what do you say to this article? it's like nothing else I have ever read.
I don't know enough to say for sure, but it kind of makes me really think.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I thought about it, but any person who argues against the existence of an objective reality seems doomed from the start.
Travis, I don't think objectivity is denied in the article at all. The way I understood it - it says that the world we are conscious of is the computation of the grand mathematical structure by Cosmic Mind - which is completely objective as it does not depend on any individual. And this is completely consistent with the fact that the physical laws are mathematical and computable. I am trying, but I cannot refute the logic :-)
It literally says that the only "thing" that exists is "cosmic consciousness" which must be "omnipresent and omniscient" which is not only a rejection that consciousness relies on a physical brain, but makes an entire truckload of assertions that it "demands" we eliminate. Why in the hell should we eliminate assertions that we never had any reason or necessity to make in the first place? Is not knowing, and not having an immediate answer, so unsatisfactory that we MUST make unfounded assertions based on loose philosophical pandering to make one out of whole-cloth?
It is religion in a new dress and hat.
I am not sure I would even say "new" dress and hat, cosmic consciousness isn't new, it is more a Deepak Chopra re-branding of Eastern religion.
ok new as in I just got them from the thrift store!
More like a renaissance fair, but I take your point.
Sounds complicated. Interesting though...
I don't know... I have been thinking myself for a long time if we are just chemical reactions in the brain. I have always been very uneasy about the position that consciousness is reduced to mere electrochemical activity of my brain. Statement like this "Our individual consciousness exists only because Consciousness itself is what the ultimate reality is" seems much more plausible to me. The article says it's the only way to comprehend where consciousness comes from. I don't know enough, but I am pretty convinced it's not coming from a brain
"I don't know... I have been thinking myself for a long time if we are just chemical reactions in the brain."
I would argue that we are lot more than that, but I take your point, even if I think it is a reductio ad absurdum. Calling consciousness "just a chemical process" is a lot like calling sex "just a physical interaction", which seem like a gross oversimplification to me, and an attempt to demean the actual physical reality we inhabit.
"I have always been very uneasy about the position that consciousness is reduced to mere electrochemical activity of my brain."
I am uneasy about a lot of things, death for example, but that does not mean I should reject the fact that I will die for the sake of comfort.
"Statement like this "Our individual consciousness exists only because Consciousness itself is what the ultimate reality is" seems much more plausible to me."
I'm glad that it seem plausible to you, but it disregards the fact that there already is an ultimate reality we inhabit, one in which our consciousness is irrelevant to its existence.
"The article says it's the only way to comprehend where consciousness comes from."
Yet it never really gives us a reason to accept that assertion, or a reason why we should even assert it, it merely baldly asserts it without any valid reasoning.
"I don't know enough, but I am pretty convinced it's not coming from a brain."
Really? Consciousness doesn't come from a brain? Demonstrate.
"I don't know... I have been thinking myself for a long time if we are just chemical reactions in the brain."
There, that's it. You don't need to go any further. Don't second guess yourself with hubristic ideas about human consciousness determining ultimate reality. If anything the reverse would be the case.
It may be true that our consciousness, our percertion, determines OUR reality - and perhaps that's all that's really important - but there's a really real world of matter/energy out there that doesn't give a damn what we think of it.
this is also very amazing - quotes by Nobel level physicists saying that consciousness is fundamental and not a product of a physical brain:
http://theproblemofconsciousness.wordpress.com/notable-quotes/
yeah except quotes from famous physicists and mathematicians on other subjects outside their field should carry no extra weight. Schroedinger was no more an expert on consciousness than you or I or a 5 year old with a learning disability.
That is a textbook example of am argument from authority fallacy. Wow.
Its not very amazing at all. Most of them say they don't get it or know how to deal with it. Its just argument from authority and serves little purpose in solving the actual problem.
The problem with that paper is that it seems to address the fine tuning of the universe as an idea of a creator, which is flawed.
"resolved the problem of free will and purpose in universe. In the traditional materialistic universe, there is no purpose in the impersonal ‘ocean’ of elementary particles doing their mindless thing. If the universe is designed – it’s designed for a purpose. The purpose of human life obviously should be aligned with the purpose of its Creator. But it’s a question for free will to decide on that. Free will in itself is an inherent and irreducible capacity of intellect, which itself is an inherent and irreducible capacity of human consciousness. These capacities of animal consciousness are negligible or completely zero."
Even if there is a collective or a cosmic consciousness, the idea that the cosmic consciousness has its own mind or purpose is an unsupported claim.
And on this unsupported claim, or better 'non nonsensical claim' the author is making conclusions like: "If the universe is designed – it’s designed for a purpose."
I do not know what kind of logic are you deriving from this article but the author clearly is using the consciousness argument for an agenda of his own.
He is trying to abuse your unfamiliarity with the conciseness subject to make unsupported claims that do not even make sens.
I do think that consciousness play a huge role in our reality, but consciousness itself must be materialistic, meaning: part of this reality we live in, we just have not yet discovered a way how to detect it yet.
Radio waves are a fine example of something that we could not detect before and we thought not materialistic.
It is just a matter of time until we solve the problem of consciousness, some problems require more time then others, that is all.
"consciousness itself must be materialistic" - that's exactly what the article denies and the quotes by the famous scientists gives credibility to this denial - they have not found or even conceived what in the fundamental physics could possibly account for the consciousness. Not even close. Period.
fundamental physics can't account for the behavior of an atom of gold (or any other heavy atom).... that does not mean gold atom is more than the sum of its parts...
"that's exactly what the article denies" The article argues against a materialistic idea without real evidence, that is why it is wrong.
it seems that you wish the same thing as the author of that article, but you are using the article and not the evidence to reinforce you biased belief in this subject.
As I said before , just because we do not know something it doesn't mean it is not materialistic or anything, e.g. radio waves.
You are wrong there are physicists that have explanations about consciousness and what it is made up of, you just haven't done your research well.
The holographic universe theory is one such example, where a black-hole at the center of each galaxy holds information like a mirror of what is happening in its halo.
There are other theories too that give explanations to consciousness.
the holographic principle has nothing to do with consciousness....
Says the expert in the field right?
Can you support this claim?
the holographic principle is the principle that the information content of any region of space: can be recorded, in binary, on its boundary (typically surface area) in Planck sized cells. Since this is the storage of 3d information on a 2d surface the word hologram is used as a metaphor since holograms contain 3d images that seem to be stored on a 2d surface (but in reality holograms are not 2d surfaces, hence why it is just a metaphor). Nothing to do with consciousness.
what is your understanding of consciousness?
what is your understanding of a black hole?(holographic metaphor)
what is your understanding of the unified field?
To make such a claim about the holographic universe theory "that has nothing to do with consciousness" you must be sure of those things.
No scientist is sure of those things to make such a claim yet, but you seem to have more knowledge then the rest, so I want to see how are you going to support your claim that consciousness has nothing to do with holographic universe theory or the structure of a black hole with respect to the reality around it.
I am assuming you know what the holographic universe theory means right?
"For a black hole, the principle states that the description of all the objects which will ever fall in is entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon."
So conciseness could be just a connection to this unified field, a deeper understanding of the self, we might be living in an illusion and our brains are just a receptors of this illusion.
Remember I am just hinting at this possibility, I am just saying that it is still possible. I am making no claims except for it's possibility.
The burden of proof is in you ball park here.
YOU are the one who claimed that Consciousness has nothing to do with the holographic principle.
It is the same as saying that you are sure that there is no god.
The burden of proof is on your side now.
So support your claim please.
Here is a guy that is talking about consciousness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV5Vptx0iJw
I still haven't seen anything from you to even suggest that the holographic universe has nothing to do with consciousness.
Jeff - "YOU are the one who claimed that Consciousness has nothing to do with the holographic principle."
I never made that statement, please do not strawman me.
-----------------------
Jeff - "To make such a claim about the holographic universe theory "that has nothing to do with consciousness" you must be sure of those things."
I never made that claim, please do not strawman me.
----------------
Jeff - "so I want to see how are you going to support your claim that consciousness has nothing to do with holographic universe theory"
I never made that claim, please do not strawman me.
"the holographic principle has nothing to do with consciousness"
Some one hacked your account and said just this then?
you will notice I said A has nothing to do with B, you claim I said B has nothing to do with A. Those statements are not the same. The holographic principle is a mathematical derivation, no part of that derivation represents consciousness (there is no operator in mathematics for consciousness).
Yes but that is not a straw man,
I concede that A has nothing to do with B is what you said and not the other way round.
However in this case they mean the same thing since you did not specifically say which part is relevant, Which automatically includes everything.
So the way you said it
eg:
If A is made of B:
A has nothing to do with B
And
B has nothing to do with A
Mean the same thing, since you just said that one has nothing to do with the other.
If you said that a one does not derive the other or in a more specific way, you might have a case.
But when you say one has nothing to do with another, you are actually claiming that in no way one is related to the other.
"The holographic principle is a mathematical derivation"
This is irrelevant, it does not matter how it is derived when it comes to it's relation with conciseness.
"(there is no operator in mathematics for consciousness)"
Again, irrelevant it does not matter how it is derived when it comes to it's relation.
You claimed that they are not related, and when making a claim, you must support it.
no matter how much crappy logic you use, not matter how much you cry about it, no matter how much special pleading, no matter what crazy appeals to authority you make; the holographic principle has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. Just like F=ma has nothing to do with consciousness.
You are the king of unsupported claims it seems. Learn when to use those fallacies because clearly you lost mind here.
Here is a book about what those fallacies are, since you think you appear smarter when saying such terms but it only makes you look more dumb:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/
Could you stop the BS and accept the fact that you were wrong in claiming things you know jack sh*t about?
If you knew anything about consciousness then you would realize that the holographic principle is the main, if not the best explanation for consciousness.
So not only they are related but the holographic principle could be the reason for consciousness. It is one of the best explanations for the unified field where everything is connected at the black hole surface and stores information.
Again, I am not making a claim here, I am just saying that it is possible that they are related where you are saying, and I quote:
"the holographic principle has nothing to do with consciousness"
This is an unsupported claim, accept this fact or support it with evidence.
You can cry about it and change subject about derivations and what not but everybody that knows what we are talking about knows you are wrong.
It is a mathematical derivation from first principles, nothing more. None of the first principles have anything to do with conciousness, and the rest is pure mathematics...
Tell me Jeff, which of the following is consciousness? S = (πAkc^3)/(2hG)
Pages