Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Is infinity unachievable in reality?

Good question; I think I'd go with 'no' to that. I think we could infer that the set of meanings embodied in the principle of 'infinity' contains both 'unachievable' and 'perfection' within it.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on February 15, 2017, 12:12:55 PM

    One has to wonder why so many non believers are attracted to post on this "Searching for God" thread?  Could God be helping them to come to know Him through the witness of others, even though they appear to be in denial of searching for Him?

Given the amount of lying you have done on this thread Alan, I find being called a liar by you as you do in the above post laughable.

To lie I would have to write something which I know is not true.
I can assure you, NS, that everything I have posted on this forum is what I sincerely believe to be the truth.  And contrary to your assertion above, I have never accused anyone else of lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good question; I think I'd go with 'no' to that. I think we could infer that the set of meanings embodied in the principle of 'infinity' contains both 'unachievable' and 'perfection' within it.

Not sure of the link between infinity and perfection. Could you elaborate?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good question; I think I'd go with 'no' to that. I think we could infer that the set of meanings embodied in the principle of 'infinity' contains both 'unachievable' and 'perfection' within it.

Are fundamental particles not perfect?

[Alan Burns]

An abstract concept similar to infinity; useful in calculations, but unachievable in reality.

But although it is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp, some form of infinity must exist in reality.  What lies beyond the universe? What existed before the Big Bang?  Will time still exist when the universe dies? Then what will exist?  Can we even imagine infinity? We can only think in terms of finite, but what lies beyond the finite?

[Stranger]

But although it is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp, some form of infinity must exist in reality.

Why? I'm not actually saying that it doesn't but why do you think it must?

What lies beyond the universe?

That might not be a place.

What existed before the Big Bang?

That might not be a time.

Will time still exist when the universe dies? Then what will exist?

I don't know, do you? If so, how?

Can we even imagine infinity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number

[torridon]

Not sure of the link between infinity and perfection. Could you elaborate?

Perfection would be infinitely good in some system of values.

[torridon]

Are fundamental particles not perfect?

That would imply a value judgment, no ?

[torridon]

But although it is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp, some form of infinity must exist in reality.  What lies beyond the universe? What existed before the Big Bang?  Will time still exist when the universe dies? Then what will exist?  Can we even imagine infinity? We can only think in terms of finite, but what lies beyond the finite?

If spacetime is finite, then what lies outside it ?

Trouble is, that is probably a meaningless question, there is no 'outside' of spacetime. Similarly the concept of time is meaningless where there are no events.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would imply a value judgment, no ?

Not sure.
Since a manky old boot with snapped laces is imperfect in material respects. Can you have a "broken" fundamental particle?

[wigginhall]

In some Eastern religions, the broken down boots with broken laces would be seen as perfect, but this is a different view of perfection, more like 'complete'.   It has interesting implications, since some of the arguments for God rest on the idea of a scale of merit, climbing up to God who includes all good properties, sometimes called the argument from gradation.   However,  in a religious school such as advaita, this would be nonsense, since there is no scale, except via the human mind.   However, in the gradation arguments, goodness is a kind of natural property, not mind-induced.   Interesting difference between East and West.

I sometimes think that art does the same thing, that is, transforms the ordinary into the extraordinary.   See Van Gogh's famous painting of a broken down pair of shoes.

http://tinyurl.com/jdkum96

[Alan Burns]

Everything is "just" deterministic reaction, unless it's random.

But is awareness deterministic?  or is it just a state of awareness of some material entity?  We can't answer this until we fully understand what conscious awareness is.  The sensory data from our bodies can certainly define the state of many brain cells, but we do not know how the state of these brain cells can be transferred into, and perceived by, a single entity of perception.

[wigginhall]

But is awareness deterministic?  or is it just a state of awareness of some material entity?  We can't answer this until we fully understand what conscious awareness is.  The sensory data from our bodies can certainly define the state of many brain cells, but we do not know how the state of these brain cells can be transferred into, and perceived by, a single entity of perception.

First, demonstrate that a single entity of perception exists. 

[Gordon]

But is awareness deterministic?  or is it just a state of awareness of some material entity?  We can't answer this until we fully understand what conscious awareness is.

So, more work to be done on this: meantime 'don't know' would be a suitable holding position.

The sensory data from our bodies can certainly define the state of many brain cells, but we do not know how the state of these brain cells can be transferred into, and perceived by, a single entity of perception.

This reads like an example of the fallacy of composition, and I'm not clear what you mean by 'single entity of perception'.

[Stranger]

But is awareness deterministic?

Is there an echo in here? That's what I keep asking you. It's either deterministic or it has some random element (remember: not deterministic means random).

or is it just a state of awareness of some material entity? We can't answer this until we fully understand what conscious awareness is.

You keep on telling us that you know enough about "conscious awareness" (and the physical brain) to be sure it can't be material, yet you don't seem to know anything at all about how it works...

The sensory data from our bodies can certainly define the state of many brain cells, but we do not know how the state of these brain cells can be transferred into, and perceived by, a single entity of perception.

Yet again, you have assumed your conclusion. Why does it have to be transferred anywhere? What is a "single entity of perception" and how does it work?

[torridon]

But is awareness deterministic?  or is it just a state of awareness of some material entity?  We can't answer this until we fully understand what conscious awareness is.  The sensory data from our bodies can certainly define the state of many brain cells, but we do not know how the state of these brain cells can be transferred into, and perceived by, a single entity of perception.

Someone punches you on the nose.  Do you get any choice in the matter of whether or not you are aware of the pain ?  Awareness lies in the information exchange between the puncher and the punched.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But is awareness deterministic?  or is it just a state of awareness of some material entity?  We can't answer this until we fully understand what conscious awareness is...

Depends what you mean by "answer", but substantially yes we can for reasons that have been explained to you but you just ignore. We don't yet "fully" understand gravity either for example, but it provides a perfectly good working answer to why apples fall off trees. Your problems here are first to explain why you'd abandon a perfectly good working model for "awareness" being deterministic and, if you can do that, second to explain why your "alternative explanation" provides an answer that better fits the available data.

Unless you can do these things, essentially all you have again is the same old argument from personal incredulity - "I can't imagine how X works deterministically, therefore Y works magically" etc. 

 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Depends what you mean by "answer", but substantially yes we can for reasons that have been explained to you but you just ignore. We don't yet "fully" understand gravity either for example, but it provides a perfectly good working answer to why apples fall off trees. Your problems here are first to explain why you'd abandon a perfectly good working model for "awareness" being deterministic and, if you can do that, second to explain why your "alternative explanation" provides an answer that better fits the available data.

Unless you can do these things, essentially all you have again is the same old argument from personal incredulity - "I can't imagine how X works deterministically, therefore Y works magically" etc.

The comparison of gravity to conscious awareness is not meaningful.  The properties of gravity can easily be demonstrated and replicated by simple experiment.  We can't replicate or demonstrate conscious awareness by experiment.  So your conjecture that it is explained by some form of emergent property is not demonstrable. 

[Alan Burns]

First, demonstrate that a single entity of perception exists.

It is you.  Not your physical body, but your conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

So your conjecture that it is explained by some form of emergent property is not demonstrable.

Wow, talk about double standards! Your notion of a 'soul' has absolutely no basis at all except your religious superstitions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The comparison of gravity to conscious awareness is not meaningful.  The properties of gravity can easily be demonstrated and replicated by simple experiment.  We can't replicate or demonstrate conscious awareness by experiment.  So your conjecture that it is explained by some form of emergent property is not demonstrable.

You’ve missed the point entirely. It wasn’t a comparison between gravity and “awareness’ at all, but rather a point in reasoning. Your assertion was that the question of whether or not awareness is deterministic can’t be answered “until we fully understand what conscious awareness is.”

I was merely pointing out that questions about the nature of lots of phenomena can be answered without fully understanding them either, so your general proposition is wrong.

You really don’t do yourself any favours with this kind of thing.

[Alan Burns]

Someone punches you on the nose.  Do you get any choice in the matter of whether or not you are aware of the pain ?  Awareness lies in the information exchange between the puncher and the punched.

Pain is a reflex action.
But when you contemplate the beauty of a sunset, or a work of art, your conscious awareness is directed (by you), not dictated.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But when you contemplate the beauty of a sunset, or a work of art, your conscious awareness is directed (by you), not dictated.

And some point you're going to have to make your mind up about whether "you" do the directing, or the little man at the controls ("soul") does it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And some point you're going to have to make your mind up about whether "you" do the directing, or the little man at the controls ("soul") does it.

"you"="soul"

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

"you"="soul"

So the real "you" is the little man at the controls, but the physical you is just a vehicle he happens to be driving for a bit? So which one should we send to jail for murder - the invisible little man or his vehicle?

See, that's the trouble when you dream up mad ontologies like "soul" - you have to engage in ever more convoluted explanations for it as its inherent contradictions are pointed out.