God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[bigfield]

There is absolutely no reason to think that there is not some form of fundamental awareness at that level. In fact, if you do not, you are postulating that human consciousness acts in a way that no other form of energy in the universe acts.

Yes, I am postulating that. The human central nervous system, which creates the human consciousness, does indeed act in a way that other energy does not. It is a phenomenon observably unique to the human CNS.

Here, you base your assertion that energy is conscious on two premises:
1. Energy is aware of energy, and
2. Energy reacts to energy.

No. I am energy that reacts to other energy. From this, I do not have any reason to believe that other energy is magically non-conscious.

So you retract the claim that energy is aware?

Of course you have reason: the human brain is observably conscious. A rock is observably not conscious. The observations are probably correct. In addition, there is zero evidence of conscious on a quantum level. There the evidence shows that consciousness is contingent on the existence of nervous system, not merely on the fact that brains are made of energy.

Yet you insist on ignoring empirical evidence to avoid the burden of proof.

Consider the following syllogism:
1. Some energy is brains, and
2. Some brains have consciousness, therefore
2. All energy has consciousness.

Do you think that #3 follows from #1 and #2?

The onus on on you to explain how QFT is deficient and why our understanding of nature must include the claim that subatomic particles are conscious.

Umm, you're the one claiming that QFT shows that there is no consciousness at the quantum level. Do you have any proof your claim about QFT? If not, I'd say the BoP is on the side of those who claim QFTs indicate lack of consciousness on the quantum level.

Yes, it's quite simple: quantum field theory does not stipulate that subatomic particles - or any quanta of energy - have consciousness. Just like it doesn't stipulate the existence of any number of religious fantasies. The absence of any stipulation of consciousness at the subatomic level in the literature on quantum field theory is the evidence.

It is also possible that you are the victim of any number of human faults of perception, just like all many other people who claim to have personal experiences with god. And such a hypothesis does not require the existence of a subatomic hive mind or any other hypothetical deity.
....
The special treatment you perceive is probably just in your imagination.

Maybe. I've seen "A Beautiful Mind" and read about various mental phenomena, and it could be something along those lines. Things I notice during the day pop up later on in television shows I'm watching, or someone will mention them here, or in a conversation somewhere else.

I've thought of someone while on a run, and they call the house the next day. Stuff like that seems to happen a bit.

Like I noticed the Catholic Church of St. Anthony of Padua while on a bike ride the other day and thought the name Padua was funny, and then watched the show Constantine that night, and "John (Constantine) digs around in his man-purse, pulling out interesting objects like the nails of St. Padua, trying to find something to use to break into the morgue."

So, maybe my brain re-wrote history, and presented things in a way that I feel connected.

Or, perhaps, there are many of trains of thought occurring in my brain, and I am not aware of the majority of them, and my consciousness is only made aware of the trains of thought when my brain reorders them to make me feel connected to the world. However, this would require that my brain consistently reorders events that have date stamps on them (conversations here on the message board), which would mean that I see a different date stamp on conversations than those around me.

I've had conversations with friends about stuff occurring, and they've confirmed the things that I've talked about. There are lots of coincidences that occur externally- but it could all be a trick. It could be the way my brain connects information, or it could be individuals (here, and friends) exploiting the way my brain connects information, or it could be a combination of the 2. It might even be that a majority of people are not aware of the duplicitous side of their brain, and the duplicitous side can filter events in such a way that we sometimes communicate with the duplicitous side of another person's brain, and sometimes we do not.

So the duplicitous side of your brain could now be engaging in this conversation with me, and be aware of various things that the duplicitous side of my brain has already communicated to you somehow without my awareness. In fact, I would never be able to absolutely circumvent the duplicitous side of my brain, as long as other individuals are all trapped by the duplicitous sides of their brain as well. So...

Any way things are occurring, there is a simple fact: I should not harm others, I should benefit others, and we should help one another.

The majority of human cognition is unconscious: the processes you describe here are actually quite normal. The fact that you think a deity is responsible for these processes is nothing more than incredulity at what the human brain does.

Energy formed spacetime?

What do you think creates spacetime and forms it? Seriously? I'm curious. Large amounts of energy deform spacetime, and are causing the expansion of spacetime. You know- there is more spacetime the longer energy creates spacetime. Unless the whole expansion thing is bullshit.

I don't know what formed spacetime. Neither do the scientists who do this for a living. At most they have hypotheses. Yet you are able to state your claim as fact. It is also absurd to state that the expansion of spacetime is energy creating spacetime, and it does not sense to say that the influence of energy of spacetime means that energy 'formed' spacetime, i.e. a causal link.

Previously you claimed that subatomic particles were conscious; you even specifically mentioned quarks. Now you say that 'energy' is conscious. You do realise that the two concepts are not interchangeable?

Apparently your post was too long for you to not contradict yourself. From a bit earlier:

perhaps matter which is just one form of energy.

Stating that 'matter is one form of energy' is not contradictory to 'matter is not interchangeable with energy'. This should be obvious, just as 'dog' is not interchangeable with 'Kelpie', as 'Kelpie' does not include dogs that are not Kelpies.

 

[bilby]

Oddly enough, I was reading an article on the Bader-Meinhof Effect just this morning.

You should look it up - it is well understood, and not a sound basis for assumptions about purpose or meaning in the universe; or for any assumption that you are special, or have a direct connection to some assumed universal mind.

Can't be frequency illusion.

Yes, it can.

As a matter of fact, I've rechecked information in a book, and went over various other things.

Unless it is my brain directly intervening in my perception of words/numbers (so that what I read in the book is somehow changed when I view it, and is not what it looks like), it can't even be a hallucination.

Too much stuff has happened too many times. Unless I am constantly hallucinating (which would mean even this conversation would be in question), I've got to believe that some greater force is at hand. I check and recheck certain things, and they stay the same, although I certainly could not circumvent my brain if it decided to deceive me.

Funny thing is, I was thinking of a specific number that comes up often (I like it for various reasons), and it was the citation number on a page I read about the frequency illusion to the actual article they cited about Baader Meinhoff. You know why I thought of the number? Probably because I paid $38.10 at the grocery store earlier, and I like the number (38) because of a certain close friend that is associated with that number. Note #38, on the wiki page of cognitive biases is about the Baader Meinhof phenomenon.

Everything you say here is entirely compatible with Bader-Meinhof syndrome. It practically reads like a textbook description of how someone suffering this delusion seeks to rationalise this cognitive error.

 

[Kharakov]

Yes, I am postulating that. The human central nervous system, which creates the human consciousness, does indeed act in a way that other energy does not. It is a phenomenon observably unique to the human CNS.

So you're saying that energy that is part of the human nervous system magically behaves in other ways than when it is outside of the CNS? Energy reacts to energy, but when it's in bigfield, it reacts in different ways.

No. I am energy that reacts to other energy. From this, I do not have any reason to believe that other energy is magically non-conscious.

So you retract the claim that energy is aware?

I was illustrating the magical thinking required to believe that energy magically reacts without awareness of other energy in some cases, and reacts with awareness in other cases. In all cases, energy is aware of other energy, or else it would not interact.

The assumption that something can interact without some form of awareness is magical thinking, akin to thinking 2 and 2 can add themselves together.

In addition, there is zero evidence of conscious on a quantum level.

There is zero evidence of the lack of consciousness at the quantum level. As a conscious actor/reactor, you really need to find evidence that other singular entities react without consciousness.

In fact, you either have to make up something that can be completely mechanical, and then magically be a consciousness inside of you, or you can just acknowledge that consciousness forms into various forms, and those forms include consciousnesses like ours that are connected to other consciousnesses (such as electrons) in unique and interesting ways. You're basically ignoring the existence of the majority of the consciousnesses in the universe because of your strange bias.

Do you hate electrons or something? Do you have spacetime?

1. Some energy is brains, and
2. Some brains have consciousness, therefore
2. All energy has consciousness.

Do you think that #3 follows from #1 and #2?

Of course not, that's silly.

1) we consciously react to stuff
2) other much older stuff reacts
3) older people get set in their ways- they've learned certain behaviors they enjoy
4) older stuff is pretty set in its ways
5) only humans have consciousness

It's completely and utterly ignorant to believe that other things besides humans are acting without consciousness. These are things that have been around for a long time. They've obviously found certain ways of behaving that allow them to create certain scenarios that I, and hopefully they, enjoy, and I am glad, even if you are not. The attribution of non-consciousness to beings that have been around since near the BB is ignorant, at best. To think that disciplined, regular behavior indicates a being is not conscious, is ignorant, at best.

Maybe right around the BB, these guys were all chaotic acting, not following specific rules for long periods of time. But beings grow up- they mature, and realize that behaving according to certain rules can create great things. They might even figure out how to apply rules to the rules they are following, to create beings that are orders of magnitude larger than them, that love and care for them, because what else are you going to do with your time?

Yes, it's quite simple: quantum field theory does not stipulate that subatomic particles - or any quanta of energy - have consciousness.

Yeah. It doesn't stipulate it does not either. The point being, that everything does have consciousness.

Stating that 'matter is one form of energy' is not contradictory to 'matter is not interchangeable with energy'. This should be obvious, just as 'dog' is not interchangeable with 'Kelpie', as 'Kelpie' does not include dogs that are not Kelpies.

I guess. It sure looks like you're trying to say that matter is not energy. Energy has many forms. The only things that are not made of energy are rules.

You know what though, might be better just to call it consciousness. That would be less ambiguous. Your call on that one.

 

[Kharakov]

Everything you say here is entirely compatible with Bader-Meinhof syndrome. It practically reads like a textbook description of how someone suffering this delusion seeks to rationalise this cognitive error.

Nah. Too much stuff has happened. Something is going on. I've thought about how people could arrange stuff based on stuff they know about me, this doesn't cover it, unless people have way too much time on their hands.

It would mean that people are recording way more stuff about me, almost like google analytics being applied to my whole life, and then various events being orchestrated. I mentioned a girl that I hadn't seen in 23 years the other day, because something in a conversation reminded me of her.

That night, me and a few friends went out to a new brewery in the area, and she was working as a manager.

Basically, too much suspicious stuff happens- I'd have to have a cognitive bias to believe that something wasn't happening.

 

[bilby]

Everything you say here is entirely compatible with Bader-Meinhof syndrome. It practically reads like a textbook description of how someone suffering this delusion seeks to rationalise this cognitive error.

Nah. Too much stuff has happened. Something is going on. I've thought about how people could arrange stuff based on stuff they know about me, this doesn't cover it, unless people have way too much time on their hands.

It would mean that people are recording way more stuff about me, almost like google analytics being applied to my whole life, and then various events being orchestrated. I mentioned a girl that I hadn't seen in 23 years the other day, because something in a conversation reminded me of her.

That night, me and a few friends went out to a new brewery in the area, and she was working as a manager.

Basically, too much suspicious stuff happens- I'd have to have a cognitive bias to believe that something wasn't happening.

That's what delusional people always say. Why should anybody else subscribe to this particular delusion?

The hallmark of a scientific observation, as opposed to a personal experience, is that you can explain to others how to reproduce the observation. Delusions are internal - you might find a small number of others who share them, but you can't explain to those who don't already have them how to reproduce them.

Oh, and by the way, energy in brains does behave differently from energy in rocks; if it didn't, there would be no way to tell the two things apart. You can divide up the different ways energy behaves in any number of ways; but ultimately if two objects have the exact same pattern of energy in their makeup, then they are the same. That's why brains are all fairly similar in appearance and behaviour, while being very different to non-brain objects such as rocks.

 

[bigfield]

So you're saying that energy that is part of the human nervous system magically behaves in other ways than when it is outside of the CNS? Energy reacts to energy, but when it's in bigfield, it reacts in different ways.

The way that energy behaves inside a human being is entirely consistent with the way it behaves outside of a human being. The human CNS is a collection of matter which behaves according to the same natural laws as the matter outside of the human CNS.

The fact that the human brain is conscious does not mean that the subatomic particles constituting the brain are also conscious. Consciousness is not magic; it is merely the behaviour produced by a very complex computer, the human CNS. And predictably, when that computer stops running, the consciousness ceases, as well.

So no, I am not saying that the energy inside me, or anyone else, is doing anything magical. Just like it is not doing anything magical to form part of a tree, or a rock, or a star.

No. I am energy that reacts to other energy. From this, I do not have any reason to believe that other energy is magically non-conscious.

So you retract the claim that energy is aware?

I was illustrating the magical thinking required to believe that energy magically reacts without awareness of other energy in some cases, and reacts with awareness in other cases. In all cases, energy is aware of other energy, or else it would not interact.

The assumption that something can interact without some form of awareness is magical thinking, akin to thinking 2 and 2 can add themselves together.

The statement that 'energy reacts with awareness' is absurd: it is not true, regardless of the configuration. Just because some energy exists configured as a human CNS, does not mean that the energy is aware on a quantum level.

In addition, there is zero evidence of conscious on a quantum level.

There is zero evidence of the lack of consciousness at the quantum level. As a conscious actor/reactor, you really need to find evidence that other singular entities react without consciousness.

You have so far failed to define what you mean by act and react, and now you are introducing another undefined term, singular. Singular usually means unique, which can refer to just about any object I elect unless you define your terminology.

On a quantum level, the human CNS is a collection of billions of subatomic particles; taken alone, no single quantum of energy inside the human CNS is itself conscious.

In fact, you either have to make up something that can be completely mechanical, and then magically be a consciousness inside of you,

I presume that by mechanical, you mean unconscious. If so, then you are accidentally correct: matter behaves unconsciously at all times, including when it is part of a system such as a human central nervous system.

You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity: Ignorance of how brains produce consciousness, and incredulity that the human consciousness could be produced by unconscious processes, without requiring matter to be conscious at the quantum level.

or you can just acknowledge that consciousness forms into various forms, and those forms include consciousnesses like ours that are connected to other consciousnesses (such as electrons) in unique and interesting ways.

It would be foolish to believe this due to the evidence to the contrary.

You're basically ignoring the existence of the majority of the consciousnesses in the universe because of your strange bias.

Do you hate electrons or something? Do you have spacetime?

Accusing me of hating electrons is just plain silly.

1. Some energy is brains, and
2. Some brains have consciousness, therefore
2. All energy has consciousness.

Do you think that #3 follows from #1 and #2?

Of course not, that's silly.

1) we consciously react to stuff
2) other much older stuff reacts
3) older people get set in their ways- they've learned certain behaviors they enjoy
4) older stuff is pretty set in its ways
5) only humans have consciousness

That makes no sense, and bears no resemblance to the syllogism I presented.

It's completely and utterly ignorant to believe that other things besides humans are acting without consciousness. These are things that have been around for a long time. They've obviously found certain ways of behaving that allow them to create certain scenarios that I, and hopefully they, enjoy, and I am glad, even if you are not. The attribution of non-consciousness to beings that have been around since near the BB is ignorant, at best. To think that disciplined, regular behavior indicates a being is not conscious, is ignorant, at best.

Discipline, taking the form of consistent obedience of natural laws, is not evidence of consciousness. That is because it does not meet the criteria of consciousness.

The fact that some conscious beings are disciplined, and all energy is disciplined in a different, does not mean that all energy is conscious. It is your bald assertion that all disciplined things are conscious, which you have no evidence for.

You are also committing an equivocation fallacy by equating discipline in humans with the consistency of natural laws.

Maybe right around the BB, these guys were all chaotic acting, not following specific rules for long periods of time. But beings grow up- they mature, and realize that behaving according to certain rules can create great things. They might even figure out how to apply rules to the rules they are following, to create beings that are orders of magnitude larger than them, that love and care for them, because what else are you going to do with your time?

There is no reason whatsoever to attribute human behaviours to subatomic particles. This would have to be one of the strangest instances of projection I have ever encountered.

Yes, it's quite simple: quantum field theory does not stipulate that subatomic particles - or any quanta of energy - have consciousness.

Yeah. It doesn't stipulate it does not either. The point being, that everything does have consciousness.

Bald assertion, again. Repeating your belief does not make it true.

Stating that 'matter is one form of energy' is not contradictory to 'matter is not interchangeable with energy'. This should be obvious, just as 'dog' is not interchangeable with 'Kelpie', as 'Kelpie' does not include dogs that are not Kelpies.

I guess. It sure looks like you're trying to say that matter is not energy. Energy has many forms. The only things that are not made of energy are rules.

No, I am not trying to say that matter is not energy.

 

[Kharakov]

The hallmark of a scientific observation, as opposed to a personal experience, is that you can explain to others how to reproduce the observation.

You can't reproduce someone's complex actions without them being willing to do something again. I'll tell you the last "coincidence".

There is a game that people play online. Pick up the closest book, go to page XX, and post sentence X (it's actually fun, we should start a thread in the lounge). So, the first person quoted something about economic theory, and then there were other posts (all quite random, no econ.), and then I opened up my book (last post on the page) and it was an economic topic in a book about Hungarian history. Funny, but not too surprising- economic topics are relatively common- definitely would fit into the whole bias thing.

So, I was thinking about mentioning that to you, because the book is involved in another story (about June 17th and my grandfather). Another weird coincidence... but that's for another time. So, I flipped the book to a random page, sort of curious, and read.

I looked right at the center of the page and saw "According to ancient customs, described by Herodotus and others therefore, the people had strong connections with the heavenly powers." Which is exactly what I'm talking about.

So what though, right? Opening to another random page I could get something like "the Carpathian Basin, Mesopotamia, China...." or another page " Diploma Leopodinum of 1691...." or another page "We know from the legal papers of Thepey...." or another page "The requirements for the development of the language as described above...." or another page "The name Fehervar, as a capital city, is frequent among..." <-- ohh, wow, frequent is mentioned while we talk about frequency bias.... wooooo! or another page "Do those young Hungarians and..."

So, it's not likely that I'm going to randomly open the book to something in support of my statements that shit isn't coincidental. In fact, that is probably the only sentence in the book that directly coincides with what I'm talking about- a connection with heavenly powers. So, take it any way you like, but you're delusional if you don't think there is something going on.

And no, I can't replicate the event, because now I know the page number and where the sentence is, so it would be meaningless.

Oh, and by the way, energy in brains does behave differently from energy in rocks; if it didn't, there would be no way to tell the two things apart.

So, you're saying an electron behaves completely differently in a brain? I suppose each electron does have unique behaviors, and certain degrees of freedom at the quantum level, but I don't think that they lose all of their behaviors- although they may all unite as one and be your mind... not.

You can divide up the different ways energy behaves in any number of ways; but ultimately if two objects have the exact same pattern of energy in their makeup, then they are the same. That's why brains are all fairly similar in appearance and behaviour, while being very different to non-brain objects such as rocks.

Well, in some cases.

Time for TV and sleep.

 

[Kharakov]

The fact that the human brain is conscious does not mean that the subatomic particles constituting the brain are also conscious. Consciousness is not magic; it is merely the behaviour produced by a very complex computer, the human CNS. And predictably, when that computer stops running, the consciousness ceases, as well.

The human consciousness ceases.

You're committing some weird form of the fallacy of division- instead of assuming that a part has a property of the whole (normal fallacy of division), you're assuming that a part does not have a property of the whole. What you're doing is akin to assuming a cup of water does not have the properties of water because it is taken out of a lake.

You're assuming that when a part displays similar characteristics to the whole (an electron reacts to something- a human consciousness reacts to something), the electron does so without having the characteristic that is essential to a human consciousness reacting: consciousness.

I presume that by mechanical, you mean unconscious.

No. When you or I follow various rules, such as the axioms of arithmetic, we behave mechanistically in order to achieve certain results.

Accusing me of hating electrons is just plain silly.

At least you're right about that.

Discipline, taking the form of consistent obedience of natural laws, is not evidence of consciousness. That is because it does not meet the criteria of consciousness.

The fact that some conscious beings are disciplined, and all energy is disciplined in a different, does not mean that all energy is conscious. It is your bald assertion that all disciplined things are conscious, which you have no evidence for.

You can't be disciplined without consciousness. The axioms of arithmetic are not disciplined- a consciousness that uses them is. In fact, one can look at the behaviors of energy on the particulate level as energy following specific rules at that level. This doesn't mean that what is following the rules is not conscious.

No, I am not trying to say that matter is not energy.

Ok.

 

[bigfield]

The human consciousness ceases.

You're committing some weird form of the fallacy of division- instead of assuming that a part has a property of the whole (normal fallacy of division), you're assuming that a part does not have a property of the whole. What you're doing is akin to assuming a cup of water does not have the properties of water because it is taken out of a lake.

You're assuming that when a part displays similar characteristics to the whole (an electron reacts to something- a human consciousness reacts to something), the electron does so without having the characteristic that is essential to a human consciousness reacting: consciousness.

Everything that a human consciousness does is contingent on its existence, including reacting to stimuli. That is trivially obvious of any thing.

You are making a very simple logical error, the fallacy of the undistributed middle:

This is your argument, in syllogistic form:
1. All things with consciousness react, and
2. All electrons react, therefore
3. All electrons are things with consciousness

Or another example:
1. All dogs have skin, and
2. All cats have skin,
3. All cats are dogs

Or yet another example:
1. All dogs have cells, and
2. All jellyfish have cells, therefore
3. All jellyfish are dogs

It should be clear why your conclusion is invalid.

In addition, you are also falsely equivocating reactions between electrons to human reactions to stimuli.

I presume that by mechanical, you mean unconscious.

No. When you or I follow various rules, such as the axioms of arithmetic, we behave mechanistically in order to achieve certain results.

I see. If so then that is also an apt description of how the human brain operates. Its operations are simply orders of magnitude more complex than simple arithmetic.

Discipline, taking the form of consistent obedience of natural laws, is not evidence of consciousness. That is because it does not meet the criteria of consciousness.

The fact that some conscious beings are disciplined, and all energy is disciplined in a different, does not mean that all energy is conscious. It is your bald assertion that all disciplined things are conscious, which you have no evidence for.

You can't be disciplined without consciousness.

This is your unsupported assertion. There is no reason to think that subatomic particles require consciousness in order to follow natural laws.

The axioms of arithmetic are not disciplined- a consciousness that uses them is. In fact, one can look at the behaviors of energy on the particulate level as energy following specific rules at that level. This doesn't mean that what is following the rules is not conscious.

Undistributed middle fallacy, again. This time with respect to discipline instead of reaction.

 

[Kharakov]

This is your argument, in syllogistic form:
1. All things with consciousness react, and
2. All electrons react, therefore
3. All electrons are things with consciousness

That's not it.

I've been pointing out all along that there is absolutely no evidence that other forms of energy are non-conscious. They react differently, on different scales, but really, we're all just energy reacting to energy (on different scales).

To reiterate: The only reaction/action you have witnessed first hand is that of your own consciousness, we see other things react/act (differently, on different scales). All we have are different behaviors of energy. No indication of non-consciousness. Plenty of indication of difference.

There is no reason to think that subatomic particles require consciousness in order to follow natural laws.

There is no reason to think anything can do or does anything without consciousness. A consciousness making up "non-conscious reactions" isn't really being honest about the fundamental substance of reality: consciousness. I suppose you know that and just like to make up stuff?

 

[bilby]

That's not it.

I've been pointing out all along that there is absolutely no evidence that other forms of energy are non-conscious. They react differently, on different scales, but really, we're all just energy reacting to energy (on different scales).

To reiterate: The only reaction/action you have witnessed first hand is that of your own consciousness, we see other things react/act (differently, on different scales). All we have are different behaviors of energy. No indication of non-consciousness. Plenty of indication of difference.

There is no reason to think that subatomic particles require consciousness in order to follow natural laws.

There is no reason to think anything can do or does anything without consciousness. A consciousness making up "non-conscious reactions" isn't really being honest about the fundamental substance of reality: consciousness. I suppose you know that and just like to make up stuff?

There is no evidence for consciousness in any entity without a brain; fairly trivial changes to the brain result in temporary or permanent loss of consciousness. So we can conclude that brains are necessary (albeit not always sufficient) for consciousness.

Unless you have some evidence of consciousness without the presence of a brain, you have nothing.

A person with a functioning brain, who most likely has experienced a loss of consciousness at some point in their life, isn't really being honest about his own experience and observations if he claims consciousness for entities without brains, unless he has some evidence - and sophistry is not evidence - of such a thing.

If you have such evidence, then now would be the time to present it.

 

[bigfield]

This is your argument, in syllogistic form:
1. All things with consciousness react, and
2. All electrons react, therefore
3. All electrons are things with consciousness

That's not it.

I've been pointing out all along that there is absolutely no evidence that other forms of energy are non-conscious.

Evidence: Rocks are not conscious. Or as you phrase it, 'non-conscious'. Unless you want to claim some fallacious semantic difference.

They react differently, on different scales, but really, we're all just energy reacting to energy (on different scales).

So what? You have failed to explain why reactions are indicative of consciousness, other than baldly assert that reaction entail consciousness (a fallacy that I have already pointed out).

To reiterate: The only reaction/action you have witnessed first hand is that of your own consciousness, we see other things react/act (differently, on different scales). All we have are different behaviors of energy. No indication of non-consciousness. Plenty of indication of difference.

Every human has experienced lack of consciousness first-hand, as well.

It doesn't matter what evidence is first-hand and what is second-hand. One can observe consciousness in others and differentiate it from mere adherence to the laws of nature.

The characteristics of subatomic particles that you have offered are insufficient to meet the criteria for consciousness.

There is no reason to think that subatomic particles require consciousness in order to follow natural laws.

There is no reason to think anything can do or does anything without consciousness. A consciousness making up "non-conscious reactions" isn't really being honest about the fundamental substance of reality: consciousness. I suppose you know that and just like to make up stuff?

Do not accuse me of being dishonest. Retract your accusation.

 

[Kharakov]

There is no evidence for consciousness in any entity without a brain; fairly trivial changes to the brain result in temporary or permanent loss of consciousness. So we can conclude that brains are necessary (albeit not always sufficient) for consciousness.

See, from the very beginning you're assuming the non-consciousness of other entities.

You can't say "an electron is non-conscious" without evidence that there are any non-conscious entities. Keep in mind that a rock is not necessarily an entity- it is the actions of many entities reacting to one another (particles, up to spacetime).

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, like, is Kharrie posting anything that actually deals with Rhea's OP, or is it just his usual theme of offering to judge everyone's ideology by the yardstick of his personal fantasy? Should his derail be trimmed off of this thread?

 

[Rhea]

So, like, is Kharrie posting anything that actually deals with Rhea's OP, or is it just his usual theme of offering to judge everyone's ideology by the yardstick of his personal fantasy? Should his derail be trimmed off of this thread?

Yeah, it really should. It has nothing to do with the topic. I think he knows this and should start his own thread on Kharrianity, or Kharrieism or whatever electromagnetic deity he worships.

 

[Kharakov]

I've been pointing out all along that there is absolutely no evidence that other forms of energy are non-conscious. They react differently, on different scales, but really, we're all just energy reacting to energy (on different scales).

Evidence: Rocks are not conscious. Or as you phrase it, 'non-conscious'.

No, rocks are many smaller reacting/acting beings (electrons, etc.) behaving in specific ways. Now, when a photon hits a rock, the rock reacts. When another particle hits the rock, the rock reacts. It reacts to the atmosphere, etc. In fact, although I've said otherwise, maybe a rock has its own identity, I do not know that they do not.

I tend to think that larger unitary consciousnesses require some form of communication between the parts, like a human CNS- this is why I think that consciousness is at the smallest level (particles), our level (unitary arrangements), and spacetime (largest continuous being). However, a rock may have various bonds between all the consciousnesses within itself, and the totality of consciousnesses may be aware of themselves as part of a singular entity via some sort of transmission of awareness.

I want to be clear- I've said numerous times: rules followed by a consciousness are not a consciousness themselves, although there could very well be a singular conscious being (or type of being) that follows rules perfectly. The axioms of arithmetic are not consciousness- they are behaviors of consciousnesses. I've already said that the axioms of arithmetic, and behaviors followed by conscious entities are not conscious themselves. My gait (stride) is not conscious.

So what? You have failed to explain why reactions are indicative of consciousness, other than baldly assert that reaction entail consciousness (a fallacy that I have already pointed out).

I have pointed out that there is no indication that anything reacts without consciousness (rules don't react- they are reacted to by consciousness that creates and follows them). The claim of non-conscious reactions is the one that needs support. Reactions being different or on different scales, are not an indication of non-consciousness, although the proponents of non-consciousness claim they are without any evidence.

There is a fundamental substance of all things: energy. We know this- all physical theory points to this.

Your consciousness is the fundamental substance interacting with itself inside and presumably outside of you. You have no justification to believe that other reactions, which you do not directly witness, are non-conscious. There are presumable actions within groups that members of the groups are not conscious of (you are not consciously aware of the majority of the interactions within your body- you can simply know that they occur).

Your lack of conscious awareness indicates that you are not consciously aware of what is occurring- it is not an indication that others are unaware.

Every human has experienced lack of consciousness first-hand, as well

You're experiencing it right now: lack of consciousness of the consciousness of energy. You are probably not conscious of the majority of interactions in the universe.

 

[Kharakov]

So, like, is Kharrie posting anything that actually deals with Rhea's OP, or is it just his usual theme of offering to judge everyone's ideology by the yardstick of his personal fantasy? Should his derail be trimmed off of this thread?

Yeah, it really should. It has nothing to do with the topic. I think he knows this and should start his own thread on Kharrianity, or Kharrieism or whatever electromagnetic deity he worships.

The conversation evolved over time. You two should be aware of this- unless you postulate that neither of you has ever created or pursued a tangent in a thread.

 

[Underseer]

So, like, is Kharrie posting anything that actually deals with Rhea's OP, or is it just his usual theme of offering to judge everyone's ideology by the yardstick of his personal fantasy? Should his derail be trimmed off of this thread?

Well, in fairness, this is very common among theists. Even in an individual church you will find a wide variety of religious beliefs.

Of course, talking about one person's belief is useless unless you are talking about whether or not that individual's personal beliefs are true. In a discussion like this, obviously we are talking about what most people believe.

 

[Kharakov]

God isn't too great to communicate clearly with humans. <-- back to the OP.


God: spirit (sort of like an EM field, I know) that is aware and can influence the actions of beings that pay attention. Some beings are less sensitive than others. These are called "the dead". Basically spiritual zombies that pursue their own happiness, and leave God empty by their uncaring self oriented actions.

 

[bilby]

God isn't too great to communicate clearly with humans. <-- back to the OP.


God: spirit (sort of like an EM field, I know) that is aware and can influence the actions of beings that pay attention. Some beings are less sensitive than others. These are called "the dead". Basically spiritual zombies that pursue their own happiness, and leave God empty by their uncaring self oriented actions.

God: imaginary entity that is the personification of the delusions and cognitive errors of beings that don't make the effort to seek external evidence. Some beings are more prone than others. These are called "the gullible". Basically intellectual zombies that pursue their own delusions, and leave others exasperated by their uncaring self oriented actions.