God and time and space

[Horatio Parker]

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

I don't.

There is too much of it.

I barely experience the tiny bit of reality that directly affects my senses at any given time.

I didn't say we experience all of reality, I said we experience it as a whole.

 

[Kharakov]

Wild? Certainly not. The idea of an intelligent, conscious universe is ancient, and persistent.

It is an ancient, persistent, wild and unsubstantiated claim.

The age and/or popularity of an idea has no impact on its validity.

If the idea is as old as you it probably has an impact on its validity.

 

[WAB]

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

I don't.

There is too much of it.

I barely experience the tiny bit of reality that directly affects my senses at any given time.

Can you expand on that? I'm not trying to be a douchebag, just trying to understand you.

What do you mean when you say you 'barely experience the tiny bit of reality that directly affects my senses at any given time.' ?

You experience reality at every waking moment.

 

[WAB]

I don't.

There is too much of it.

I barely experience the tiny bit of reality that directly affects my senses at any given time.

Its even less than that bilby. You only experience only that bit of reality that matches your situation relative to whatever it is makes you shiver.

If that's what life is for you, you have my sympathy.

But I know it's not, since I've read and enjoyed your poetry.

 

[fromderinside]

Its even less than that bilby. You only experience only that bit of reality that matches your situation relative to whatever it is makes you shiver.

If that's what life is for you, you have my sympathy.

But I know it's not, since I've read and enjoyed your poetry.

Back to Camus. I'm not responsible for your feelings.

 

[WAB]

If that's what life is for you, you have my sympathy.

But I know it's not, since I've read and enjoyed your poetry.

Back to Camus. I'm not responsible for your feelings.

I've never read Camus.

 

[fromderinside]

Back to Camus. I'm not responsible for your feelings.

I've never read Camus.

You missed something. From the Myth of Sisyphus "We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. In that race which daily hastens us towards death, the body maintains its irreparable lead."
From " ... the body maintains its irreparable lead" he tells us to respect deterministic positions in human behavior . Either from him or from my from my studies and research in sensory neuroscience comes my personal confirmation. I don't choose to examine whether it was his writing or my studies that took me there.

In neuroscience and evolutionary science one doesn't find any system there that became a system that wasn't driven to it by conditions. Seems kind of hard to then say that because something takes in a lot of information that it is now jumping ahead and choosing between things that may come next. Its kind of like a clock always going tic-toc with never a jump ahead to toc-tic.

If you examine the term consciousness you'll find a man made construct used to explain why we are aware of what we are aware even though that doesn't square with what's happening. There is no biological mechanism identified as the conscious or the unconscious. Check. Not even everything to which we attend is preserved in awareness and we only attend to a little. Consciousness and unconscious make good folk psychology though. Many on the periphery of science found lots of profit and fame for those who want that sort of thing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Look, an entity or object is either subject to time or not. Thinking about "in the beginning" God did this, that and something else in sequence, rather than "bang" altogether suggests he is constrained by needing to do things in some sort of logical sequence. That suggests he exists in a time continuum of some sort, otherwise from his point of view, the beginning and end of the universe are simultanous (if so, why bother?) And also where does it say in that sequence that God specifically created time? If he didn't do that, then he is subject to time.

You are making up your own concept of God to try and criticise all concepts of God. But I can certainly conceive myself of a God who decides to create our universe in space-time without Himself being constrained or obligated by it. He would only be constrained by His decision and only as long as He wants to be. Just like I can draw a cartoon character on a sheet of paper, be constrained by my choice of this piece of paper but only as long as I want to be, which is not really being constrained at all. It's just my decision to do it a particular way rather than another. If I can do that surely God could do it too.

Look at it this way: if a person is in cryogenic suspension, effectively they are eternal or immortal or whatever you wish to call them: ie immune to the passage of time.

Being immune to the passage of time so far is not enough to being eternal or immortal. Being eternal or immortal means you'll be alive at any point in time.

You can be in cryogenic suspension today and utterly destroyed tomorrow. That's not being eternal or immortal.

You could also conceivably be eternal and immortal without being immune to the passage of time. Maybe you change ever so slightly now and again, maybe it's a cycle, whatever.

But what can they actually do? Nothing. In order to start or stop doing things, you need to be experiencing time.

Yes in some sense but experiencing time may not be the same as being subject to the passage of time in the usual sense. In particular, I can conceive of something, say God, which is not subject to an increase of its entropy. He can move along and have a dynamic experience of time without aging, much like particles in particle mechanics. Maybe the physics of that would be impossible but current physics maybe is wrong!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Genesis is a myth, which is an abstract idea portrayed as a drama. Consequently, its sequential and its characters anthropomorphized.

NoRobots posted a Permenides quote that sums it up well:

Reality itself is a thinking thing, and the object of its own thinking. – Parmenides

Nice quote. Yes to the first part, no to the second. This shows how philosophers are always tempted to build one bridge too far. Well, just like everybody else I suppose.

Actually, the first part is just absolutely wondrous and delightful.

Actually, the second part combines everything that's wrong about the human mind.

There's nothing too low for the best of minds to stoop to.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Do you find that statement profound? True? Does it illuminate some important idea?

Because all I see in that statement is a wild unsubstantiated claim.

Wild? Certainly not. The idea of an intelligent, conscious universe is ancient, and persistent.

Yet it is not what the quote says. There's nothing about the "universe" or about "consciousness". Could you try to justify that your interpretation of the Parmenides quote is actually what Parmenides meant by it?
There are many ways to skin a cat.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is an ancient, persistent, wild and unsubstantiated claim.

The age and/or popularity of an idea has no impact on its validity.

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

This is just your interpretation and really just wishful thinking.

I could work out other interpretations. One for example is a scientific one: thinking is a process in brains, and brains and their processes are part of reality therefore reality is a thinking thing. Further, thinking always involves claims about reality therefore reality is the object of its own thinking. According to this, Parmenides didn't mean that we experienced reality as a whole. Rather, reality is experiencing itself but piecemeal, in a disconnected way.

So, you see, it's not that simple and your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If you examine the term consciousness you'll find a man made construct used to explain why we are aware of what we are aware even though that doesn't square with what's happening. There is no biological mechanism identified as the conscious or the unconscious. Check. Not even everything to which we attend is preserved in awareness and we only attend to a little.

The term "consciousness" is... just a term.

So, it's just not an explanation and doesn't explain consciousness itself. It is certainly used to refer to different things. For example, maybe the condition of a person in which this person perceives at least part of its environment, for example in such a way that a doctor can ascertain that the person is responsive to some stimulus. It may also refer to the whole of whatever a person is experiencing subjectively (or privately etc.) and only in the particular way that it is experiencing it, whatever that may be precisely. Another way to put it is perhaps to say that this kind of consciousness is the part of a subject's mind that he is paying attention to, focusing on, etc.

I suspect there are other notions of consciousness, perhaps one where it is a synonym of "mind". Whatever the case, the term is not an explanation, it's just a term, and it's what one mean by it that matters. Some kind of explanation may be regarded as necessary, like the physical processes which could explain consciousness (depending on which kind of consciousness you are referring to) but the term doesn't provide any explanation by itself.

Another question is of the reality of what the term refers to. This is where I don't get your take on this. According to the second understanding of the term I offer above, it does not refer to anything explicitly material or physical. It's agnostic on that. Rather, it refers to one's subjective experience of one's own consciousness. I can form an idea of something and call it the idea of a tree. The tree may not exist but the idea of the tree does since I know it does. And I'm quite sure most people, and most scientists, if maybe not all of us, would agree with that but even if they disagreed that wouldn't change that fact of its existence.

In this respect, whether there is or not some physical or material explanation of what I or other people call consciousness is irrelevant to whether consciousness exists. For all I know you may well completely misunderstand the term as I use it or how it is generally used. All that this does is that we don't understand each other. It doesn't make consciousness somehow not exist when I know it does.

You seem to equate the absence of a materialistic explanation as proof of the non-existence of consciousness. This is obviously just wishful thinking. Consciousness exists and we may want to find a materialistic explanation but just because you have none available now doesn't entail anything about the existence of consciousness itself.

Whether we all experience consciousness is perhaps an interesting question and maybe you don't experience what I call consciousness. If you don't you may not believe that I do but that won't stop me from knowing that I'm conscious whenever I am and therefore it won't stop consciousness from existing.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

If you examine the term consciousness you'll find a man made construct used to explain why we are aware of what we are aware even though that doesn't square with what's happening. There is no biological mechanism identified as the conscious or the unconscious. Check. Not even everything to which we attend is preserved in awareness and we only attend to a little.

The term "consciousness" is... just a term.

So, it's just not an explanation and doesn't explain consciousness itself. It is certainly used to refer to different things. For example, maybe the condition of a person in which this person perceives at least part of its environment, for example in such a way that a doctor can ascertain that the person is responsive to some stimulus. It may also refer to the whole of whatever a person is experiencing subjectively (or privately etc.) and only in the particular way that it is experiencing it, whatever that may be precisely. Another way to put it is perhaps to say that this kind of consciousness is the part of a subject's mind that he is paying attention to, focusing on, etc.



I suspect there are other notions of consciousness, perhaps one where it is a synonym of "mind". Whatever the case, the term is not an explanation, it's just a term, and it's what one mean by it that matters. Some kind of explanation may be regarded as necessary, like the physical processes which could explain consciousness (depending on which kind of consciousness you are referring to) but the term doesn't provide any explanation by itself.

Another question is of the reality of what the term refers to. This is where I don't get your take on this. According to the second understanding of the term I offer above, it does not refer to anything explicitly material or physical. It's agnostic on that. Rather, it refers to one's subjective experience of one's own consciousness. I can form an idea of something and call it the idea of a tree. The tree may not exist but the idea of the tree does since I know it does. And I'm quite sure most people, and most scientists, if maybe not all of us, would agree with that but even if they disagreed that wouldn't change that fact of its existence.

In this respect, whether there is or not some physical or material explanation of what I or other people call consciousness is irrelevant to whether consciousness exists. For all I know you may well completely misunderstand the term as I use it or how it is generally used. All that this does is that we don't understand each other. It doesn't make consciousness somehow not exist when I know it does.

You seem to equate the absence of a materialistic explanation as proof of the non-existence of consciousness. This is obviously just wishful thinking. Consciousness exists and we may want to find a materialistic explanation but just because you have none available now doesn't entail anything about the existence of consciousness itself.

Whether we all experience consciousness is perhaps an interesting question and maybe you don't experience what I call consciousness. If you don't you may not believe that I do but that won't stop me from knowing that I'm conscious whenever I am and therefore it won't stop consciousness from existing.
EB

Speakpigeon finally speaks. I'm not concerned with the subjective beyond upon which it seems to be based. As for subjective consciousness there is nothing except preconceptions and presumptions on which to base either subjective or consciousness. Subjective fits because well it's subjective and not objective. Consciousness fits because it's based on subjective impressions and configurations which, again, are subjective and not objective.

One can put an army into an auditorium and instruct them on what they should be relating and still one will never get an objective result. How can one reasonably, by this I mean objectively, find explanation in musing and self inspections? Seriously. The mind dies with  Wllhelm Wundt and he wasn't even scientific in his destruction of that notion beyond his attempts to use an empirical method at which he failed miserably. I'm not saying it isn't a convenient placeholder for a field of study which came later, much later, way after the notion was so corrupted it still holds back reasonable men from doing experiments in fear of trampling tradition.

One's subjective experience of what one has learned to use to express that experience, that basis for consciousness and mind? Really? Does circular reasoning mean anything to you? Why bring up an internal discussion on the meaning and use of language as some sort of defense for flawed reasoning when when we are actually talking about what makes those measures work. The name is not the thing nor are the reasons the nature of the thing. The thing needs be empirically explored understood, and if at all possible put into the larger narrative being built about our objective take on whatever, maybe, reality, maybe chaos, whatever.

Equate absence? Not really. I'm taking a hard line position based on the very lack of anything material found to support either consciousness or mind or free will or other claptrap thrown into the air to 'explain' how we work for that matter. The time has come to realize that things work for humans the way things work for rocks. Sure its obvious physical circumstances dictate what rocks do. We want to be different so we somehow reverse sense into foresight when there is no basis for doing such since what we construct is entirely built on our pasts and the recent past through which we walked. No we are still reacting to what are the circumstances and we seem to be constructing perceiving environments based on those experiences, the few of which we actually incorporate, into some sort of free will conscious mind construct that declares rather than reacts. As I said in an earlier post elsewhere even Schrodinger is in one of Schrodinger's boxes where he is waiting for the cat to prove his paradox. We will react whatever circumstance.

 

[Horatio Parker]

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

This is just your interpretation and really just wishful thinking.

I could work out other interpretations. One for example is a scientific one: thinking is a process in brains, and brains and their processes are part of reality therefore reality is a thinking thing. Further, thinking always involves claims about reality therefore reality is the object of its own thinking. According to this, Parmenides didn't mean that we experienced reality as a whole. Rather, reality is experiencing itself but piecemeal, in a disconnected way.

So, you see, it's not that simple and your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
EB

You lose sight of the relationship of the mind to reality. Consciousness examining itself requires a reality and a mind perceiving it. You arbitrarily wall off a portion of reality and limit the scope of Parmenides to it, and declare victory.

Because you can easily construct a half assed interpretation says more about you than the quote.

 

[fromderinside]

We experience reality as a whole. The quote reflects the essence of that in a simple, profound way.

This is just your interpretation and really just wishful thinking.

I could work out other interpretations. One for example is a scientific one: thinking is a process in brains, and brains and their processes are part of reality therefore reality is a thinking thing. Further, thinking always involves claims about reality therefore reality is the object of its own thinking. According to this, Parmenides didn't mean that we experienced reality as a whole. Rather, reality is experiencing itself but piecemeal, in a disconnected way.

So, you see, it's not that simple and your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
EB

How very creationist of your scientific one. How many strawmen are you going to go through to get us to stop debunking them. No way science goes from observing brains processing information to brains and processes are part of reality therefore ....

 

[Underseer]

This is just your interpretation and really just wishful thinking.

I could work out other interpretations. One for example is a scientific one: thinking is a process in brains, and brains and their processes are part of reality therefore reality is a thinking thing. Further, thinking always involves claims about reality therefore reality is the object of its own thinking. According to this, Parmenides didn't mean that we experienced reality as a whole. Rather, reality is experiencing itself but piecemeal, in a disconnected way.

So, you see, it's not that simple and your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
EB

You lose sight of the relationship of the mind to reality. Consciousness examining itself requires a reality and a mind perceiving it. You arbitrarily wall off a portion of reality and limit the scope of Parmenides to it, and declare victory.

Because you can easily construct a half assed interpretation says more about you than the quote.

Reality is not a requirement for consciousness. Do we really have to have the tedious discussion of why this is the case?

 

[Horatio Parker]

You lose sight of the relationship of the mind to reality. Consciousness examining itself requires a reality and a mind perceiving it. You arbitrarily wall off a portion of reality and limit the scope of Parmenides to it, and declare victory.

Because you can easily construct a half assed interpretation says more about you than the quote.

Reality is not a requirement for consciousness. Do we really have to have the tedious discussion of why this is the case?

Perhaps not, but both must be present to contemplate that point.

That the entire exercise is pointless because brain is another issue.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The term "consciousness" is... just a term.

So, it's just not an explanation and doesn't explain consciousness itself. It is certainly used to refer to different things. For example, maybe the condition of a person in which this person perceives at least part of its environment, for example in such a way that a doctor can ascertain that the person is responsive to some stimulus. It may also refer to the whole of whatever a person is experiencing subjectively (or privately etc.) and only in the particular way that it is experiencing it, whatever that may be precisely. Another way to put it is perhaps to say that this kind of consciousness is the part of a subject's mind that he is paying attention to, focusing on, etc.



I suspect there are other notions of consciousness, perhaps one where it is a synonym of "mind". Whatever the case, the term is not an explanation, it's just a term, and it's what one mean by it that matters. Some kind of explanation may be regarded as necessary, like the physical processes which could explain consciousness (depending on which kind of consciousness you are referring to) but the term doesn't provide any explanation by itself.

Another question is of the reality of what the term refers to. This is where I don't get your take on this. According to the second understanding of the term I offer above, it does not refer to anything explicitly material or physical. It's agnostic on that. Rather, it refers to one's subjective experience of one's own consciousness. I can form an idea of something and call it the idea of a tree. The tree may not exist but the idea of the tree does since I know it does. And I'm quite sure most people, and most scientists, if maybe not all of us, would agree with that but even if they disagreed that wouldn't change that fact of its existence.

In this respect, whether there is or not some physical or material explanation of what I or other people call consciousness is irrelevant to whether consciousness exists. For all I know you may well completely misunderstand the term as I use it or how it is generally used. All that this does is that we don't understand each other. It doesn't make consciousness somehow not exist when I know it does.

You seem to equate the absence of a materialistic explanation as proof of the non-existence of consciousness. This is obviously just wishful thinking. Consciousness exists and we may want to find a materialistic explanation but just because you have none available now doesn't entail anything about the existence of consciousness itself.

Whether we all experience consciousness is perhaps an interesting question and maybe you don't experience what I call consciousness. If you don't you may not believe that I do but that won't stop me from knowing that I'm conscious whenever I am and therefore it won't stop consciousness from existing.
EB

Speakpigeon finally speaks. I'm not concerned with the subjective beyond upon which it seems to be based. As for subjective consciousness there is nothing except preconceptions and presumptions on which to base either subjective or consciousness. Subjective fits because well it's subjective and not objective. Consciousness fits because it's based on subjective impressions and configurations which, again, are subjective and not objective.

One can put an army into an auditorium and instruct them on what they should be relating and still one will never get an objective result. How can one reasonably, by this I mean objectively, find explanation in musing and self inspections? Seriously. The mind dies with  Wllhelm Wundt and he wasn't even scientific in his destruction of that notion beyond his attempts to use an empirical method at which he failed miserably. I'm not saying it isn't a convenient placeholder for a field of study which came later, much later, way after the notion was so corrupted it still holds back reasonable men from doing experiments in fear of trampling tradition.

One's subjective experience of what one has learned to use to express that experience, that basis for consciousness and mind? Really? Does circular reasoning mean anything to you? Why bring up an internal discussion on the meaning and use of language as some sort of defense for flawed reasoning when when we are actually talking about what makes those measures work. The name is not the thing nor are the reasons the nature of the thing. The thing needs be empirically explored understood, and if at all possible put into the larger narrative being built about our objective take on whatever, maybe, reality, maybe chaos, whatever.

Equate absence? Not really. I'm taking a hard line position based on the very lack of anything material found to support either consciousness or mind or free will or other claptrap thrown into the air to 'explain' how we work for that matter. The time has come to realize that things work for humans the way things work for rocks. Sure its obvious physical circumstances dictate what rocks do. We want to be different so we somehow reverse sense into foresight when there is no basis for doing such since what we construct is entirely built on our pasts and the recent past through which we walked. No we are still reacting to what are the circumstances and we seem to be constructing perceiving environments based on those experiences, the few of which we actually incorporate, into some sort of free will conscious mind construct that declares rather than reacts. As I said in an earlier post elsewhere even Schrodinger is in one of Schrodinger's boxes where he is waiting for the cat to prove his paradox. We will react whatever circumstance.

Sorry, but whichever way I parse your prose I fail to see how it's a discussion of what I said. On the substance, it's irrelevant to the issue of subjective experience so there's nothing in there I could try to respond to.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Speakpigeon finally speaks. I'm not concerned with the subjective beyond upon which it seems to be based. As for subjective consciousness there is nothing except preconceptions and presumptions on which to base either subjective or consciousness. Subjective fits because well it's subjective and not objective. Consciousness fits because it's based on subjective impressions and configurations which, again, are subjective and not objective.

One can put an army into an auditorium and instruct them on what they should be relating and still one will never get an objective result. How can one reasonably, by this I mean objectively, find explanation in musing and self inspections? Seriously. The mind dies with  Wllhelm Wundt and he wasn't even scientific in his destruction of that notion beyond his attempts to use an empirical method at which he failed miserably. I'm not saying it isn't a convenient placeholder for a field of study which came later, much later, way after the notion was so corrupted it still holds back reasonable men from doing experiments in fear of trampling tradition.

One's subjective experience of what one has learned to use to express that experience, that basis for consciousness and mind? Really? Does circular reasoning mean anything to you? Why bring up an internal discussion on the meaning and use of language as some sort of defense for flawed reasoning when when we are actually talking about what makes those measures work. The name is not the thing nor are the reasons the nature of the thing. The thing needs be empirically explored understood, and if at all possible put into the larger narrative being built about our objective take on whatever, maybe, reality, maybe chaos, whatever.

Equate absence? Not really. I'm taking a hard line position based on the very lack of anything material found to support either consciousness or mind or free will or other claptrap thrown into the air to 'explain' how we work for that matter. The time has come to realize that things work for humans the way things work for rocks. Sure its obvious physical circumstances dictate what rocks do. We want to be different so we somehow reverse sense into foresight when there is no basis for doing such since what we construct is entirely built on our pasts and the recent past through which we walked. No we are still reacting to what are the circumstances and we seem to be constructing perceiving environments based on those experiences, the few of which we actually incorporate, into some sort of free will conscious mind construct that declares rather than reacts. As I said in an earlier post elsewhere even Schrodinger is in one of Schrodinger's boxes where he is waiting for the cat to prove his paradox. We will react whatever circumstance.

Sorry, but whichever way I parse your prose I fail to see how it's a discussion of what I said. On the substance, it's irrelevant to the issue of subjective experience so there's nothing in there I could try to respond to.
EB

Your arguments make sense only if one accepts what is in ones head as a basis for objective analysis. It isn't. I point out how and why it isn't. Bottom line: one cannot achieve common ground by referring to what's within one's subjective head. You respond, quite philosophically, that since FDI didn't agree with EH's presumptions EH sees no reason continue. Why is philosophy so irrelevant? Its irrelevant because it permits things like Speakpigeon's non-responsive response.

BTW: Regarding

You seem to equate the absence of a materialistic explanation as proof of the non-existence of consciousness. ...strawman ...conclusion....

What you think of what I write is not what I wrote therefore you are arguing with yourself. Hope you enjoyed the experience.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is just your interpretation and really just wishful thinking.

I could work out other interpretations. One for example is a scientific one: thinking is a process in brains, and brains and their processes are part of reality therefore reality is a thinking thing. Further, thinking always involves claims about reality therefore reality is the object of its own thinking. According to this, Parmenides didn't mean that we experienced reality as a whole. Rather, reality is experiencing itself but piecemeal, in a disconnected way.

So, you see, it's not that simple and your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
EB

You lose sight of the relationship of the mind to reality. Consciousness examining itself requires a reality and a mind perceiving it. You arbitrarily wall off a portion of reality and limit the scope of Parmenides to it, and declare victory.

Because you can easily construct a half assed interpretation says more about you than the quote.

It was just an example of a convincing interpretation to show that your interpretation of the Parmenides quote was just that, your interpretation.

I could also give you a different interpretation, somewhat along the line you just suggested, but the result would still be different from your interpretation, thus exposing again the fact that you would need to justify your belief that your interpretation is correct. I already did the exposing so I don't need to proceed further.
EB