies on a separation between the first-person, e.g.: a scientist, versus an outside world that they're measuring. Since consciousness is defined as a first-person experience, third-person evidence also seems like a non-starter. Sure, there's plenty of speculation that special arrangements of particles (brains) house, manage, and even create a consciousness, but that's not the same as 'is' consciousness.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

There seems to be no deeper knowledge than that pesky ego, yet it seems to be specifically excluded. The empiricists are happy to use consciousness/self/ego or whatever one wants to call it to measure everything else, but studying it would break their own rules.

This is why I brought up 'consciousness' in an atheism discussion. Consciousness seems equivalent to a minimalist definition of god without religious frills. Or you could call it Ietsism or something like that. The lengths people will go to to avoid the stigma of religious gods...

Consciousness might seem magical to us, but that is really just an illusion.  It is a physical reality of neurons interacting.  The full details we don't know but it's just a physical process.   There's no reason to think it won't be eventually unravelled, since the physical information all resides in the brain.  It just needs to be gathered and analysed.

[the joint]

 
It sure seems to be an active research area for philosophers, but what can scientists actually do with their good intentions if they want to study the ego/consciousness and discover what it is?
Behavioural science can't research something that is "non-behavioural" so that seems to be out.
Similarly, Empirical science relies on a separation between the first-person, e.g.: a scientist, versus an outside world that they're measuring. Since consciousness is defined as a first-person experience, third-person evidence also seems like a non-starter. Sure, there's plenty of speculation that special arrangements of particles (brains) house, manage, and even create a consciousness, but that's not the same as 'is' consciousness.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

There seems to be no deeper knowledge than that pesky ego, yet it seems to be specifically excluded. The empiricists are happy to use consciousness/self/ego or whatever one wants to call it to measure everything else, but studying it would break their own rules.

This is why I brought up 'consciousness' in an atheism discussion. Consciousness seems equivalent to a minimalist definition of god without religious frills. Or you could call it Ietsism or something like that. The lengths people will go to to avoid the stigma of religious gods...

Consciousness might seem magical to us, but that is really just an illusion.  It is a physical reality of neurons interacting.  The full details we don't know but it's just a physical process.   There's no reason to think it won't be eventually unravelled, since the physical information all resides in the brain.  It just needs to be gathered and analysed.

That's pretty amazing that you came to that conclusion through the empirical observation of isolated phenomena without a theory linking those phenomena to the rest of reality as a whole.  So...nice refined guesstimate?

Do you adhere to a positivist view of the world? 

[hawkeye]

That's pretty amazing that you came to that conclusion through the empirical observation of isolated phenomena without a theory linking those phenomena to the rest of reality as a whole.  So...nice refined guesstimate?

Do you adhere to a positivist view of the world? 

What rest of reality are you referring to?

I don't know what a "positivist view" means.

[the joint]

That's pretty amazing that you came to that conclusion through the empirical observation of isolated phenomena without a theory linking those phenomena to the rest of reality as a whole.  So...nice refined guesstimate?

Do you adhere to a positivist view of the world?  

What rest of reality are you referring to?

I don't know what a "positivist view" means.

The problem with forming an absolute conclusion through empirical means is because isolated phenomena are not only defined by what they are, but also by what they are not (e.g. A given banana is what it is because it's not a not-banana).  When you perceive an isolated element, you separate it from the rest of reality and study it as if nothing else could possibly explain it (unless you form a model incorporating a series of isolated phenomena that explain each other, but even then, the problem appears all over again as you could combine that model with others in another explanatory system ad infinitum).

The problem is that this typically occurs due to a positivist worldview, a requirement for the scientific method.  A positivist worldview assumes that there are concrete objects out there in the universe that can be observed and explained solely in terms of themselves.  The scientific method, however, conveniently rules out certain truths simply because they are not empirical.  For example, the scientific method does not permit studying the very mathematical principles and concepts that the scientific model quite literally depends on, specifically in the process of theory-making (i.e. "Let's construct a scientific theory that is stated in a mathematical way, but let's not permit any conclusions about reality based upon abstract math principles.").

[Biomech]

That's pretty amazing that you came to that conclusion through the empirical observation of isolated phenomena without a theory linking those phenomena to the rest of reality as a whole.  So...nice refined guesstimate?

Do you adhere to a positivist view of the world?  

What rest of reality are you referring to?

I don't know what a "positivist view" means.

The problem with forming an absolute conclusion through empirical means is because isolated phenomena are not only defined by what they are, but also by what they are not (e.g. A given banana is what it is because it's not a not-banana).  When you perceive an isolated element, you separate it from the rest of reality and study it as if nothing else could possibly explain it (unless you form a model incorporating a series of isolated phenomena that explain each other, but even then, the problem appears all over again as you could combine that model with others in another explanatory system ad infinitum).

The problem is that this typically occurs due to a positivist worldview, a requirement for the scientific method.  A positivist worldview assumes that there are concrete objects out there in the universe that can be observed and explained solely in terms of themselves.  The scientific method, however, conveniently rules out certain truths simply because they are not empirical.  For example, the scientific method does not permit studying the very mathematical principles and concepts that the scientific model quite literally depends on, specifically in the process of theory-making (i.e. "Let's construct a scientific theory that is stated in a mathematical way, but let's not permit any conclusions about reality based upon abstract math principles.").

There is some truth to this. However, the scientific method is a way of doing things (and thinking) that tends to get BETTER results than most other structures.

But a scientist doesn't rely SOLELY on methodology. That methodology is used to establish theory, to be sure, but it doesn't mean that an inquiring mind can't go beyond it. It does mean that said inquiry should lead to a method of testing that does fit empirical data, or at least set up a future means to do so. In hard physics, the theory of relativity is a good example. A great deal of it remains speculative, because we currently have no way to test it. But that does not mean it fails in it's framework, only that some of it's predictions cannot yet be tested. As we progress, more of it will be testable, falsifiable, and probably altered due to falsification of some of it's axioms.

The same can be said of consciousness. Without consciousness, there would be no extrapolation of empirical data, therefore no empiricism. Those of us interested in transhumanism are quite aware of this, and are actively researching and/or thinking about HOW consciousness works and WHAT it is. Which, by the way, is probably a rather key difference in scientific vs. religious thought. Or even philosophical thought. Religion, to the extent that it's not merely a control scheme, delves primarily into the question "why?". Science concerns itself more with "How?" and "What?" with the idea that "Why" will be answered by determining the other two. Thus you can use the scientific method where appropriate, but still separately ask "why?" and perhaps find another angle.

I personally think, based on things I have observed and people I have known, loathed, and admired, find some validity to the idea that exploring your consciousness via psychedelic drugs has some validity. Steve Jobs thought so, Aldous Huxley thought so, Timothy Leary... These were not stupid men. The problem with this angle is how to set up an experimental series that can both validate their experiences AND duplicate them. Altered states of consciousness are measurable, in crude ways, but not PRECISELY reproducible at this point. We need to understand the basal mechanics of the brain a bit better. The two schools of study there need to converge at some point. I think they will.

It has long been posited that one could directly simulate a brain in a powerful enough computer by mapping all of it's connections, programming analogs of it's chemical and electrical interactions, and turning it on. One way I can see of achieving this in the possibly very near future would be to disassemble a recently deceased person's brain at the molecular level using nanomachines and recording all of the results. From that point, it's a programming project, and programmers with a goal get things done. The prerequisites for nanomachines are pretty much all in place, just takes one genius to put them together properly, so this is not necessarily a pipe dream.

I tend to be very analytical and scientific in my approach to problem solving. But I have experienced things and observed paranormal phenomena that do not fit my understanding of the natural world. Not only that, some of these things have been in the presence of witnesses, so I am certain that I was not merely hallucinating. There is a misconception in people's minds about the scientific mindset. It is unfortunately fairly well present even among those for whom the sciences are their work. The idea that current theory has explained everything.

That has never been the core of science. The core isn't that everything has been explained, it's that everything CAN BE explained. The religious viewpoint, on the other hand, frequently employs the ideation that there are things that cannot be explained. I reject that outright, as it would mean that even their god couldn't explain things, if it had the desire. Unfortunately, that paradigm is long ingrained in religious thought. The first chapter of the Christian bible (or the Torah, if you like) condemns the seeking of forbidden knowledge. It's the Christian's Original Sin. And by their "reasoning" I am most assuredly and proudly guilty of that "sin".

[pliznau]

Because we are forbiden to seek truth an research by religion so we realize that this is just a scheme to enslave and control us we are baptized right after birth so we don't have the chance to think. And why is it a sin? that "true believers" have the chance to love god by their own will. As other guys said by now: we still have a lot of stuff to find out.   

[dank]

That has never been the core of science. The core isn't that everything has been explained, it's that everything CAN BE explained. The religious viewpoint, on the other hand, frequently employs the ideation that there are things that cannot be explained. I reject that outright, as it would mean that even their god couldn't explain things, if it had the desire. Unfortunately, that paradigm is long ingrained in religious thought. The first chapter of the Christian bible (or the Torah, if you like) condemns the seeking of forbidden knowledge. It's the Christian's Original Sin. And by their "reasoning" I am most assuredly and proudly guilty of that "sin".

Wouldn't science be the one saying there's no explanation for that?  For every answer comes many questions, while true religion or spirituality gives you an answer to what it is and why it's there without you ever doubting what was there in the first place.

Any true religion would share the knowledge that humans know everything deep inside of us.

[RodeoX]

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

[pliznau]

Of course he is.the demonstration is simple: why wouldn't he be?

[BitChick]

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank. 

[Rassah]

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank. 

Pretty sure Jesus just made it so that he can never come back again, without people claiming he's fake.

[dank]

First thing a rational minded being thinks when one proclaims to be jesus, you're crazy.  Perhaps this is the problem with rationalizing thoughts.

If you would take the time to really understand Jesus and what he was, you would see he is someone who loved everyone unconditionally.  He spoke against people that doubted him, despite the judgement, for the sake of helping the other people.

I have nothing to gain materially or powerfully with my beliefs, for all I believe in is unconditional love.  Pretty much all my beliefs align with Jesus's even though I was never told the story of Jesus.  I found out how the story happened simply by living my life.  I found understanding of Jesus without being told much about him.

If we could simply let go of all fear we would see what I say is true.  My purpose on earth is to enable the ascension between the fourth and fifth dimension for man kind.  I know how to do so, for I believe I can float.  When I fly, you'll believe and can spread your wings.  I'm convinced I'm the man for the job, is there any other jesus applicant that doesn't know two separate instances of levitation that have already occurred?

Even more, I'm not the one that put the idea of me being jesus in my head.  A good friend at the beach said he had a vision I was Jesus and they were the disciples.  I didn't think much of it at the time.  Then a couple months later I start seeing CIA in front of my parents house?  Before I hardly did drugs?

What am I supposed to make of this?

Add on to that my spiritual evolution throughout 2012, finding complete understanding of our existence.

Too many signs, you must learn to formulate a belief after the signs add up.

I hope one day you all can stand beside me.  Never follow me but stand beside me if you will.

[the joint]

I am only seeking funding to make this concert happen, in reality.  By really going places and talking to people about it.  I need money to travel the US to find people that can contribute.

I'll tell you how it'd be spent: I would buy a bike, ride around the US, with my guitar.  Talk to some people that are in a position to help, and botta boom botta bing, big ass concert.

This is all I care about, all I put my energy towards.

Let me disclaim, to be fair: if this doesn't manifest into reality by 2013, 2012 is nothing, concert doesn't happen, I will get a job and pay my dues.

If this does manifest into reality, however, nobody would be forced to work for something they don't want to do their self.

Dank, honestly, I think it's good your mind is focused on love.

But about your "signs," you've made some prophetic claims in the past that have already fallen by the wayside.

I think you see some interesting 'signs', but you really don't know what to do with them.  And don't bash rationalism at the same that you're using reason to convince us of something.

You're logically inconsistent.

[RodeoX]

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank. 

If Dank says that he is the only true God... well, you see where I'm going.
P.S. I don't hate the scripture quotes. I'm impressed that you know them. And to be clear, I think the Bible is a wise book. Filled with ancient knowledge about how to live with others.   

[yogi]

I'd like to quote some scripture too.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

[BitChick]

Why is everyone trippin on Dank. In a world of Gods he should be taken seriously as it is perfectly possible that he is God. He should not have to provide anyone with any proof. Gods do not have to do such things, you should believe even though everything you know contradicts it. That is faith.

I know most of you hate it when I quote scriptures on here but I could not resist on this one:

Luke 21:8
He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Jesus predicted that there would be people like Dank. 

If Dank says that he is the only true God... well, you see where I'm going.
P.S. I don't hate the scripture quotes. I'm impressed that you know them. And to be clear, I think the Bible is a wise book. Filled with ancient knowledge about how to live with others.   

So if Dank says he is the only true god and Jesus said He is the only true God and only one was right which one would you pick?  I would think the choice would be fairly easy then wouldn't it?