Happy Atheist Forum

I define god with a lower case (g) because the God with a capital G is the God in my mind, that which I call Father. My Father exists as a psychological construct, so there's no reason to argue the existence of that God, and what the Father is, in reality, is no concern to you, because everyone must have their own personal God--they can't have mine.

On the other hand, god, I will define for the sake of argument as follows:

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

That's it. That's all I want to argue. I don't want to add anything to this god until its existence is proven or at least conceded to or accepted.

So, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

Let the games begin! :hissyfit:   :pop:   :hmm:    

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"So, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

From the sticky:

QuoteWhat is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods. Other than disbelief in god, atheists don’t necessarily share anything in common.

So, no.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"... because everyone must have their own personal God ...

Not so.

QuoteOn the other hand, god, I will define for the sake of argument as follows:

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

That's it. That's all I want to argue. I don't want to add anything to this god until its existence is proven or at least conceded to or accepted.

You will have to carry this water yourself.  You claim it -- you must demonstrate it.  To ask for concession prior to presenting evidence?  That dog don't hunt.

"Modalities of matter"?  What the hell does that actually mean?  Likewise, "necessary attributes"?

By using the "necessary" and its subjunctive conjugate, you are trying to load the argument.

QuoteSo, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

Not this atheist.  Like every other postulated god, it lacks evidence -- no fancy lingo or stuff, but hard and fast, show-me-the-money, atoms and molecules and energy-fields evidence.

QuoteLet the games begin! :hissyfit:   :pop:   :hmm:    

Game over.

No. I emphatically reject the notion of an all-encompassing super-sentient force which presides over humanity as though we are the only thing in this universe worth presiding over.

It is a silly, backward, outdated notion thought up by humans in an era where superstition was rampant and people believed wholesale, the notion that their lives were permanently under observation by magical beings in the sky.

Even if there is such a force (the possibility that aliens seeded earth eons ago is more plausible) then I fail to see why it would be so interested in humanity on such a peculiar scale (burning bushes, book of Job, etc). God would seem to have been playing with us the way a small child with a magnifying glass and an ant hill would, what with all the unnecessary death and destruction wrought upon humanity over the ages. Its vile contempt for anything good in this world is staggering, considering the sheer amount of people who continue to call it 'all loving'.

Nope. I'll side with reality every time when considering the big picture. Besides, to me, the universe is far more beautiful when defined by cause and effect without any sort of divine creator soiling the scene.

First, why don't you define what you mean a little more clearly?

In what sense do you use "modalities"? Are you sure topology is the correct word you want to use? Topology is concerned with a type of qualitative geometry, I can't see how it would apply to a god. Who's necessary attributes? The god's or the matter's? Your definition leaves this unclear. Necessary for what?

Second, provide some evidence, then we can actually begin a discussion. Asking a load of atheists whether they believe in a god is a little redundant.

Quote from: "ColtWanger"So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus""Modalities of matter"?  What the hell does that actually mean?  Likewise, "necessary attributes"?

Are you familiar with Spinoza and his concept of monism? He argued that God was monistic and that the universe was modalities of his attributes, an infinite amount of attributes expressed via an infinite amount of modalities.

Necessary attributes mean that (g)od has characteristics that are necessary to his nature or else he would be a contradiction, and those attributes are manifested as various modalities of matter, such as a quark perhaps or a graviton, or perhaps a Higgs boson.

Quote from: "karadan"No. I emphatically reject the notion of an all-encompassing super-sentient force which presides over humanity as though we are the only thing in this universe worth presiding over.

Well, that has nothing to do with this conversation.

QuoteIt is a silly, backward, outdated notion thought up by humans in an era where superstition was rampant and people believed wholesale, the notion that their lives were permanently under observation by magical beings in the sky.

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

QuoteEven if there is such a force (the possibility that aliens seeded earth eons ago is more plausible) then I fail to see why it would be so interested in humanity on such a peculiar scale (burning bushes, book of Job, etc).

Excuse me, how does aliens seeding the planet have anything to do with the existence of God?

Edward

You're wasting your time here, but it's your time to waste and it is fun to watch. It's not that we won't listen to you, it's just that we've heard what you have had to say (with subtle variations) time and time again. Your feelings,experiences and wishes just don't 'cut the mustard' as evidence anymore. When humanity first faced the unknown and substituted 'God did it.' there were no reasonable explanations for why the world we live in is the way it is. However there are now and if you doubt that statement stop typing on your PC. Your PC is the result of the rigorous application of the scientific method exploited by clever engineers. 'God did it!' is no answer now we are getting to grips with what is really going on.  In addition your method of argument 'abused logic', as been pointed out by Thump, is bankrupt, it means nothing at all. It is an act of intellectual masturbation, you're enjoying it, we're enjoying watching it, but it is untimely worthless.

Your world view is your world view and you are entitled to it. The trouble is you are acting in a hypocritical manner. You would not accept the way you see the world as reasonable from any other person yet you expect us to accept it from you. Let me explain. A person comes to your door and tells you they have a fantastic deal on a 'car'. You don't know what a car is so the person explains and you can see the value of a car. You ask to see the car, the person explains that can't be done as you can't have the car until you die. So you ask for evidence of the car and are told that there is none, just that the person has 'experienced' the car in their dreams and that they were convinced it really, really existed!. hmmmmm. So you ask if there are any other people who have 'experienced' the 'car'. The person replies no, as he is the only person capable of seeing this particular car, which is the 'one true car', all other people who have experienced cars are misguided. Hmmmm. You'd tell this guy to bugger off, and having seen this display would tell all future car salesman to bugger off. You're sales pitch for your 'god' is exactly the same in structure as this fictitious car salesman's pitch for his 'car'. And that is why I dismiss your premiss of the existance of your personal 'god' as it has inherently no value, it has no more value than that of the fictitious car salesman's, which I contend you would also dismiss.

Chris

You still have not put forth an argument, or satisfactorily defined what your concept of god actually means.

Also, when ColtWanger concisely answered your question, and then you put words in his mouth  to patronise him, it does little to lend your position credibility.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"So, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

Yes. Possibly, but almost certainly not. The same would go for any other 'god', even if it was given a description that didn't sound to me like gobbledygook!

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

It would take a long time to list the things I don't believe.
They haven't all been said as yet.
I don't accept my own dreams for fact, why would I accept someone else’s?

There is this thing where people want more than what is offered by the day to day.
Other people see the need and offer a solution.
I see this as the most ugly trade that has ever been.

You may see virtue in belief, I see weakness and surrender.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "karadan"No. I emphatically reject the notion of an all-encompassing super-sentient force which presides over humanity as though we are the only thing in this universe worth presiding over.

Well, that has nothing to do with this conversation.

QuoteIt is a silly, backward, outdated notion thought up by humans in an era where superstition was rampant and people believed wholesale, the notion that their lives were permanently under observation by magical beings in the sky.

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

QuoteEven if there is such a force (the possibility that aliens seeded earth eons ago is more plausible) then I fail to see why it would be so interested in humanity on such a peculiar scale (burning bushes, book of Job, etc).

Excuse me, how does aliens seeding the planet have anything to do with the existence of God?

You asked if we thought that kind of god existed, and i said no, albeit, a little sugar-coated (even if your definition was a little odd).

It is entirely relevant to the discussion. You are saying a god exists and i'm putting forth my reason why it doesn't.

I merely suggested the notion that aliens seeding earth is a more plausible concept than, as you put it, "a force necessarily existing prior to the physical universe."

Edward,

Are you talking about Quantum Consciousness? That's the New Agers' myth.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "ColtWanger"So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

It's pretty hard to define something that can't be shown with actual evidence to exist in the first place. Several posters have already defined what they/we don't believe in. If there were any actual evidence, perhaps some of us would reconsider. As no actual evidence has ever been presented, we will continue to be unbelievers. This is starting to sound a bit trolliish to me.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "ColtWanger"So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

This is absolutely NOT correct.  You are applying your thinking/logic/ideals to what you believe an atheist would say.  I would never say I wouldn't believe no matter what, I am perfectly content to worship god, when he presents himself to me in a way that is forthright and begins to treat mankind in an open and fair way.  IF he is omnipotent and omniscient then his behavior is not worth my worship, yet.  I am perfectly happy to modify my definition of anything, when the evidence supports the change.  I'm an atheist and I won't be forced to believe in something that I do not believe in, without evidences to back up the claims made by theists.  I don't want to be left alone at all, I want to continue to have friends, both atheist and theist, I just don't want to be guilted or hounded into something that I can not support.  That's it.

Quote from: "parrotpirate"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "ColtWanger"So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

It's pretty hard to define something that can't be shown with actual evidence to exist in the first place. Several posters have already defined what they/we don't believe in. If there were any actual evidence, perhaps some of us would reconsider. As no actual evidence has ever been presented, we will continue to be unbelievers. This is starting to sound a bit trolliish to me.

I agree, but sometimes I like a good troll, it helps us to sort of stretch our atheist legs, if you will.  I was recently banned from CARM for NOT agreeing with an idiot on there about his definition of god, then I was attacked because I actually hold a PhD, I was challenged and called just about every name in the book.  The reason I bring that up is that sometimes I like the challenge - like to be reminded by some why they hold the beliefs that they do, and then I really get a kick out of their "attacks" to discredit those who do not hold those same views.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Are you familiar with Spinoza and his concept of monism? He argued that God was monistic and that the universe was modalities of his attributes, an infinite amount of attributes expressed via an infinite amount of modalities.

So you're arguing for pantheism now?

In my never to be humble opinion, that is no god at all.  It's just BS to support saying that a god exists without actually having to show that it is separate from the universe.  In my opinion, if you're talking about the universe, use the word 'universe'.  'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.  I know that's a tautology, but there is no demonstrable intelligence behind it, and that's what I'm getting at.  I highly object to calling it a god.

I appreciate the bit about God only existing in your mind. Now spread the word to all the people who keep telling me I need to go to church so their God will pop out of their heads and start caring for me!

I will say that this god might exist, because it does not present any inherent paradoxes with it's nature. That being said, who cares about this god? It didn't do anything, your basically describing nothing. It's a loaded way to describe some sort of thinking Higgs Boson.

I don't care about that god. It's boring. Where's all the pillars of fire? Where is the elephant head? Where's the flying Fish-Hawk?!? Get one of those gods, then maybe it's worth a discussion. This god is just nothingness. It can't be seen, smelled, felt or measured in any way, so why should I give a shit about it?

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "ColtWanger"So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit! :shake:

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

I can define everything I believe, it's impossible to define everything I don't believe.

I only believe in something that has sufficient reasonable evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny, therefore; everything I believe can be defined.

Now is there some kind of slim possibility that the, uselessly vague "god" you proposed here, exists? Sure, however I don't believe it does.

A problem I see with this reasoning is that you asked if atheists think it's possible that the vacuous god might exist, then you got an answer of "no", to which you responded with criticizing the person's beliefs. So I have a question: why did you ask if there was a possibility of something existing then leap right into beliefs? It seems to me that accepting the possibility that something might have a small chance of existing is about 14.5 billion light years from believing that it does exist.

I'll try this in a different way just to be clear: What I'm trying to say is that even if I accept that there is a chance that something that you propose might exist, you still have a very long journey/adventure ahead of you, filled with exciting fact gathering, dangerously defining what it is, heart pounding hypothesis testing and thrilling battles against the mighty peer review process before I can rationally accept it as true.

Quote from: "parrotpirate"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "ColtWanger"So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

It's pretty hard to define something that can't be shown with actual evidence to exist in the first place. Several posters have already defined what they/we don't believe in. If there were any actual evidence, perhaps some of us would reconsider. As no actual evidence has ever been presented, we will continue to be unbelievers. This is starting to sound a bit trolliish to me.

Edward, this reminds me of Victor Stenger's article titled Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html) (a good read for my fellow heathens as well). Stenger points out:

QuoteThe key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park...
This absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It refutes the common assertion that science has nothing to say about God. In fact, science can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that God â€" the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God â€" does not exist.

Quote from: "SSY"First, why don't you define what you mean a little more clearly?

In what sense do you use "modalities"? Are you sure topology is the correct word you want to use? Topology is concerned with a type of qualitative geometry, I can't see how it would apply to a god. Who's necessary attributes? The god's or the matter's? Your definition leaves this unclear. Necessary for what?

Second, provide some evidence, then we can actually begin a discussion. Asking a load of atheists whether they believe in a god is a little redundant.

Okay, I'm going to break this down for you. I know that sounds condescending, but I don't mean it to be; I'm breaking it down kind of for the first time for me to.

Modalities: This refers to the idea of a monistic universe and (g)od. That is, that there is no other substance than (g)od. The only thing that exists that is fundamentally real is (g)od. But this (g)od shapes itself into what we see around us, and thus what we have in the physical world is "modalities" of this monistic (g)od.

Understand, I'm not trying to prove this is true, not in this reply to you anyway. I'm merely trying to define at this point. Because if we don't come to a definition we can agree upon, then there is no way to move to the proof stage. You don't have to believe what I am saying in this definition; I don't necessarily believe it, either. But you have to come to a point where you say, "Okay, I understand your definition. I don't believe it, but I understand what you mean and we can go forward from there." That's all I'm trying to get at.

Topology: I believe this is the word I want to use, because I mean it in the way that mathematically topology is often graphically demonstrated. The classic graphic is a coffee cup turning into a doughnut shape and back again, which you can find little videos on YouTube under "coffee cup and topology." if you wanted to.

Necessary: I use this term in the philosophical sense in that to be otherwise would imply an impossiblity or a contradiction. In other words, the attributes of (g)od are such that they cannot be any other way or the idea of (g)od would be a contradiction.

Quote from: "Tank"Edward

You're wasting your time here, but it's your time to waste and it is fun to watch.

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to vet  my ideas in a forum of people who don't agree with them. But if I can entertain the masses as well...then I'm happy. :eek:

QuoteYour feelings,experiences and wishes just don't 'cut the mustard' as evidence anymore. When humanity first faced the unknown and substituted 'God did it.' there were no reasonable explanations for why the world we live in is the way it is. However there are now and if you doubt that statement stop typing on your PC. Your PC is the result of the rigorous application of the scientific method exploited by clever engineers. 'God did it!' is no answer now we are getting to grips with what is really going on.  In addition your method of argument 'abused logic', as been pointed out by Thump, is bankrupt, it means nothing at all. It is an act of intellectual masturbation, you're enjoying it, we're enjoying watching it, but it is untimely worthless.

I was once called a "spiritual pornographer" by a Christian in a Christian group. I rather liked it. As for the scientific method, that is what I'm applying here. But all science starts with a hypothesis and a philosophy about that hypothesis. I'm not saying "no" to science. I'm saying scientific inquiry into cosmology can only go so far without taking the idea of consciousness into account. And if anything is unscientific, it's the atheists who simply accept the singularity as eternally existing until it banged into a universe. You all might as well be worshiping phallic heads on Easter Island.

QuoteYour world view is your world view and you are entitled to it. The trouble is you are acting in a hypocritical manner. You would not accept the way you see the world as reasonable from any other person yet you expect us to accept it from you. Let me explain. A person comes to your door and tells you they have a fantastic deal on a 'car'. You don't know what a car is so the person explains and you can see the value of a car. You ask to see the car, the person explains that can't be done as you can't have the car until you die. So you ask for evidence of the car and are told that there is none, just that the person has 'experienced' the car in their dreams and that they were convinced it really, really existed!. hmmmmm. So you ask if there are any other people who have 'experienced' the 'car'. The person replies no, as he is the only person capable of seeing this particular car, which is the 'one true car', all other people who have experienced cars are misguided. Hmmmm. You'd tell this guy to bugger off, and having seen this display would tell all future car salesman to bugger off. You're sales pitch for your 'god' is exactly the same in structure as this fictitious car salesman's pitch for his 'car'. And that is why I dismiss your premiss of the existance of your personal 'god' as it has inherently no value, it has no more value than that of the fictitious car salesman's, which I contend you would also dismiss.

Chris

If that's what you think I'm doing, I suggest you stay tuned. Because I would say you have it the wrong way around. I would say that in the end I will show you the "car" but you will refuse to step out and look at it--because you will know that once you have, you will never be able to justify not buying it.

But I suppose we'll see.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit! :eek2:

Quote from: "Sophus"Edward,

Are you talking about Quantum Consciousness? That's the New Agers' myth.

I have no idea what Quantum Consciousness is. I have heard the term, but I have never looked into it. I couldn't define it if I tried. I have started with my own observations detailed in this paper: http://www.veridican.com/paper1.pdf

From there, I have made certain assumptions based on my past education and even my past discussions with atheists over the last decade and a half that have honed what I believe.

That is how I intend to go forward: in a simple "if that, then this" kind of fashion. Should my theories support new agers, ufologists, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, great. But I am an independent agent. As my blog (http://greaterthangods.blogspot.com/) shows, the shoulders of the giants I am standing on are basically, Descartes, Spinoza, and Berkeley.

Quote from: "parrotpirate"It's pretty hard to define something that can't be shown with actual evidence to exist in the first place. Several posters have already defined what they/we don't believe in. If there were any actual evidence, perhaps some of us would reconsider. As no actual evidence has ever been presented, we will continue to be unbelievers. This is starting to sound a bit trolliish to me.

Oh here we go. As soon as you get scared you start screaming "TROLL!" Why don't you just gather some friends, some pitchforks and torches and march towards the castle.

Quote from: "Martin TK"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "ColtWanger"So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit! :verysad: It does provoke a certain 14th century Christian spirit within me and I find myself looking for a stake, some lamp oil and a hay cart.

As for where you were banned from, join the club. I can't get in a Christian forum. I get banned immediately, and I'm their only freakin hope (How's that for arrogance! )

Quote from: "Godlessons"So you're arguing for pantheism now?

Technically, no. Though I do admit there may only be a hair's difference. In my understanding, pantheism says God is the Universe. In my definition, (g)od existed before the universe and created the universe. The physical universe thus becomes an unconscious modality of his attributes. In fact, I can model that process mathematically. It doesn't prove anything, but it at least shows the dynamic.

Quote'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.

Sometimes with atheists, the best thing to do is show their statements right next to each other.  :hail:

What's with the "(g)od" thing?

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Okay, first off, no one is spiritually raping you here. If you don't want to engage, don't engage. I must say though, the way you are so arrogant about God and demand that he prove himself to you as if he were applying for a job is rather nauseating.  :headbang: )

Ok, first off condescending arguments will get you NO WHERE with me.  If asking for some evidence of the existence of god is arrogant, then guilty as charged.  IF a deity named "GOD" exists and isn't able to or willing to present himself to the world in a way that isn't mumbo jumbo and relies on the mysticism of religion to interpret his existence; then I'm out and not interested.  You see you make the very simple Christian mistake of assuming that god exists, you make the argument from authority, and then you make the assumption that I BELIEVE that there is a god applying for said job.  As for your "14 century Christian Spirit" looking for a stake, some lamp oil and a hay cart, you have now moved yourself into a realm from which you have lost ALL credibility with me.  Sorry.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Oh here we go. As soon as you get scared you start screaming "TROLL!" Why don't you just gather some friends, some pitchforks and torches and march towards the castle.

You claim that WE are gathering friends with pitchforks, torches, and march toward the castle, then you make a statement to me that goes.  "It does provoke a certain 14th century Christian spirit within me and I find myself looking for a stake, some lamp oil and a hay cart. "

Could it be that you are confused, or is it unacceptable for others to question you, but you can feel qualified to find your own stake and attack the "unbelievers?"

You just seem like you are stretching, and that you are doing a bit of "begging the question" and seeing yourself as a "savior of the Christians" brings out a bit of my psychologist and kind of sets off more than a few warning bells.  Sorry, but I'm done here....

Quote from: "Edward the Theist""I won't define what I don't believe in."

This is silly.  Can you define Ganesh?  Can you define the artillery park in my back yard which I use to rule my island country of Thumpalonia?  For that matter, please define Thumpalonia.  Don't forget details such as climate, flora, and fauna.  We're a beautiful little country, but we only permit visitors who believe we exist.

Do you now understand why the onus to define an object of belief is on the person avowing belief?

eta: I haven't called "troll", nor will I.  But I will call "youthful" and "overly philosophical".  Also, "in dire need of a scotch and soda".

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"If that's what you think I'm doing, I suggest you stay tuned. Because I would say you have it the wrong way around. I would say that in the end I will show you the "car" but you will refuse to step out and look at it--because you will know that once you have, you will never be able to justify not buying it.

But I suppose we'll see.

Thats quite a claim to make Edward, you really think you can show us all the 'car'. I'd definitely step out and have a gander if it was worth looking at!

I doubt you can but you've certainly got me reading!

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.

Sometimes with atheists, the best thing to do is show their statements right next to each other.  

Don't see the point you're making here though..

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.

Sometimes with atheists, the best thing to do is show their statements right next to each other.  :raised:
Where is the contradiction?

QuoteI have no idea what Quantum Consciousness is. I have heard the term, but I have never looked into it. I couldn't define it if I tried.

It's the idea that erupted from a misunderstanding of the Observer Effect in physics that says the universe has a source consciousness of everything which can be tapped into or can even be malleable to the "observer". From Wikipedia, the philosophical claims are:

QuoteThere is no observer separate from reality.
There is no separate reality from the observer.
The body is fundamentally made of information and energy and perceived as solid matter.
The mind and body are one and the same and are not divisible.
Biochemical reactions of the body are a product of awareness.
That perception of reality is a learned behavior.
That changing thoughts can and do change the body.
There is an underlying consciousness or intelligence that connects everyone.
Time is a human perception, not a reality.

Quote from: "Martin TK"

Quote from: "parrotpirate"I was recently banned from CARM for NOT agreeing with an idiot on there about his definition of god, then I was attacked because I actually hold a PhD, I was challenged and called just about every name in the book.

Those Nazis at CARM are some kind of special.  After my third account got banned, I took to attacking Matt's arguments on my blog.  He posted some nastiness on his blog about one of my posts and I forced him to remove the offending text.  During our heated discussion about that, he had the balls to ask me to call into his radio show for a debate.  I couldn't believe he wanted me to help his radio show after what he had said.

Just talking about this reminds me that I had planned to make fun of him for believing in black magic.  It's one thing to think that there's some magic man in the sky that can do magic, but he wrote a lengthy post on his blog about how people were practicing black magic/witchcraft against him.

Anyway, if you're looking for the worst kind of Christians there are, CARM is the place to find them.

That's the end of my sidetrack.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "SSY"First, why don't you define what you mean a little more clearly?

In what sense do you use "modalities"? Are you sure topology is the correct word you want to use? Topology is concerned with a type of qualitative geometry, I can't see how it would apply to a god. Who's necessary attributes? The god's or the matter's? Your definition leaves this unclear. Necessary for what?

Second, provide some evidence, then we can actually begin a discussion. Asking a load of atheists whether they believe in a god is a little redundant.

Okay, I'm going to break this down for you. I know that sounds condescending, but I don't mean it to be; I'm breaking it down kind of for the first time for me to.

Modalities: This refers to the idea of a monistic universe and (g)od. That is, that there is no other substance than (g)od. The only thing that exists that is fundamentally real is (g)od. But this (g)od shapes itself into what we see around us, and thus what we have in the physical world is "modalities" of this monistic (g)od.

Understand, I'm not trying to prove this is true, not in this reply to you anyway. I'm merely trying to define at this point. Because if we don't come to a definition we can agree upon, then there is no way to move to the proof stage. You don't have to believe what I am saying in this definition; I don't necessarily believe it, either. But you have to come to a point where you say, "Okay, I understand your definition. I don't believe it, but I understand what you mean and we can go forward from there." That's all I'm trying to get at.

Topology: I believe this is the word I want to use, because I mean it in the way that mathematically topology is often graphically demonstrated. The classic graphic is a coffee cup turning into a doughnut shape and back again, which you can find little videos on YouTube under "coffee cup and topology." if you wanted to.

Necessary: I use this term in the philosophical sense in that to be otherwise would imply an impossiblity or a contradiction. In other words, the attributes of (g)od are such that they cannot be any other way or the idea of (g)od would be a contradiction.

Sounds to me like your modalities are basically an interpretation of pantheism, but no matter.

Your use of topology still confuses me, I have studied topology formally, and it only applies to things with spatial relations, I can't see how this would apply to any god, though I am sure you will elucidate.

I think the definition is now suitably clear, though as you correctly deduced, I as of yet, have no reason to believe in any of it. I look forward immensely to the evidence you will present to support each part of your hypothesis.  I appreciate you have many people to reply to, so take all the time you need.

I read that paper of yours, and can tell you for free, a much, much higher standard of evidence will be required if you wish to prove anything here.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Tank"Edward

You're wasting your time here, but it's your time to waste and it is fun to watch.

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to vet  my ideas in a forum of people who don't agree with them. But if I can entertain the masses as well...then I'm happy. :hmm:

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Tank"It's not that we won't listen to you,

Oh, here we go with the "we" talk. I love it when insecure people do this. They can't stand on their own, so they try to derive an imaginary support from the group. "We..." Who the hell is "We"?

The 'we' are the seasoned atheists who have seen your sort of woo before. Then the passive aggressive insults, implying that people who use a collective term are some how 'insecure'. I am quite capable of standing up for my own views thank you very much. So what we have is a classic attempt to 'troll', a quote mine followed by the twisting of intent followed by an attempt to goad one's interlocutor.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Tank"it's just that we've heard what you have had to say (with subtle variations) time and time again.

Wait. You haven't heard anything yet. I know all the classical arguments inside and freakin out. I even have a couple of original arguments for the existence of God. This isn't that at all. I think you're scared.  :sigh:  Please stop with the teasing just lay out you sales pitch and I will evaluate it and make my own mind up thank you very much.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Tank"Your feelings,experiences and wishes just don't 'cut the mustard' as evidence anymore. When humanity first faced the unknown and substituted 'God did it.' there were no reasonable explanations for why the world we live in is the way it is. However there are now and if you doubt that statement stop typing on your PC. Your PC is the result of the rigorous application of the scientific method exploited by clever engineers. 'God did it!' is no answer now we are getting to grips with what is really going on.  In addition your method of argument 'abused logic', as been pointed out by Thump, is bankrupt, it means nothing at all. It is an act of intellectual masturbation, you're enjoying it, we're enjoying watching it, but it is untimely worthless.

I was once called a "spiritual pornographer" by a Christian in a Christian group. I rather liked it. As for the scientific method, that is what I'm applying here. But all science starts with a hypothesis and a philosophy about that hypothesis. I'm not saying "no" to science. I'm saying scientific inquiry into cosmology can only go so far without taking the idea of consciousness into account. And if anything is unscientific, it's the atheists who simply accept the singularity as eternally existing until it banged into a universe. You all might as well be worshiping phallic heads on Easter Island.

I love it when insecure people hide behind the term 'atheists, because they can't face an individual atheist can be capable of independent thought. If you had had bothered to read my previous responses to you you would see I do not hold the strawman position about the Big Bang that you erroneously assign to all atheists.

Here is what I wrote viewtopic.php?p=77342#p77342 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=77342#p77342)

Quote from: "Tank"a)

'

why does anything exist at all'  don't know, TBA, watch this space (pardon the pun). Insert name of deity or personal wish fulfilment here if you must, just must have an answer where there is none, yet.[/list]

I don't know what happened at the apparent beginning of the universe, it would appear nobody does, in detail understand the conditions before (if the term before is even applicable) the origin. That there was an origin is supported by the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the Red Shift caused by the continued expansion of the universe. It is simply ludicrous to assume that because one does not  know what caused something what the cause is. It is also ludicrous to assume that our evolved 'cause and effect recogniser system' that evolved in the world of our limited perceptions has any validity when investigating the quantum world. Quantum mechanics has continually proved a valid way of describing some aspects of the physical world, yet in doing so it has proved reality to be mind bogglingly counter intuitive, common sense goes out the window and cause and effect can have no meaning whatsoever. So to make the statement 'it's the atheists who simply accept the singularity as eternally existing until it banged into a universe' is just plain wrong.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

QuoteYour world view is your world view and you are entitled to it. The trouble is you are acting in a hypocritical manner. You would not accept the way you see the world as reasonable from any other person yet you expect us to accept it from you. Let me explain. A person comes to your door and tells you they have a fantastic deal on a 'car'. You don't know what a car is so the person explains and you can see the value of a car. You ask to see the car, the person explains that can't be done as you can't have the car until you die. So you ask for evidence of the car and are told that there is none, just that the person has 'experienced' the car in their dreams and that they were convinced it really, really existed!. hmmmmm. So you ask if there are any other people who have 'experienced' the 'car'. The person replies no, as he is the only person capable of seeing this particular car, which is the 'one true car', all other people who have experienced cars are misguided. Hmmmm. You'd tell this guy to bugger off, and having seen this display would tell all future car salesman to bugger off. You're sales pitch for your 'god' is exactly the same in structure as this fictitious car salesman's pitch for his 'car'. And that is why I dismiss your premiss of the existance of your personal 'god' as it has inherently no value, it has no more value than that of the fictitious car salesman's, which I contend you would also dismiss.

Chris

If that's what you think I'm doing, I suggest you stay tuned. Because I would say you have it the wrong way around. I would say that in the end I will show you the "car" but you will refuse to step out and look at it--because you will know that once you have, you will never be able to justify not buying it.

But I suppose we'll see.

I'm getting seriously fed up with your passive aggressive bait and switch attitude. So far you give me no reason to think your not just another 'car' salesman with no car to sell. The fact that you have to put up a defence argument (you can't believe me!) before you pitch just shows how utterly certain you are that your argument will be effectively rubbished yet again. This of course would destroy your world view, which you really are not prepared to accept. I, on the other hand would be delighted to believe in God as it would be a very simple and satisfying explanation for my existance and I could go on in my life happy in the knowledge that I knew the truth.  Edward, put up or shut up.

After giggling for a bit on Tank's mention of "intellectual masturbation" and scrolling through this thread, I'd like to say that in no way do I believe in a god, capital G or otherwise.

But then again, this is an atheist forum, it says so in the url, I don't see why you would expect anything else.

Edward the Theist says:

QuoteA primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.... do you believe this type of god might exist?

Let me translate for those who haven't studied theology:

QuoteMagic magic. Magic magic magic. Magic magic magic.... Therefore god is true!

Something I came across about a week ago might upset any claim closing in on a cosmological argument.  This guy seems to be interested in cosmology, and I have heard many theists proclaim that the cosmological argument is "proof" of god, while others merely assert it is extremely strong "evidence" that there is a god.  At most, even given the current ideas about the origins of the universe, it is presuppositional BS.

As for what I was talking about though, http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 shows an interesting theory about it that I don't fully understand, but what I do understand is very intriguing.  Essentially, it says that time gets converted into space, and mass into length, and the reverse is also true, which would mean that there is no actual big bang, nor is there ever a time where nothing existed.  It also appears to deal with some problems with big bang cosmology, like dark matter, and the unnecessary "cosmological constant".

Quote from: "Godlessons"Something I came across about a week ago might upset any claim closing in on a cosmological argument.  This guy seems to be interested in cosmology, and I have heard many theists proclaim that the cosmological argument is "proof" of god, while others merely assert it is extremely strong "evidence" that there is a god.  At most, even given the current ideas about the origins of the universe, it is presuppositional BS.

As for what I was talking about though, http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750 shows an interesting theory about it that I don't fully understand, but what I do understand is very intriguing.  Essentially, it says that time gets converted into space, and mass into length, and the reverse is also true, which would mean that there is no actual big bang, nor is there ever a time where nothing existed.  It also appears to deal with some problems with big bang cosmology, like dark matter, and the unnecessary "cosmological constant".

Been raised here viewtopic.php?p=75787#p75787 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=75787#p75787) I'll ask the mods to split this off as the general consensus is that this new theory is not very rigorous.

Quote from: "KebertX"I appreciate the bit about God only existing in your mind. Now spread the word to all the people who keep telling me I need to go to church so their God will pop out of their heads and start caring for me!

I will say that this god might exist, because it does not present any inherent paradoxes with it's nature. That being said, who cares about this god? It didn't do anything, your basically describing nothing. It's a loaded way to describe some sort of thinking Higgs Boson.

I don't care about that god. It's boring. Where's all the pillars of fire? Where is the elephant head? Where's the flying Fish-Hawk?!? Get one of those gods, then maybe it's worth a discussion. This god is just nothingness. It can't be seen, smelled, felt or measured in any way, so why should I give a shit about it?

Freakin good question. Seriously.

You should care, because you are it. Your body is it, your mind evolves to channel it in the physical world, your self-awareness is it, and when you die--that white light everyone talks about--that's you returning to your primordial state, which is it. That's why I say even atheists have a God, they just think their physical body is God.

Granted, I'm speculating on what I consider the implications of my theory, which I am just starting to piece togther after 17 years of making those pieces. So, I can't prove the above. But, that's what I believe the answer to your question is. I could be wrong. But that's what I think at the current moment.

Again, good question. You made me think.

Quote from: "Davin"I'll try this in a different way just to be clear: What I'm trying to say is that even if I accept that there is a chance that something that you propose might exist, you still have a very long journey/adventure ahead of you, filled with exciting fact gathering, dangerously defining what it is, heart pounding hypothesis testing and thrilling battles against the mighty peer review process before I can rationally accept it as true.

I don't think I'm going to be submitting papers to the mathematical association of america, or to one of the Ivy league colleges (where someone else will put their name on top of mine on the paper so others will read it). I'm a street philosopher. I'm a self-taught mathematician. No one other than the general populous is ever going to be interested in my work. And, I'll be damned lucky if they are. But here's one thing I know: I know that if they are, then all the Ph.D's will clamour to write their books saying why mine isn't so (assuming I write a book or something).

That's you're scientists. That's experts for you. I'm not Van Gogh. I say that now humbly, that I am not Van Gogh. If I had been alive and knew Van Gogh I would have said that with derision. He was a loser then. He was insane. No one bought his work, and no one cared. Now Ph.D. students write dissertations about him. That may never be the case with me, or any of you for that matter, but we do what we can until we take our last breath. Right?

Quote from: "Sophus"Stenger points out:

QuoteThe key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park...
This absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It refutes the common assertion that science has nothing to say about God. In fact, science can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that God â€" the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God â€" does not exist.

If you read the Gospels honestly and unbiased, I think you'll find Jesus didn't believe in that God either.

Quote from: "i_am_i"What's with the "(g)od" thing?

It's how I differentiate. (g)od is a primordial force. God, with a capital G, is the God you and I create in our minds to interpret (g)od. Actually, I think now that I look at it that (g)od could simply be written (g). I suppose that's the mathematical symbol I've been looking for for one of my models. Thanks for asking the question and helping me.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Davin"I'll try this in a different way just to be clear: What I'm trying to say is that even if I accept that there is a chance that something that you propose might exist, you still have a very long journey/adventure ahead of you, filled with exciting fact gathering, dangerously defining what it is, heart pounding hypothesis testing and thrilling battles against the mighty peer review process before I can rationally accept it as true.

I don't think I'm going to be submitting papers to the mathematical association of america, or to one of the Ivy league colleges (where someone else will put their name on top of mine on the paper so others will read it). I'm a street philosopher. I'm a self-taught mathematician. No one other than the general populous is ever going to be interested in my work. And, I'll be damned lucky if they are. But here's one thing I know: I know that if they are, then all the Ph.D's will clamour to write their books saying why mine isn't so (assuming I write a book or something).

That's you're scientists. That's experts for you. I'm not Van Gogh. I say that now humbly, that I am not Van Gogh. If I had been alive and knew Van Gogh I would have said that with derision. He was a loser then. He was insane. No one bought his work, and no one cared. Now Ph.D. students write dissertations about him. That may never be the case with me, or any of you for that matter, but we do what we can until we take our last breath. Right?

Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

Everyday I come back to this thread, ready to analyze some evidence for the existence of some not-God-god-thing, but all I keep coming back to is some guy talking about himself in the exact same way that I've heard other I'm-not-you're-average-theist theists talk about themselves.  I guess that's the irony here, Ed - you seem like a painfully average not-your-average-theist, delusions of original insight and all.  I just wish you would get to the evidence!  You're on an atheist board.  Few, if any of us are going to be even remotely impressed by some random person waxing on about Van Gogh and cosmology and consciousness when there is absolutely no reason to distinguish your ideas from the same lame ideas we've heard countless times from the multitude of not-your-average-theist-cuz-I-think-god-is-cosmic-consciousness people who have come before you.

At some point you alluded to having evidence for your position.

Is it possible to cut past the posturing and quasi clever retorts and get to the evidence, please?

Edward The Theist,

I've read every post on this thread and every word on your blog, comments and all.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not your typical atheist.  I can't say what makes me different other than I tend to disagree atheists.  I never believed in any god, superstition, or fairy tale.  I'm just not wired for it.  My nuclear and extended family are all Christians with varying levels of commitment--it never even occurred to me follow their path.  The whole thing struck me as odd.

However, I try to be objective in all things.  You seem to require an audience that won't prejudge you and claim to know what you are going to say before you say it.  I don't speak for anybody else, but I have no idea where you are going with this.  I have no desire to refute your ideas.  I am genuinely curious.  As stated above, I'm not inclined towards faith, but I'll listen with an open mind.  

That said, I'll bite.  I concede that your god may exist.   Please tell me more.

On your Consciousness paper- First I would like to ask: Does a computer have consciousness? Awareness of its existence? Assuming your answer is no - why is that? If consciousness can be found externally from a brain, throughout all the universe. A computer can be programmed to make choices but ironically those are, of course, not due to its own volition.

QuoteThese single-cell creatures have only the basic structures of a cell yet propel themselves in water apparently
by choice using their cilia. When viewed through a microscope, one can watch these creatures swimming
around pieces of algae and feeding on them.
Remarkably, they feel their way through this or that piece of algae apparently in search of food, then swim
away at times, and then turn around and swim back to the algae to continue feeding. Their ability to change
their speed and direction by obvious volition is strong evidence for their consciousness.

Changing speed and direction of an entity does not necessarily denote volition. It could merely be responding to how it its inbred nature commands it to. It is a slave. For example:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbus-tops.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2Fstarlings.jpg&hash=551be12b6bbc819e9cfbc77a3b08d70dcf9bd382)

 Starling birds seem to share a "consciousness" when moving with their flock as a whole. Their movement looks choreographed. Yet it has been proven that each bird is actually responding accordingly to what is directly around it. A computer screen saver, titled "Boids", was made that imitates these birds flying in a flock by programming one bird and then cloning it, with the occasional subtle changes to make it appear more naturally.

Single celled organisms are much less complicated than birds. They simply sense, or feel, their way around. In fact, when an embryo is being constructed, the proper nerve cells do not "know" where to go rather they, as Dawkins puts it, sniff out the correct area like a dog. A frog was able to have its belly and back axons reversed by swapping the skin while it was a tadpole!

It would be great to get Squid to read your paper and comment on it.

QuoteIf you read the Gospels honestly and unbiased, I think you'll find Jesus didn't believe in that God either.

Including the uncanonized gospels? Either way I don't see how somebody could claim this with certainty since we don't really know who Jesus was, if he ever was.

Well, to be honest, I rarely pay much attention to street-corner preachers.

 Please Read!

By attacking posters rather than discussing ideas, we all get away from useful discourse.

Everyone. Everyone. Everyone! Get back to discussion of ideas. I keep reading insults, veiled insults, clinical diagnoses, more insults, and yet in four pages so far, there has been very little discussion of the topic. More just about the OP.

By constantly baiting the OP, you FORCE HIM to talk about himself. Do you all not get that?

Move on, please. Don't attempt to justify things by saying "someone else did it first". Heard that countless times. Usually the one complaining the loudest about a behavior has also been engaging in the same behavior. Just get back on topic, please.

(thanks McQ ;-)

Ok... here's the crux of it for me...

If someone is able to prove that (g)od exists, using science, repeatable experiments, testable, real-world-measurable-in-our-universe stuff... then (g)od is not (g)od, but just another part of the universe.  This leaves the atheists as atheists, because the concept that you have presented as (g)od is not truly god (ie. supernatural)

If there is not any real-world-measurable-in-our-universe stuff, repeatable experiments, etc., then (g)od is in the realm of the super-natural, and therefore not covered by science.  In this case, you have nothing available to convince an atheist that your concept of (g)od is real.  Again, atheists remain atheists because you have no proof of your concept.

See where I'm going with this?

There's no way to win.  You can't prove God, god, (g)od, gOdS, or whatever by logical means.  When you do, you remove the supernatural aspect, and therefore it cannot be (g)od (or God or god or gOdS).

(unless, that is, you're talking about Göd is a small town in Pest County, Hungary. - that you can prove),
JoeActor

Yeah. Reading this, I've yet to see any evidence for this (g)od.

Quote from: "McQ" Please Read!

By attacking posters rather than discussing ideas, we all get away from useful discourse.

Everyone. Everyone. Everyone! Get back to discussion of ideas. I keep reading insults, veiled insults, clinical diagnoses, more insults, and yet in four pages so far, there has been very little discussion of the topic. More just about the OP.

By constantly baiting the OP, you FORCE HIM to talk about himself. Do you all not get that?

Move on, please. Don't attempt to justify things by saying "someone else did it first". Heard that countless times. Usually the one complaining the loudest about a behavior has also been engaging in the same behavior. Just get back on topic, please.

You are correct, then perhaps our OP could get on with the evidences, so we can address the ideas, pros and cons.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I define god with a lower case (g) because the God with a capital G is the God in my mind, that which I call Father. My Father exists as a psychological construct, so there's no reason to argue the existence of that God, and what the Father is, in reality, is no concern to you, because everyone must have their own personal God--they can't have mine.

You've obviously never seen Inception.  

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"On the other hand, god, I will define for the sake of argument as follows:

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

You're essentially saying "this force existed before existence", which is internally contradictory. That which has internal contradictions cannot exist. If you rectify the contradictions, it becomes something else.

Quote from: "Martin TK"Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.

No, in fact, you can't.

A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)
B. I hope you're not, because a. you can't tell a delusion of grandure from hopes and dreams; b. I've never said once how great my ideas were. In fact, people in here have asked me to elaborate on them. So, you might as well stop pretending now, or look for a different line of work.
C. I could be wrong, but unless you tell me your name and what state you practice in, forget it. You can e-mail me.

QuoteYou need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.

A. I never said that. In fact, I've consistently said that I might be wrong, but I feel compelled to find out if I am. B. I'm not comparing myself to an artist. I'm giving myself some hope and using his life example as something to compare my life situation to. Know one is going to take me seriously, because I'm not part of the math community or the science community. So, perhaps I can write something popular to express my ideas. And yeah, I'd like to succeed at that. If you think that's a delusion of grandure, then so be it. At least I never had to come on line and pretend to be something other than what I am in order to get people to listen to what I have to say. Because I'd call that a loser, wouldn't you?

QuoteThis may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.

So, now you're calling me "great." Great. But don't come around later and say that I said it.  :drool

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Edward The Theist,

I've read every post on this thread and every word on your blog, comments and all.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not your typical atheist.  I can't say what makes me different other than I tend to disagree atheists.

I appreciate you reading it. And, you disagree with atheists--apparently not about the non-existence of God, though. Right?

QuoteI never believed in any god, superstition, or fairy tale.  I'm just not wired for it.

Must have been a rather serious childhood.

QuoteMy nuclear and extended family are all Christians with varying levels of commitment--it never even occurred to me follow their path.  The whole thing struck me as odd.

Okay.

QuoteHowever, I try to be objective in all things.  You seem to require an audience that won't prejudge you and claim to know what you are going to say before you say it.  I don't speak for anybody else, but I have no idea where you are going with this.  I have no desire to refute your ideas.  I am genuinely curious.  As stated above, I'm not inclined towards faith, but I'll listen with an open mind.  

That said, I'll bite.  I concede that your god may exist.   Please tell me more.

Great. Now we can have a discussion. And I'm not totally sure where this is going either, but it seems to me if consciousness is external to central nervous systems, then it must be like (and I stress the word "like" rather than "is)--it must be like a natural force. Like gravity is a natural force. Now there are many implications that would follow one way or the other, that is if consciousness is external to central nervous systems or if it is not.

What do you think about consciousness?

I'm sorry, I would truly like to respond to the rest of you, but I just don't have any time today. I really want to write a paper outlining my theory, but I can't do that and argue it in here at the same time. So, I'm going to back off for a bit and get that paper written. Otherwise, there's nothing really for me to present to you.

I did write a paper on why I believe consciousness is external to central nervous systems, so perhaps I could argue that first. After all, if it doesn't exist external to the CNS, then there's nothing to my theory at all.

Good luck with the paper. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I'm sorry, I would truly like to respond to the rest of you, but I just don't have any time today. I really want to write a paper outlining my theory, but I can't do that and argue it in here at the same time. So, I'm going to back off for a bit and get that paper written. Otherwise, there's nothing really for me to present to you.

I did write a paper on why I believe consciousness is external to central nervous systems, so perhaps I could argue that first. After all, if it doesn't exist external to the CNS, then there's nothing to my theory at all.

I read the paper again.  I just don't see it Edward.  You seem eager to move the next step, but the first one is huge.  In order to prove something to skeptics, your precognitions would have to be replicated in a controlled setting.  No one has done that, ever.  If you could, it would be quite a feat.

  The paramecium argument seems like a stretch.  It simply has a scaled down version of "consciousness", with scaled down structures creating it.  You seem to see a similarity between the actions of paramecia and people and a dissimilarity between the  respective internal structures causing those actions.  That doesn't mean anything supernatural is happening.  

With the person driving the car argument, you seem to be using the CNS's efficiency as a reason to believe that something external is controlling the brain.  Yes, our reaction times seem amazingly quick given all the information that has to be processed.  I don't see the jump to external consciousness.  Computers are  quick too.

Respectfully, proving that consciousness has a non physical cause would be enough to get you a Nobel Prize.  Not saying that it can't be done, just that you may be underestimating the height of the mountain you are trying to climb.

In any event, I hope you find what you are looking for.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"With the person driving the car argument, you seem to be using the CNS's efficiency as a reason to believe that something external is controlling the brain... Respectfully, proving that consciousness has a non physical cause would be enough to get you a Nobel Prize.

Yes, I don't think it's hotly debated amongst the scientific community that a brain stores information. For example:

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"The brain itself knows nothing.

From an Epistemological point of view, I agree with this. But it's clear that what you're suggesting is different: that no information is stored in the brain. Let's strictly talk memories. Memories are stored in the hippocampus - or (to Ed) would you disagree with this?


I would also like to point out some flawed logic:

QuoteWe know what a neuron is. It’s a cell. It has no brain or central nervous system, so how can a group of cells
in the visual cortex know how to stimulate the brain, or in what direction to start the cascade of stimulation
required for all the rather instantaneous actions required for the driver to stop his car from hitting the car in
front of him?

You seem to concede here that a full brain or central nervous system would be necessary in order to "stimulate the brain" itself. Well, what would a brain be made of if not cells? With respect, I don't think this is news to anyone. When digging deeper into life's mysteries no one expects to find more complex entities making up simpler wholes. Simple things work together to do extraordinary things. It is also how they work which makes the outcome possible. After all neurons communicate with each other through synapses. This web of information sharing can be compared to how a computer works (only on a far more grand level) and although you haven't answered my previous post yet, I'm going to assume you would not say a computer has consciousness. I certainly don't think they do.

Yes, when I read the paper before, I came to basically the same critiques.

On the other hand, he started a thread that stretched to 5 pages, before he had even formed his ideas to a point where he could tell us what they are. Productive use of a forum right there.

QuoteEdward the Theist wrote: I did write a paper on why I believe consciousness is external to central nervous systems

Could this mean my regular bouts of stupidity may be due to poor reception?
Would it help if I got an antenna?

Quote from: "Tank"Good luck with the paper. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Thank you, Tank. I got the intro and abstract done today.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I read the paper again.  I just don't see it Edward.  You seem eager to move the next step, but the first one is huge.  In order to prove something to skeptics, your precognitions would have to be replicated in a controlled setting.  No one has done that, ever.  If you could, it would be quite a feat.

Thank you, Humblesmurph, I appreciate you re-reading it. But the paper is in three parts. One is the images of paramecium feeding. I first saw that for myself under a microscope in a microbiology class in college, and it changed my whole life that very day. I remember, I tried to tell others. I remember walking around to my friends and saying, "Look, if these creatures are moving about like they're "trying" to do something, changing direction, swimming this way and then turning around to swim another, probing this, probing that--that's will! I remember I asked my professor like three times if protozoa had a brain or nervous system, but she said they don't. And they don't.

Eventually, I actually bought a medical microscope and watched them myself at home. After Hurricane Katrina, I ended up donating the scope to a vet student, because I wasn't using it and there were videos then on YouTube of the same thing. They display will. There's no question about it.

But I will admit, so far, I haven't been able to convince anyone with that evidence. Either they think something else is going on, or they just aren't educated enough about microbial life to decide for themselves, and no one else is screaming this at the top of their lungs the way I am.

So, I ask people to watch, but even when they see, they don't believe. It reminds me of the parable Jesus told about Lazarus in hell. He wanted to go back and warn his brothers about hell, but God said, no. They wouldn't believe, even if they saw someone raised from the dead.

Myself? I'm incapable of denying the miracle I have seen in college, at home, and on YouTube. That is reproduceable proof.

I'm serious. If you want to, you could do the same as me. A scope costs about three hundred bucks. Preparing the slides and finding paramecium is easily learned off the web. You could do it yourself, and it would change your mind. But I know you won't do that. And, quite honestly, I don't expect you to. It's my job, I believe to convince you with as many different approaches as I can.

So, there's the precognition. Do you know what's funny? No one accuses me of lying. They never have. Even you don't. So, if I'm not lying, how could I have had those dreams? It's not proof. It's anectdotal. It's only as strong as the trust you put in the reporter. I'll give you an example:

I think UFOs are bullshit. But there's a part of me that doesn't. And it has to do with reports that were made by the deputy commander of a base in England in 1980. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I was stationed in England in the 80's for eight years, and I know both of those bases well, but more it has to do with the credibility of those reporting the incident. I encourage you to read up on "UFOs at Rendlesham, England" if you're interested.

My point is, I'm not all about UFOs and maybe they were lying, but the strength of their anecdotal evidence is compelling. So, either I'm a liar, or you have do deal with the fact that I had those dreams.

But then there's the logical argument as well. How can the brain know how to react in new situations? How can one area of neurons, or a single neuron for that matter know how to trigger the brain to do everthing necessary to accomplish a task. Think about it: how can you type in these forums? What is using your brain as a tool?

 

QuoteThe paramecium argument seems like a stretch.  It simply has a scaled down version of "consciousness", with scaled down structures creating it.  You seem to see a similarity between the actions of paramecia and people and a dissimilarity between the  respective internal structures causing those actions.  That doesn't mean anything supernatural is happening.  

Nothing supernatural is happening. There is nothing supernatural about consciousness. It would be supernatural if the brain could actually produce it, but it's not supernatural for life forms to channel it and use it for their own survival. We do it with gravity every day, and consciousness is no less apparent to us than gravity is.

QuoteWith the person driving the car argument, you seem to be using the CNS's efficiency as a reason to believe that something external is controlling the brain.  Yes, our reaction times seem amazingly quick given all the information that has to be processed.  I don't see the jump to external consciousness.  Computers are  quick too.

Well, in fact, my theory (as I will detail it one day) predicts conscious computers. In fact, given three possibilites of evolution, I believe this will happen: We will either die out, we will colonize other planets (and then die out), or we will produce conscious machines that can survive environmental changes on this planet. I believe the third one will win out. I know, there's the Terminator movies and all that, but I think it will be to us far more like the end of the movie AI. And we will be a mystery to them.

Be that as it may, no matter how fast and efficient our nervous system is, it cannot logically do previously unlearned tasks like typing long opinions in a forum. That's what I think, anyway.

QuoteRespectfully, proving that consciousness has a non physical cause would be enough to get you a Nobel Prize.  Not saying that it can't be done, just that you may be underestimating the height of the mountain you are trying to climb.

I hear you, and no I'm not underestimating it. I will not be the one to prove my theories about consciousness, god (aka (g)) and cosmology. The best I hope for is to popularize my theories so that others will take notice and either try to prove them or disprove them. Either way, I expect I will be long dead by then.

Nonetheless, I have talked with my God a lot, and this is all I was born for, I know it. So what if I never succeed? That's really none of my business. I work with lots of old nurses in the psych hospital. They haven't done anything great in their life either other than get by from day to day and deal with the day to day shit life throws at them. I'm no better than they are, and I deserve nothing better than they get. I have these ideas, that's all. And I believe it would be a sin to not use my talents to bring them to the fore. You know?

QuoteIn any event, I hope you find what you are looking for.

Thank you. I hope the same for you, too.

Quote from: "Sophus"From an Epistemological point of view, I agree with this. But it's clear that what you're suggesting is different: that no information is stored in the brain. Let's strictly talk memories. Memories are stored in the hippocampus - or (to Ed) would you disagree with this?

Sorry, I have to ask this first: Is that Heath Ledger as your avatar? I'm sorry, but if you've ever been a male nurse and had a hard day, that part in Batman where he blows up the hospital and walks away in a nurses dress looking like a demented clown...well...it just kind of makes my eyes go all watery.

Anyway, to your point: destroy the hippocampus, yes? Have you destroyed memories or have you destroyed the organisms ability to access memories? destroy the electronics in your radio. Have you ended the FM electromagnetic signals passing through your room? Of course, that's just a model. And suggesting it doesn't prove my point, all it shows is that your point is not as solid as you might think it is.

QuoteI would also like to point out some flawed logic:

QuoteWe know what a neuron is. It’s a cell. It has no brain or central nervous system, so how can a group of cells
in the visual cortex know how to stimulate the brain, or in what direction to start the cascade of stimulation
required for all the rather instantaneous actions required for the driver to stop his car from hitting the car in
front of him?

You seem to concede here that a full brain or central nervous system would be necessary in order to "stimulate the brain" itself. Well, what would a brain be made of if not cells? With respect, I don't think this is news to anyone. When digging deeper into life's mysteries no one expects to find more complex entities making up simpler wholes. Simple things work together to do extraordinary things. It is also how they work which makes the outcome possible. After all neurons communicate with each other through synapses. This web of information sharing can be compared to how a computer works (only on a far more grand level) and although you haven't answered my previous post yet, I'm going to assume you would not say a computer has consciousness. I certainly don't think they do.

Thank you, and I would have answered your post; I wanted to, but I just ran out of time earlier. But I would like to talk about computer consciousness here. Right now, a computer is not conscious, but it is controlled by a conscious entity. Nevertheless, as you said, if a protozoa has no brain and displays consciousness, why not a computer? My reply is that a computer is not constructed to do that. It's constructed to follow a program. The program is produced by a conscious entity. Animal life, on the other hand, seems to have the ability to use consciousness. I say "use" because there doesn't seem to be anyting in the cell of a protozoa that can make a decision, and yet the paramecium obviously does. What is that mechanism?

Well, if the brain produces consciousness, then the paramecium should act no different than a computer. In fact, plants act like a computer. They seem to follow a pre-programed set of instructions in their DNA. Bacteria that I have observed seem to act that way, too. But the paramecium does not. It demonstrates volition. In fact, certain types of white blood cells do, too, not to mention a host of other protozoa other than the paramecium. And yet much larger cells, like an egg, seems to have no volition at all. So, what is the mechanism. I don't know.

But it sure seems like animals are channeling consciousness, for lack of a better term, than producing it. I mean, even if they produced it, how the hell could a paramecium and a human both have volition?

So, my conclusion is that it requires more magical thinking to assume the consciousness is made by the creature and then controls the creature than it does to assume the consciousness is out there and is simply being used by a creature capable of using it by some mechanism.

Nevertheless, I honestly think if we want to create AI, we're going to have to get passed the idea of computer programming in order to acheive it. That paradigm will only allow us to imitate it.

And to wax on a bit more speculatively: perhaps if all there was were robots moving about in the universe, and all other life capable of consciousness were extinct, perhaps consciousness would evolve the robots into something that could channel it. Perhaps that's all we are.

Quote from: "SSY"On the other hand, he started a thread that stretched to 5 pages, before he had even formed his ideas to a point where he could tell us what they are. Productive use of a forum right there.

Yeah, imagine wasting a forum on mindless talk. What a unique sin that would be.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Could this mean my regular bouts of stupidity may be due to poor reception?
Would it help if I got an antenna?

Funny you should say.  

One thing my theory predicts is that those who can better channel consciousness are better able to survive. In other words the stupid will die first. And if not that, then the more consciousness one is able to utilize, the greater use they can make of their life. Let me relay a little story, and I don't offer it as any kind of precognition proof, it's just a story that happened to me and my wife.

We're in our RV at a park in Las Vegas. We're going to leave that night. I had a dream that afternoon that we were in a terrible accident and our RV was consumed in flames. I woke up, and it seemed like a precognitive dream. I've had dozens, and this seemed like one of them. I will never know if it was, because as I was shaving I asked God, "What the fuck am I supposed to do!" And instantly the word came to me in my mind, "Leave 15  minutes later than you were planning."

I told my wife about this and we agreed to wait 15 minutes. We were going to leave at 11pm. We sat at a picknick table until 11:15 and left then. When we got to the Hoover damn area, we were kind of lost, so I pulled over to check my atlas. As I was doing that a car came down the road from the direction of the damn and stopped. The driver came over to us and said, you can't go forward (over the damn), the road is under construction.

We turned around and made about a hundred mile detour. It wasn't a big deal.

Unless, that is, you consider that if we had left on time, we wouldn't have met that other car, we would have gone straight into whatever the road construction was going on over the damn.

I don't know what would have happened, maybe nothing. That's the problem with precognition. Precognition does not fit with predestination. You don't know it except in hindsight, because it's knowledge of a world where you didn't know what was going to happen. You knowing it changes things.

All I know is it was a dream similar to the Dunblane dream and a dozen others where I saw something on television that I had earlier seen in a dream.

It's not proof. It may be nothing. But I believe that the more consciousness one can get hold of, the greater power they will have in a physcial world that is--in my opinion--nothing more than a modality of consciousness anyway.

True story.

you need to look at http://changingminds.org/explanations/t ... n_bias.htm (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/confirmation_bias.htm)
and http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html (http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html) and http://changingminds.org/explanations/t ... n_bias.htm (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/confirmation_bias.htm)

The point is, confirmation bias will lead you to think these type of thoughts, but bar a solid statistical analysis of a reasonably sized data set you can not take this type of information seriously.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Sorry, I have to ask this first: Is that Heath Ledger as your avatar? I'm sorry, but if you've ever been a male nurse and had a hard day, that part in Batman where he blows up the hospital and walks away in a nurses dress looking like a demented clown...well...it just kind of makes my eyes go all watery.

Haha, nope. Not Ledger. Heath has a broader jaw.

QuoteAnyway, to your point: destroy the hippocampus, yes? Have you destroyed memories or have you destroyed the organisms ability to access memories? destroy the electronics in your radio. Have you ended the FM electromagnetic signals passing through your room? Of course, that's just a model. And suggesting it doesn't prove my point, all it shows is that your point is not as solid as you might think it is.

Not destroy. Store.

QuoteNevertheless, as you said, if a protozoa has no brain and displays consciousness, why not a computer?

Actually, no. What I said was that they do not have consciousness like a computer. Single cells do not operate on volition, rather they respond to their environment accordingly. If they possessed a consciousness the frog would have had no problems after having its back and belly skin swapped.

QuoteAnimal life, on the other hand, seems to have the ability to use consciousness. I say "use" because there doesn't seem to be anyting in the cell of a protozoa that can make a decision, and yet the paramecium obviously does. What is that mechanism?

Not obviously, but seemingly. Just as it hundreds of years ago it would have seemed obvious that our bodies were designed. And why only animal life?

QuoteBut it sure seems like animals are channeling consciousness, for lack of a better term, than producing it. I mean, even if they produced it, how the hell could a paramecium and a human both have volition?

Again, volition is assumed. If everything down to a single cell had its own will the structure and building blocks of our own bodies would be so chaotic we would not be able to sustain our own existence. I think you are confusing basic sensory abilities of the single cells with consciousness or awareness. If you can work that into your definition of 'consciousness' in this case I can understand that (since it is of course using means to interact and become aware of its environment), but that variant definition of 'consciousness' is so drastically different from the what a human has there's really no sense in comparing them.

So... for clarification purposes: you are implying the consciousness we share with single cells is the same?

I think that it would have been good to have started a separate thread for discussing "Three Rationales for External Consciousness: Paramecium, Precognition, and the Absurdity of Intelligent Neuronal Triggers."  But it seems this thread is heading into that territory now, so...

I'm only going to address one aspect of the paper in this post; the idea that the paramecium is "conscious."

It's only by distorting the idea of consciousness that one could say that the paramecium qualifies as a conscious entity.  It reacts to it's environment, but is that reason to state that it's conscious?  Plants react to their environment as well, are they conscious?  I see Edward the Theist's ideas as approximating panentheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism).  In that line of thinking, pretty much everything is conscious to some degree or another.  I'm actually fine with that, as far as religious thinking goes.  It's when religious thinkers attempt to bend facts to fit their ideas that I begin to have an issue with them.  The paramecium is not much more conscious than a plant, as we would normally understand consciousness.  Edward the Theist seems to put great store in the movement of the paramecium; the fact that it changes direction, and I think there's a good reason for that.  The paramecium obviously is affected by light and heat, and the presence of potential food.  But so is a plant, and unless we're willing to call a plant conscious, then it really comes down to movement as the distinguishing factor.

However, the movement of the paramecium is the result of the way that cilia work:

QuoteFrom http://oocities.com/quetl/paramecium.htm

Behavior - or How does the Paramecium change direction?

The motion of an individual cilium superficially resembles that of an oar, in that it sweeps through the medium with a power stroke that propels the cell in the opposite direction. Each power stroke and return stroke involves perhaps thousands of chemical reactions. There may be dozens of strokes per second, and perhaps thousands of cilia. Paramecia respond very quickly to obstacles or changes in their environment.

All of the cilia have a calcium-activated reverse gear; when a cell bumps into an obstacle, calcium channels open, the cell depolarizes. The voltage normally present across the outer membrane leaks away, as ions rush through open channels to even out the across membrane charges, and the ciliary machinery switch gears, causing the cilia to switch into the opposite motion and the cell backs up fast.

Normally not all the cilia are swimming forward during forward swimming; some are moving in reverse mode. When the number of cilia that are swimming forward exceeds the cilia that are in reverse mode, the cell moves forward. When the cell re-establishes cell polarization, the cilia return to their forward movement. This doesn't happen quite smoothly, and when the paramecium resumes its journey, it is usually in a slightly different direction than before - giving the appearance that it has made a detour around the obstacle.

What is the significance of this? Galvanotaxis provides a neat model of how our very own nerve cells communicate, via voltage gated channels. Cells are stimulated or not by the voltage gradient across their outer membrane; when they are stimulated, they depolarize, meaning ions like potassium and chloride rush through pores or channels that can open when the voltage exceeds a certain level, i.e. they are "voltage gated").

(Emphasis mine)

So, while it looks like the paramecium has made a choice, and is consciously changing direction, that is actually not what's going on.  

Though it's quite true that the paramecium doesn't have a nervous system such as is present in the majority of multi-cellular animal life, the roughly equivalent parts of the paramecium are fairly well understood (http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun99/bacilia.html).  (The linked article has some of the ideas about the paramecium's equivalent of a nervous system, but an online search of "paramecium nervous system" will provide several other articles about the subject.) In other words, there is no great mystery of a "consciousness" inhabiting the paramecium with no structure to support it.

Edward the Theist, I have a simple question for you: When you had your revelation about the paramecium, did you investigate the scientific explanation for what's going on at all?  Assuming that you did, what do you find unsatisfactory about it?

QuoteThere is nothing supernatural about consciousness. It would be supernatural if the brain could actually produce it,...

Last I heard....and I've been known to be behind the times....is that when one removes one's brain, there is no more consciousness.
You have to show how a invisible self living Consciousness is actually out there some where and how brains are able to tune into it, why brain dead people are not conscious, severely handicapped people are not aware of themselves. And if there is a 'god' consciousness...why we don't consciously know of it.

We still ain't seen the car...let alone tires or a steering wheel.

To Sophus,

You said: "Single cells do not operate on volition, rather they respond to their environment accordingly."

How do you know? The fact is, you don't. You are biased, and did you even watch the one minute and thirty second video of parmecium feeding? You say they respond to their environment accordingly, but with that kind of bias you would also have to say that every other living animal does as well. You would only be able to verify your own consciousness. You would never be able to verify anyone elses. That might be all you can do with strict proof, but if you see an animal behaving with apparent will, it's a pretty good guess that animal is conscious.

On the other hand, in the same microbiology class, I viewed bacteria, and they also had movement, but it was a kind of vibration that perhaps came from something as slight as breathing on the microscope. They didn't display any sign of volition. So, I know the difference. But do you know the difference?

As for the consciousness we share with protozoa like the paramecium. Yes, I believe it is the same. We simply have a greater mechanical capcity to use that consciousness owing to our muscles and skeleton and central nervous system.

Quote from: "Recusant"The paramecium is not much more conscious [/b]than a plant, as we would normally understand consciousness.  Edward the Theist seems to put great store in the movement of the paramecium; the fact that it changes direction, and I think there's a good reason for that.  The paramecium obviously is affected by light and heat, and the presence of potential food.  But so is a plant, and unless we're willing to call a plant conscious, then it really comes down to movement as the distinguishing factor.

(emphasis in red is mine)

I'm sorry, I assume you believe your words matter and that you say what you mean. You just said the paramecium was conscious. Not much more than a plant (and I would agree) but conscious nonetheless. Either you aren't fit to handle this discussion, or you can't admit what you know because of your religious bias (your religion being atheism). So, which is it?

QuoteHowever, the movement of the paramecium is the result of the way that cilia work:

Yeah, obviously. The way I move is the result of the way my muscles and skeleton work. Your point?

QuoteThis doesn't happen quite smoothly, and when the paramecium resumes its journey, it is usually in a slightly different direction than before - giving the appearance that it has made a detour around the obstacle.

You could say the same thing about any animal movement. In fact, you can say it's an illusion all day long. You can say that about anything you want that doesn't fit your mode of thinking. But if you watch the video, if you go one better and do the microbiology work yourself, you're going to see that they are moving about like animals, not like automatons responding to environmental stimuli. All I can do is show you. I can't make you believe what you see.

QuoteWhat is the significance of this? Galvanotaxis provides a neat model of how our very own nerve cells communicate, via voltage gated channels. Cells are stimulated or not by the voltage gradient across their outer membrane; when they are stimulated, they depolarize, meaning ions like potassium and chloride rush through pores or channels that can open when the voltage exceeds a certain level, i.e. they are "voltage gated").
(Emphasis mine)

The above is irrelevant to this discussion. You are describing how the machinery works, not what works the machinery. But it sure makes it sound like you know what you're talking about, doesn't it? You know, I think atheism is nothing more than a big Wizard of Oz.

Anyway, you were saying...

QuoteSo, while it looks like the paramecium has made a choice, and is consciously changing direction, that is actually not what's going on.

Apparently it is. I'm not saying they don't bump into things and reflex back. I'm saying when they get done feeding on one piece of algae, they dash across the water dropplet to the next one, and then come back to the same spot a little while later. In fact, there's even research into training protozoa. I just came across it, so I'll look it up myself and see what it is. I don't need to. I've watched their behavior at length both in video and through my own microscope. You can say it's only an appearance of consciousness, and I could say that about everyone walking down the street. But at the end of the day, that pig won't fly.

QuoteThough it's quite true that the paramecium doesn't have a nervous system such as is present in the majority of multi-cellular animal life, the roughly equivalent parts of the paramecium are fairly well understood (http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun99/bacilia.html).  (The linked article has some of the ideas about the paramecium's equivalent of a nervous system, but an online search of "paramecium nervous system" will provide several other articles about the subject.) In other words, there is no great mystery of a "consciousness" inhabiting the paramecium with no structure to support it.

Your talking about the electro-chemical way in which muscle fiber works, and it's similar to the way nerve impulses travel down an axon. That's not a central nervous system. I realize that's how their cilia work. But that's like our peripheral nervous system, and no one would consider that a mechanism of consciousness. I'm talking about a central nervous system. You know, a brain.

QuoteEdward the Theist, I have a simple question for you: When you had your revelation about the paramecium, did you investigate the scientific explanation for what's going on at all?  Assuming that you did, what do you find unsatisfactory about it?

I wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

I shouldn't even answer your question, but I will. I've done all kinds of research on protozoa and the various species thereof and on how they move, And not just on the internet, but in college, too. The consensus is that they move around but they are not conscious. I say they are conscious and that's how they move around. I'm not saying they're doing math or designing houses to live in. I'm not saying there are any poet paramecium. I'm saying they demonstrate volition in their movements as compared to other microorganisms. They move around like animals.

We assume they are not conscious, because to say they are would change the entire world. It would change everything we think we know about the world. Kind of like precognition. You have to doubt it, or else the implications start breaking shit apart.

QuoteI wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

   I don't know, man - so far it all seems pretty status quo to me.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I'm sorry, I assume you believe your words matter and that you say what you mean. You just said the paramecium was conscious. Not much more than a plant (and I would agree) but conscious nonetheless. Either you aren't fit to handle this discussion, or you can't admit what you know because of your religious bias (your religion being atheism). So, which is it?

Oh boy.  You are twisting my words, Edward the Theist, and you know it.  I did not say that the paramecium is conscious.  Rather I compared it's level of consciousness to that of a plant.  There is a difference in the two statements.  Please refrain from such tactics, it does you no credit.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

QuoteHowever, the movement of the paramecium is the result of the way that cilia work:

Yeah, obviously. The way I move is the result of the way my muscles and skeleton work. Your point?

Here you take my words out of context, as can be seen by the fact that the quoted sentence ends in a colon.  Why not just include the quote below, and deal with the entire point that I was making? This is not the way to gain the respect of you interlocutor.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

QuoteThis doesn't happen quite smoothly, and when the paramecium resumes its journey, it is usually in a slightly different direction than before - giving the appearance that it has made a detour around the obstacle.

You could say the same thing about any animal movement. In fact, you can say it's an illusion all day long. You can say that about anything you want that doesn't fit your mode of thinking. But if you watch the video, if you go one better and do the microbiology work yourself, you're going to see that they are moving about like animals, not like automatons responding to environmental stimuli. All I can do is show you. I can't make you believe what you see.

When I observe the paramecium, I see a marvelous example of life in action.  I do not see any evidence of consciousness, however, any more than I see evidence of consciousness in the actions of a Venus Flytrap.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"The above is irrelevant to this discussion. You are describing how the machinery works, not what works the machinery. But it sure makes it sound like you know what you're talking about, doesn't it? You know, I think atheism is nothing more than a big Wizard of Oz.

That which "works the machinery" is something that's been investigated by scientists.  They seem to have a good grasp on what's going on in the paramecium, and it doesn't agree with your hypothesis.  Present evidence (beyond your observations, which as evidence is equivocal, since others have observed precisely the same thing and have come to a different conclusion) to prove your hypothesis, and I have no doubt that you will be hailed for your breakthrough.  Until you do that, you really have no basis for your disdainful attitude.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Anyway, you were saying...

QuoteSo, while it looks like the paramecium has made a choice, and is consciously changing direction, that is actually not what's going on.

Apparently it is. I'm not saying they don't bump into things and reflex back. I'm saying when they get done feeding on one piece of algae, they dash across the water dropplet to the next one, and then come back to the same spot a little while later. In fact, there's even research into training protozoa. I just came across it, so I'll look it up myself and see what it is. I don't need to. I've watched their behavior at length both in video and through my own microscope. You can say it's only an appearance of consciousness, and I could say that about everyone walking down the street. But at the end of the day, that pig won't fly.

I can understand your passionate defense, however as I mentioned above, plenty of others have observed the same things you have, yet have not reached the same conclusions as you have.  You may have had a profound insight into paramecium activity, but just saying so doesn't carry any weight at all.  Yours is the pig that needs to fly, sir, not mine.  Mine only walks.  I'm not the one that's making extraordinary claims.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

Did I present myself as a knowledgeable scientist?  Did I once say that the sources I quoted were presenting what was "common knowledge" to me?  Please quote the relevant passage.  Your rhetoric is amusing, but it would only sting if it were accurate.  I'm not trying to intimidate you, but to discuss your ideas. Mellow out.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I shouldn't even answer your question, but I will. I've done all kinds of research on protozoa and the various species thereof and on how they move, And not just on the internet, but in college, too. The consensus is that they move around but they are not conscious. I say they are conscious and that's how they move around. I'm not saying they're doing math or designing houses to live in. I'm not saying there are any poet paramecium. I'm saying they demonstrate volition in their movements as compared to other microorganisms. They move around like animals.

We assume they are not conscious, because to say they are would change the entire world. It would change everything we think we know about the world. Kind of like precognition. You have to doubt it, or else the implications start breaking shit apart.

OK.  So you don't agree with the consensus. I have an open mind. I think it would be ground-breaking if someone were able to show that there was some type of consciousness in the paramecium, but not world-shaking.  If you can prove your hypothesis, or for instance, if paramecium are shown to be trainable, then I'll be quite willing to agree that there is some form of consciousness there.  That still would not prove that the consciousness was in some way extra-corporeal.

Thank you for your prompt reply.  I know that you're trying to deal with several conversations in this thread.

EDIT: Change "theory" to "hypothesis."

Atheism is a religion? That's news to me.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

It's not in keeping with HAF rules to imply or state that a member is lying as that is an uncivil approach to conversation.  I have not been following your posts so I don''t know if you've been warned about this before.  So, this is just a friendly reminder unless someone points out that it should have been a more official step in the warning process.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I wonder if you think for one minute that you can try to back me down by acting scientifically pompous? Do you really think after 16 years of debating atheists I would still fall for that old trick? I know you're not a scientist. I know you did a little checking on the internet and then came in here and acted like it's common knowledge to you. That's what atheists do, they put their arm around scientists for the photo op and think Christians and other theists will be intimidated by that. Well, this ain't your grandma's theism anymore.

No, hers had the decency to wear the garment of faith fairly and squarely, without apology, rather than getting gussied up in a "science" that is obviously ill-fitting.

I wonder why you're so heated up?  The burden of evidence lies squarely on you, and so far, it all seems rather thin.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"To Sophus,

You said: "Single cells do not operate on volition, rather they respond to their environment accordingly."

How do you know? The fact is, you don't. You are biased, and did you even watch the one minute and thirty second video of parmecium feeding? You say they respond to their environment accordingly, but with that kind of bias you would also have to say that every other living animal does as well. You would only be able to verify your own consciousness. You would never be able to verify anyone elses. That might be all you can do with strict proof, but if you see an animal behaving with apparent will, it's a pretty good guess that animal is conscious.

On the other hand, in the same microbiology class, I viewed bacteria, and they also had movement, but it was a kind of vibration that perhaps came from something as slight as breathing on the microscope. They didn't display any sign of volition. So, I know the difference. But do you know the difference?

As for the consciousness we share with protozoa like the paramecium. Yes, I believe it is the same. We simply have a greater mechanical capcity to use that consciousness owing to our muscles and skeleton and central nervous system.

All you've done here is assert that I am biased, ignoring the evidence of the frog and the analogy of starling flocks (and Boids).
And stating that you simply know what volition looks like isn't much of a case. You have to lay out the evidence.

QuoteYou say they respond to their environment accordingly, but with that kind of bias you would also have to say that every other living animal does as well.

Did you skip over the part where I wrote about the semantics of 'consciousness'?

If you will, take a second read of that and I think you'll see we're likely not in total disagreement. A choice is not being made within the protozoa, per se, rather the choosing is being done for it. This is probably a bad way of explaining it, which will come back to haunt me, because I am not talking of Freewill. What I mean is the protozoa is, like a simple “Boid”, following its inbred nature programmed in by its DNA.

The Magic Pudding’s satirical antenna remark is actually quite astute in that: if you concede certain things are not made to receive consciousness from some external force while others are (especially when some protozoa do and others don't), why then implement the external force at all? It’s not necessary. It means there’s something already going on inside of the organism which accounts for this.

Edward the Theist,

I have to admit, you fight the good fight.  You've got doubters left and right, but you are unswayed.  I admire that.  You remind me of one of my very good friends.  

Disclaimer: I freely admit that my knowledge about biology, God, (g)od and (g) is likely inferior to yours.  I am not challenging your assertions or belittling your intellect.  I admit that much of what I know about biology and the cosmos  has been spoon fed to me from documentaries and books.  I have little to no hands on experience with any of this stuff.  

I did watch a few paramecia videos on YouTube.  I don't see consciousness.  I see movement.  You've stated yourself that the consensus among people who have witnessed what you have witnessed is that paramecia don't have consciousness.  Is there some evidence that you are holding back or that I may have missed in this rather long thread?

I'm not commenting on whether you are right or wrong, but I do have a question.  This discussion has a decidedly scientific tilt to it.  As I understand it, scientists start with a hypothesis and test it to show whether it is right or wrong.  My question is, what evidence are you looking for?  Specifically, what would have to happen for you to conclude that the hypothesis (non physical consciousness) is wrong?  Or confirm that it is correct?

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

Edward, I use the word Groovy a lot. Never stopped. Like my vocabulary was halted in 1970. It's weird, man.
Oh yeah, I use "man" too.

And I know dudes who say the strangest things. But it's not like they're Geneticists or anything. Or Oncologists.

And Squid? Well that dude is totally off the hook, man.

So, even though I'm taking the long way to make a point, which I hope you are getting, it doesn't make the point less valid. The fact is that you don't know who is an expert in various things here yet, and who might be blowing smoke. But it would be a mistake for you to assume without evidence.

Another fact is that I've actively engaged in making sure members here didn't just jump all over you because I want new members to get a fair shake. In a way, it's like sticking my neck out for the new guys. So please don't start acting like you have all the answers. You've already falsely stated that atheism is a religion, and you've said you did microbiology work with paramecium. I just pointed out one issue with the false statement. How about backing up your statement about doing microbiology work with presenting some data from it? Preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, or anything that has been replicated.

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

Yeah, I think saying Martin TK can't be a psychologist because he uses the word "dude" is a bit like saying this guy couldn't be a genius physicist because he likes to stick his tongue out:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thequoteblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F09%2Falbert-einstein-1.jpg&hash=b1c678d2b8b48dcb6a433283a67a8d9ddc71d387)

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

I use dude quite frequently but I'm just one of those nutty research guys.

Yeah, I think saying Martin TK can't be a psychologist because he uses the word "dude" is a bit like saying this guy couldn't be a genius physicist because he likes to stick his tongue out:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thequoteblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F09%2Falbert-einstein-1.jpg&hash=b1c678d2b8b48dcb6a433283a67a8d9ddc71d387)

Oh, come on, that has to be Photoshopped.  We all know scientists are humorless.  Dude.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"A. I don't believe you are one, because trust me, I'd know one if I saw one (e.g., any psychologist who starts off an assessment with "Dude" has serious problems.)

It's not in keeping with HAF rules to imply or state that a member is lying as that is an uncivil approach to conversation.  I have not been following your posts so I don''t know if you've been warned about this before.  So, this is just a friendly reminder unless someone points out that it should have been a more official step in the warning process.

Okay, I knew this would happen. It usually does when the conversation turns to the pesky little parameciums. Your rules say absolutely nothing about that. Nothing. You're now making it up because you can't win this thing any other way.

Never mind the supposed psychologist was telling me I was crazy--on the web--without even interviewing me or assessing me as a psychologist would. No for that uncivil tone, he's not reprimanded at all.  Just me for doubting his credentials when I happen to be someone in a position to know better.

This happens in every atheist group--the double standard. And like I said, it typically happens when what should be the proof your looking for shows up and you can't deny it, or you deny it but can't remain rational in so doing.  

So, warn away. Ban me, by all means. That's why I wait 60 days now before donating to these forums.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Edward the Theist,

I have to admit, you fight the good fight.  You've got doubters left and right, but you are unswayed.  I admire that.  You remind me of one of my very good friends.

Thanks, Humblesmurph. That's nice of you to say. As for being unanswered, it's going to stay that way, too. I'm going to take a break for a while. I have a paper to write, and I'd like to announce it here first rather than at Pharyngula or some damn place. But, when the mods start making double standards, you know you're about to be banned. So, I'm going to take a breather from this forum.

QuoteDisclaimer: I freely admit that my knowledge about biology, God, (g)od and (g) is likely inferior to yours.  I am not challenging your assertions or belittling your intellect.  I admit that much of what I know about biology and the cosmos  has been spoon fed to me from documentaries and books.  I have little to no hands on experience with any of this stuff.  

Yeah, but you have a mind to think with. So, you'll do alright in the end. But you know, you bring up a good point: The paramecium theory is doomed (even though I still intend to use it). It's doomed because the people who do know are typically biased toward atheism, and the people who don't know don't feel they can make a decision one way or another about it. But I say this: look at your dog or cat. Look at your best friend. Why do you think they are conscious? Isn't it because they display behaviors that look conscious? In fact, faking consciousness is pretty hard to do.

QuoteI did watch a few paramecia videos on YouTube.  I don't see consciousness.  I see movement.  You've stated yourself that the consensus among people who have witnessed what you have witnessed is that paramecia don't have consciousness.  Is there some evidence that you are holding back or that I may have missed in this rather long thread?

It's the movement itself. Why do they move in one direction and then another? It's not like the current is moving them. They are making deliberate movements. It's not like a venus flytrap that is triggered by an insect and internal hydrodynamics. It's an apparent choice to look in one spot and then another. But if you don't see it, you don't see it. But be honest, if Richard Dawkins came out and said he saw it, and that in some way it supported evolution this or that, I'll bet you'd see it then. And at the risk of offending you, that my friend, is your biggest problem. It will be  for your entire life if you don't do something about it. Forget paramecium. It's time to decide who is going to rule your mind--you or someone else.

QuoteI'm not commenting on whether you are right or wrong, but I do have a question.  This discussion has a decidedly scientific tilt to it.  As I understand it, scientists start with a hypothesis and test it to show whether it is right or wrong.  My question is, what evidence are you looking for?  Specifically, what would have to happen for you to conclude that the hypothesis (non physical consciousness) is wrong?  Or confirm that it is correct?

If there was evidence that their apparent volition was actually just automatic reactions, like with a venus flytrap, then the evidence would be kaput, I suppose. On the other hand, if they could be trained through behavioral techniques of some sort, then they would display memory, and that in my mind would be irrefutable. Right now, understand, it's not just the paramecium. For me, it's also the precognition and the logical inability of the brain to use itself as a tool. So, with the combined affect of those three things, I come to the conclusion that consciousness is external to the central nervous system.

And ultimately, that's all I need to move forward with my cosmology. In the end, I may not be right. But if I can make a theory that is internally consistent, even if the hypotheses turn out to be false in the end, I could live with that. I don't think I'd see that in my lifetime anyway.

Now, Humblesmurph, you tell me straight up--isn't it better to be a free thinker? If it is, then even if I'm wrong I win, right?

Quote from: "McQ"You've already falsely stated that atheism is a religion, and you've said you did microbiology work with paramecium. I just pointed out one issue with the false statement. How about backing up your statement about doing microbiology work with presenting some data from it? Preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, or anything that has been replicated.

You haven't pointed out a false statement at all. Is not atheism in this country protected under the First Amendment? If it's not a religion, then it shouldn't be afforded any protections at all. Rather, it's become a fairly dominant religious force in our society. If it walks like a duck and quacks like one, I typically call it a duck.

As for my research: How exactly am I to get published in a peer-reviewed journal? I'm not a biologist. I'm a nurse who made an observation and reported it. You have yet to prove it's not consciousness we are seeing in the paramecium. And by all accounts it looks like it. Again with the duck thing.

You atheists get all bent out of shape over the parameciums. Isn't it funny how your whole world-view rests on whether the smallest animal in the world is conscious or not? One little thing goes one way or the other and the whole world falls apart.

And that supposed psychologist? I am an expert on that. If he is one, and it's true I can't be sure, but if he is, he acts awfully unprofessional about it. In fact, go back and check it out: he uses his supposed credentials to insult me. That's how he reveals he's a psychologist, but using it to insult me--dude. You really think that guy is a Ph.D. or Psy.D. He'd have to show me his license before I'd believe it. Oh, and without a state license, he is not a clincial psychologist. :upset: Anyone who wants can contact me through my blog or I think I have an e-mail link in my profile. If you don't ban me, I'll come back and start a new topic in a week or so. The great big theory of (g)!

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"This happens in every atheist group--the double standard. And like I said, it typically happens when what should be the proof your looking for shows up and you can't deny it, or you deny it but can't remain rational in so doing.

I don't want you to be banned for the simple reason that I'm still waiting for this proof you keep talking about.

So...how about it? Let me see your proof of the (g)od that exists. And please try to bear in mind that not all of of us here have college degrees. Anyway I don't. So simply and clearly present your proof of the (g)od that exists and we can be done here.

Edward

I think 'people' get 'pissy' with you when you start going on about microbes having consciousness because it's just a really stupid idea. It's the sort of thing that if one heard it in a pub from somebody one would just move slowly away from them while keeping their hands visible all the time. The idea that something fitted with effective chemical senses and no sensory organs could be conscious is, on the face of it, ludicrous.

I'll accept evidence but you have to create a frame of reference, do your research, present your results and show how they support your view and how your view can be shown to be wrong. If you wont/can't do this then you're still in the realm of mythical car salesman.

In addition if you are going to go around dissing other members by calling them liars why would you expect not to be warned? You have used the 'You don't know, so don't tell me!' argument but expect to make blind assertions about what you can not possibly know and get away with it.

You spend your time arguing when all we want to see is some sound evidence to support of what you are claiming. It's not surprising you get a bad receptions on atheist forums, God of the Bacturiam, I mean I ask you does that not sound just a little bit odd, but I'd love to see the reaction on a scientific forums  :)

Chris

Quote from: "Martin TK"Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

This is not fair.  Being a clinical psychologist, you come off as a bully here Martin TK.  I don't care if I get banned, what's right is right.  You belittle Edward in this passage.  Stating that your BS meter is "pegging all the way out" is the same as calling somebody a liar imo.  

Respectfully, if you start out saying "..as a clinical psychologist...", what follows shouldn't be demeaning in nature.  I've talked to a few clinical psychologists, and none of them have been this insensitive.  I have no doubt you hold whatever academic pedigree you claim to have, but I think it inappropriate to use your position in this manner. If this man does have a problem, how would an antagonistic post on a forum help him?  It's one thing to tell somebody they are full of shit, it's another to  present such an opinion as a professional diagnosis from a clinical psychologist.  

Then everybody jumps all over Edward the Theist for defending himself, but nobody calls out Martin TK? I say again, it's not right.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"So, warn away. Ban me, by all means. That's why I wait 60 days now before donating to these forums.

Well, so far you've gotten a "friendly reminder." That's a long way from being banned, (three strikes), and even then your ban would very likely only be temporary, to give you time to cool down.  You've chosen to take time to cool down on your own initiative, which I think shows wisdom.  As for a double standard, it seems you're ignoring McQ's post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5563&start=45#p77784) that was directed at any and all that have been giving you a hard time.  I've been a member here for a while, and from my experience, the mods mean what they say.  If members continue to antagonize you, they will be subject to the rules enforcement process.  So rest assured you may manage to get yourself banned if you work at it, but from what I've seen so far, you'll stay here just as long as you like.  I hope you do, because you seem to be intelligent, and there is no doubting your passion in expounding your ideas. That combination makes for interesting conversation! :P ) So for me (and I suspect many others) it's the most accessible and relevant of your "three rationales."

I'm posting a link to a fine lecture by Karl Popper (http://debunkingprimaltherapy.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/popper-conjectures2.pdf) in PDF format. His thinking has been very influential in the philosophy of science, and may give you some valuable insights which could help in refining your hypothesis.  Or maybe not.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Martin TK"Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

This is not fair.  Being a clinical psychologist, you come off as a bully here Martin TK.  I don't care if I get banned, what's right is right.  You belittle Edward in this passage.  Stating that your BS meter is "pegging all the way out" is the same as calling somebody a liar imo.  

Respectfully, if you start out saying "..as a clinical psychologist...", what follows shouldn't be demeaning in nature.  I've talked to a few clinical psychologists, and none of them have been this insensitive.  I have no doubt you hold whatever academic pedigree you claim to have, but I think it inappropriate to use your position in this manner. If this man does have a problem, how would an antagonistic post on a forum help him?  It's one thing to tell somebody they are full of shit, it's another to  present such an opinion as a professional diagnosis from a clinical psychologist.  

Then everybody jumps all over Edward the Theist for defending himself, but nobody calls out Martin TK? I say again, it's not right.

I acknowledge as much in another post, did you read that one?  I'm amazed that you wasted an entire post on this.  I was called out, warned, etc... and as for other clinical psychologists, have you met them ALL???  Clinical psychologist quite often call BS where BS exists... and I simply said that so far, with the evidence presented, it has been nothing more or less than unconvincing.  So, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or are you just going to point out other's failings, according to your own opinion???

To the OP, IF I offended you then I do apologize.  The term DUDE was meant to make me appear less threatening in my assessment.  I stand by my thoughts on your positions as being somewhat "far afield" but I do not wish to insult.  There are times when my opinions are somewhat "opinionated" and I make NO apologies for being that way, nor would I expect you to apologize for your own views.

I would say from my own experiences of going onto Christian forums, a theist who comes on an atheist forum, really needs to have his position clearly articulated in his own mind, prior to posting it here.  I would also recommend that you keep your points short and easily readable, without using words that require persons to have to look them up in order to understand what you are trying to say.  I say this, not because anyone on here is unintelligent, but because this is a forum and most people will dismiss what you are trying to say if they are required to weed through too much fluff to get to the point.

I, frankly, don't agree with anything you have posted to this point, but I do agree that you have the right to post it, believe it, and defend it, within reason.  So, as I have stated previously, POST AWAY and let the discussion begin or continue.

I find it easier to believe that paramecia mimic conscious behavior than to believe that there is an external consciousness infusing us all.

Also, have you answered 'Morph's vitally important question: "How would you falsify this hypothesis?"

Quote from: "Martin TK"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Martin TK"Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

This is not fair.  Being a clinical psychologist, you come off as a bully here Martin TK.  I don't care if I get banned, what's right is right.  You belittle Edward in this passage.  Stating that your BS meter is "pegging all the way out" is the same as calling somebody a liar imo.  

Respectfully, if you start out saying "..as a clinical psychologist...", what follows shouldn't be demeaning in nature.  I've talked to a few clinical psychologists, and none of them have been this insensitive.  I have no doubt you hold whatever academic pedigree you claim to have, but I think it inappropriate to use your position in this manner. If this man does have a problem, how would an antagonistic post on a forum help him?  It's one thing to tell somebody they are full of shit, it's another to  present such an opinion as a professional diagnosis from a clinical psychologist.  

Then everybody jumps all over Edward the Theist for defending himself, but nobody calls out Martin TK? I say again, it's not right.

I acknowledge as much in another post, did you read that one?  I'm amazed that you wasted an entire post on this.  I was called out, warned, etc... and as for other clinical psychologists, have you met them ALL???  Clinical psychologist quite often call BS where BS exists... and I simply said that so far, with the evidence presented, it has been nothing more or less than unconvincing.  So, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or are you just going to point out other's failings, according to your own opinion???

First, I haven't met ALL clinical psychologists, what does that have to do with anything?  The three I have dealt with seemed to adhere to a more respectful protocol.  The three I've dealt with wouldn't (i believe) think it appropriate to dress up insults as clinical observations.  It was reasonable for Edward to challenge your claim (of being a clinical psychologist) given the unprofessional manner in which you proffered your professional opinion.

I will not be bullied.  Your response has the tone of "how dare you? I have a PHd!!!"  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I take it. You are attacking me because I took exception to your use of the phrase "as a clinical psychologist".  I stand by my claim.  It was wrong.  You didn't simply say he lacked evidence.  You insinuated that Edward was delusional and full of shit. You presented this as a professional opinion. You claim you admitted as much on another post.  

Unfortunately, redundancies happen on boards such as these.  I missed your apology (if you did in fact apologize to Edward).  I missed you being warned by a mod (if there was a warning on this thread).  It doesn't make my opinion any less valid.   Everything you post is just your opinion as well.  Almost every post in this thread is about pointing out Edward's "failings".  I've tried to be constructive in this thread.  I've tried to direct Edward towards a more fruitful discourse without insulting the man.  

Why couldn't you just say. "Hey dude, that's old.  I've already admitted that I was wrong" and leave it at that?  Why attack me?

First I want to thank humblesmurph for his (or her) brave defense of me and of himself. It is impressive to see someone stand up against a group. It kind of restores ones hope and faith in humanity. Google for it. Just search "training paramecium" and take your pick.

In other words, paramecium have memory, too. They still have no central nervous system, mind you, but they apparently have volition, memory, and some measure of IQ. I was convined by seeing what appears to be willful movement. So, I never looked any further. And, I've never conducted those experiments myself. But apparently there's no need to.

Now, I know what you're thinking (and it has nothing to do with ESP on my part). You're thinking there must be something about the cell that produces consciousness. Because if consciousness is external to the organism (as precognition all but proves), then we aren't just dirt clods.  :crazy:

But have no fear. All this does is confirm that we really are just dirt clods...until we die. Then the dirt clod dissolves and all that's left is the consciousness we had before we were born...hell, before the universe was born. But I'm getting all giddy now.  

I'm just wondering if when we die we think to ourselves, "That was interesting...hmmm, let's do that shit again!" and then we wake up in someone else, or create someone else we can wake up in.

I can't help it. I speculate at times.

Oh, and PS to the psychologists out there who think I'm suffering from delusions of grandure. Yeah, from your perspective, I probably am. But my papers, my theory, my book, my speeches, whatever may come aren't going to get done if I take your advice. Oh, wait a minute. You're an atheist psychologist...maybe you don't want me to get those things done. Or am I just being paranoid now?

Look, just keep your hands off my mental illness. I'm still using it.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "McQ"You've already falsely stated that atheism is a religion, and you've said you did microbiology work with paramecium. I just pointed out one issue with the false statement. How about backing up your statement about doing microbiology work with presenting some data from it? Preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, or anything that has been replicated.

You haven't pointed out a false statement at all. Is not atheism in this country protected under the First Amendment? If it's not a religion, then it shouldn't be afforded any protections at all. Rather, it's become a fairly dominant religious force in our society. If it walks like a duck and quacks like one, I typically call it a duck.

As for my research: How exactly am I to get published in a peer-reviewed journal? I'm not a biologist. I'm a nurse who made an observation and reported it. You have yet to prove it's not consciousness we are seeing in the paramecium. And by all accounts it looks like it. Again with the duck thing.

You atheists get all bent out of shape over the parameciums. Isn't it funny how your whole world-view rests on whether the smallest animal in the world is conscious or not? One little thing goes one way or the other and the whole world falls apart.

And that supposed psychologist? I am an expert on that. If he is one, and it's true I can't be sure, but if he is, he acts awfully unprofessional about it. In fact, go back and check it out: he uses his supposed credentials to insult me. That's how he reveals he's a psychologist, but using it to insult me--dude. You really think that guy is a Ph.D. or Psy.D. He'd have to show me his license before I'd believe it. Oh, and without a state license, he is not a clincial psychologist. :upset: Anyone who wants can contact me through my blog or I think I have an e-mail link in my profile. If you don't ban me, I'll come back and start a new topic in a week or so. The great big theory of (g)! :verysad:. In addition, unelss your theory can be tested by professionals who actually study these things, and can be verified over and over, it still can be ignored. EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

Quote from: "Cite134"EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Cite134"EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

Could you explain (B) a little more?  I'm seeing  god=universe and universe=god.  They seem like the exact same thing.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

An atheist might worship and praise science, however atheism has nothing to worship/praise by it's very definition. The atheism/theism dichotomy is much different from Religion Vs. Science. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, those who label themselves as an atheist are simply saying that they don't believe that any of the proposed gods are real. That aside an atheist could be religious, Scientology is technically an atheistic religion in that they believe in an alien and not a god, but that is not a requirement to take on the atheist label. Just as believing in all the Greek/Roman gods is not a requirement for being a theist. In fact atheism/theism/atheist/theist say nothing about religion at all.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

Can you explain the slight difference and how the order in which you place the items in the statement changes the concept?

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Cite134"EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

A. I don't remember "praising" science. Not sure how to do that. Respectfully, I think you are wrong in that aspect.
B. Sounds the same to me, but okay, I'm an atheist. That's fine.

I must say though...your theory did have me thinking about the true function of consciousness. I will continue to ponder

I don't have a shrine for Science in my closet.  :(

But really Edward, I would be interested in seeing you address this from my last post:

QuoteThe Magic Pudding’s satirical antenna remark is actually quite astute in that: if you concede certain things are not made to receive consciousness from some external force while others are (especially when some protozoa do and others don't), why then implement the external force at all? It’s not necessary. It means there’s something already going on inside of the organism which accounts for this.

How can any of this possibly be proof of a [g]od?

[quote="humblesmurph]

First, I haven't met ALL clinical psychologists, what does that have to do with anything?  The three I have dealt with seemed to adhere to a more respectful protocol.  The three I've dealt with wouldn't (i believe) think it appropriate to dress up insults as clinical observations.  It was reasonable for Edward to challenge your claim (of being a clinical psychologist) given the unprofessional manner in which you proffered your professional opinion.

I will not be bullied.  Your response has the tone of "how dare you? I have a PHd!!!"  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I take it. You are attacking me because I took exception to your use of the phrase "as a clinical psychologist".  I stand by my claim.  It was wrong.  You didn't simply say he lacked evidence.  You insinuated that Edward was delusional and full of shit. You presented this as a professional opinion. You claim you admitted as much on another post.  

Unfortunately, redundancies happen on boards such as these.  I missed your apology (if you did in fact apologize to Edward).  I missed you being warned by a mod (if there was a warning on this thread).  It doesn't make my opinion any less valid.   Everything you post is just your opinion as well.  Almost every post in this thread is about pointing out Edward's "failings".  I've tried to be constructive in this thread.  I've tried to direct Edward towards a more fruitful discourse without insulting the man.  

Why couldn't you just say. "Hey dude, that's old.  I've already admitted that I was wrong" and leave it at that?  Why attack me?[/quote]

Dude, you have a thin skin, and I'll leave it at that.....

As for you telling ME that my post was somehow bullying you, that's YOUR problem not mine.  Dude, ease up, no need to single me out, unless you are up for a debate, but this is pretty much just being snarky, so good day.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"First I want to thank humblesmurph for his (or her) brave defense of me and of himself. It is impressive to see someone stand up against a group. It kind of restores ones hope and faith in humanity. Google for it. Just search "training paramecium" and take your pick.

In other words, paramecium have memory, too. They still have no central nervous system, mind you, but they apparently have volition, memory, and some measure of IQ. I was convined by seeing what appears to be willful movement. So, I never looked any further. And, I've never conducted those experiments myself. But apparently there's no need to.

Now, I know what you're thinking (and it has nothing to do with ESP on my part). You're thinking there must be something about the cell that produces consciousness. Because if consciousness is external to the organism (as precognition all but proves), then we aren't just dirt clods.  :crazy:

But have no fear. All this does is confirm that we really are just dirt clods...until we die. Then the dirt clod dissolves and all that's left is the consciousness we had before we were born...hell, before the universe was born. But I'm getting all giddy now.  

I'm just wondering if when we die we think to ourselves, "That was interesting...hmmm, let's do that shit again!" and then we wake up in someone else, or create someone else we can wake up in.

I can't help it. I speculate at times.

Oh, and PS to the psychologists out there who think I'm suffering from delusions of grandure. Yeah, from your perspective, I probably am. But my papers, my theory, my book, my speeches, whatever may come aren't going to get done if I take your advice. Oh, wait a minute. You're an atheist psychologist...maybe you don't want me to get those things done. Or am I just being paranoid now?

Look, just keep your hands off my mental illness. I'm still using it.

Yeah, well, as some of you are trying to challenge my credentials, I'll tell you what.. when you want to stop by my house in the UP of Michigan, I'll share my diplomas and my STATE LICENSE from both SC and Michigan, until then, take it or leave it.... The comment was ONE comment, based on MY opinion of the post.  Attacking me and my credentials are NOT presenting your point.  AS I said before, you really haven't presented anything at all, so keep trying.... and I retract my apology, since you don't seem to be able to be gracious enough to accept it.  Ta ta, and THIS is my final comment on the subject.... Good luck.

...PMs maybe?  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"...PMs maybe?   :yay:

Hahaha, I didn't even notice that it looks like PMS...Ooops!  Now I've gone and made an ass out of myself.  Again.  Dammit!  

To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

Quote from: "Martin TK"Dude, you have a thin skin, and I'll leave it at that.....

As for you telling ME that my post was somehow bullying you, that's YOUR problem not mine.  Dude, ease up, no need to single me out, unless you are up for a debate, but this is pretty much just being snarky, so good day.

I tried to be respectful.  I hoped you would do the same.  There was nothing "snarky" about my post.  I understand that you probably worked very hard to get where you are.  I never suggested that you weren't who/what you said you were.  I took exception to something you posted and I told you why.  If you'd like to hold a debate to discuss why it may or may not be appropriate for a clinical psychologist to make the comments you made to Edward, I'm all for it.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Martin TK"Dude, you have a thin skin, and I'll leave it at that.....

As for you telling ME that my post was somehow bullying you, that's YOUR problem not mine.  Dude, ease up, no need to single me out, unless you are up for a debate, but this is pretty much just being snarky, so good day.

I tried to be respectful.  I hoped you would do the same.  There was nothing "snarky" about my post.  I understand that you probably worked very hard to get where you are.  I never suggested that you weren't who/what you said you were.  I took exception to something you posted and I told you why.  If you'd like to hold a debate to discuss why it may or may not be appropriate for a clinical psychologist to make the comments you made to Edward, I'm all for it.

No thanks, I tend to like to keep my debates less personal, more religious.  I assure you, I don't need someone attempting to give me an ethics lesson on what is or is not appropriate as a clinician.  Thanks again, ta ta....

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

Oh, I agree with you there.... I think his taking my statements as somehow bullying is the only thing I might have taken as somewhat challenging.  I'm done now anyway, it's starting to decay into silliness to me.  I want to debate the issues of religion, not my credentials or his experiences with clinicians, this is getting way out of hand for no reason.

Peace.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Be that as it may, I have recently found out (and I feel like a fool for being so late), but psychologists and microbiologists and psychologists who happen to like microbiology have been training paramecium since at least 1957. I have two scientific papers sitting on my desk right now. I'm not going to take the time to reference them because it's actually a common experiment and there are results all over :blink:

So now I can't help wondering if you would care to extend your hypothesis to the point of saying that at least some plants also have extra-corporeal consciousness?  I think that it would be a logical step, but might invite even more ridicule than your present three rationales.  Pantheist, monist or panentheist would say that of course plants possess a spark of the all-pervading non-physical consciousness.  And this article might be considered by them to be proof of that vision of the cosmos.  Whether they could ever marshal enough evidence to convince skeptics, is another question entirely.  I'll keep looking for a free version of a paper on training paramecium while you ponder plant consciousness.

Quote from: "Recusant"So now I can't help wondering if you would care to extend your hypothesis to the point of saying that at least some plants also have extra-corporeal consciousness?  I think that it would be a logical step, but might invite even more ridicule than your present three rationales.  Pantheist, monist or panentheist would say that of course plants possess a spark of the all-pervading non-physical consciousness.  And this article might be considered by them to be proof of that vision of the cosmos.  Whether they could ever marshal enough evidence to convince skeptics, is another question entirely.  I'll keep looking for a free version of a paper on training paramecium while you ponder plant consciousness.

Yeah, I ran into the same problem with the subscription thing, but that was probably for "Food or Training in Paramecium, Science, 27 Dec 1957" But that's not the best paper I've come across. I'm reading one now, and I'm not sure I should mention it, because I haven't read the conclusions yet, but it's a pdf. of

DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN PARAMECIA (P. caudatum)
Harvard L. Armus, Amber R. Montgomery, and Jenny L. Jellison
University of Toledo
The Psychological Record, 2006, 56, 489-498

I don't have the web site but cut and paste into a google DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN PARAMECIA and it comes right up.

As far as learning in plants. I am curious about that because I believe that the monistic substance of the universe involves consciousness, but I'm not sure how at this point. Perhaps it is the same way dreams are made but on a higher order. In a dream, everything is made out of consciousness. Water is water, the ground is the ground. Air is air, etc., but it's all consciousness. But to speculate at this point is to get ahead of myself.

Quote from: "Martin TK"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

Oh, I agree with you there.... I think his taking my statements as somehow bullying is the only thing I might have taken as somewhat challenging.  I'm done now anyway, it's starting to decay into silliness to me.  I want to debate the issues of religion, not my credentials or his experiences with clinicians, this is getting way out of hand for no reason.

Peace.

You know what? I think you probably are a clincical psychologist. I just don't think you have any credibility anymore. You don't want to be lectured on ethics? Then don't violate them, dude.

Edward,
I would be interested in your definition of consciousness.  It appears that you use it when you mean thought.  Dreams are part of a thought process.  How do you differentiate between consciousness and thought or for that matter, how do you differentiate between consciousness and awareness?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Could you explain (B) a little more?  I'm seeing  god=universe and universe=god.  They seem like the exact same thing.

True. If one uses mathematical terminology, I did use the word "is" and that typically means "equals." My mistake.

I should have used set terminology instead and said that the universe is a proper subset of god and god is a proper superset of the universe.

So, God is not "just" the universe, but everything the constitutes the universe is of the substance of God.

Of course, I want to reiterate that I have two definitions for the word God. The first is (g), a mathematical symbol, and that is the superset I mentioned above, the monistic whole, consciousness intersecting eternity. The second is "God" which is a psychological construct we make in order to channel, or commune, or realize (g). The capitalized God is our Lord and Savior. This is the one we pray to, and the one who talks to us. This is who we fight and die for, live for, and in whom we derive things like purpose and mission. He is indeed greater than we are, because the whole of our personality is a proper subset of our God. And God is individual to each and everyone of us. Everyone, regardless of religion or atheistic stance has a God.

Thanks for asking.

Quote from: "Cite134"I must say though...your theory did have me thinking about the true function of consciousness. I will continue to ponder :hmm:

Quote from: "notself"Edward,
I would be interested in your definition of consciousness.  It appears that you use it when you mean thought.  Dreams are part of a thought process.  How do you differentiate between consciousness and thought or for that matter, how do you differentiate between consciousness and awareness?

I believe dreams are a model that we can use to understand creation and consciousness. A dream seems to be the same as reality but a lower order of it. Take a glass in a dream. If you smash it, you will get shards, and if you smash them you will get dust, and if you smash it you will get atoms, and if you go even further, eventually you will only find yourself.

Consciousness manifests as awareness and thought and will, but I believe it is possible to prove it is also the substance of the universe. But I can't prove that at this time. God will have to provide me with some kind of new insight in order to model it.

I mean, there are problems: why should consciousness form into the universe as we know it? Why should it exist at all? Why isn't nothingness simply the state of things. One thing I know, "nothing" is impossible. There is no such thing as "nothing." And proving that will be very important to me, if I can do it. Because it may be the case that the simplest imaginable state is nothingness, but if that's impossible, perhaps a necessary consciousness must be what has to fill the gap.

The mystery of it all!

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"I believe dreams are a model that we can use to understand creation and consciousness. A dream seems to be the same as reality but a lower order of it. Take a glass in a dream. If you smash it, you will get shards, and if you smash them you will get dust, and if you smash it you will get atoms, and if you go even further, eventually you will only find yourself.

What?? I can't remember ever having smashed a glass in a dream but if I did I'm sure I wouldn't continue smashing the shards etc until I was left finding 'myself'. Maybe I'm taking this too literally but you've completely lost me here..

I'm at work, so unfortunately there is little time for a proper response. However,

QuoteA primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

"Necessarilly existed"..? How is such a force necessary? And why does it have to be conscious?

Edward,

The mistake holding you back is that you believe everything you think.  The proper order is to hypothesize, test, re-test, define, and then perhaps believe.  In order to hypothesize you have to review all literature and studies on the subject not only those that agree with you.  You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

It is quite possible that consciousness is more than one state.  When one is in a coma one is declared unconscious.  When one is stupid with drugs or alcohol, it is possible to be called conscious even though this consciousness is so impaired as to border on the unconscious.  There is consciousness of the higher order, that which responds to others and consciousness of a lower order that keeps heart and lungs working even though the brain may be so damaged that one is unaware of one's surroundings.  In any case, consciousness has never been observed outside a living being.  If consciousness were an underlying force of the universe, then rocks should show evidence of consciousness.  

One definition in my dictionary calls consciousness "an epiphenomenon or dependent accompaniment of physical existence".  What makes you think that consciousness is a precursor rather the immanent property of life?

Quote from: "Asmodean"I'm at work, so unfortunately there is little time for a proper response. However,

QuoteA primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

"Necessarilly existed"..? How is such a force necessary? And why does it have to be conscious?

Indeed, how on earth is that necessary if not even all protozoa exhibit "consciousness"? This seems very similar to the train of thought Intelligent Design follows.

[spoiler:3oemwdyx]Because I remain so eager for a response to this:

QuoteThe Magic Pudding’s satirical antenna remark is actually quite astute in that: if you concede certain things are not made to receive consciousness from some external force while others are (especially when some protozoa do and others don't), why then implement the external force at all? It’s not necessary. It means there’s something already going on inside of the organism which accounts for this.

[/spoiler:3oemwdyx]

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Martin TK"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

Oh, I agree with you there.... I think his taking my statements as somehow bullying is the only thing I might have taken as somewhat challenging.  I'm done now anyway, it's starting to decay into silliness to me.  I want to debate the issues of religion, not my credentials or his experiences with clinicians, this is getting way out of hand for no reason.

Peace.

You know what? I think you probably are a clincical psychologist. I just don't think you have any credibility anymore. You don't want to be lectured on ethics? Then don't violate them, dude.

I'll keep that in mind, and coming from YOU, it means SO MUCH MORE... thanks...  

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "notself"Edward,
I would be interested in your definition of consciousness.  It appears that you use it when you mean thought.  Dreams are part of a thought process.  How do you differentiate between consciousness and thought or for that matter, how do you differentiate between consciousness and awareness?

I believe dreams are a model that we can use to understand creation and consciousness. A dream seems to be the same as reality but a lower order of it. Take a glass in a dream. If you smash it, you will get shards, and if you smash them you will get dust, and if you smash it you will get atoms, and if you go even further, eventually you will only find yourself.

Consciousness manifests as awareness and thought and will, but I believe it is possible to prove it is also the substance of the universe. But I can't prove that at this time. God will have to provide me with some kind of new insight in order to model it.

I mean, there are problems: why should consciousness form into the universe as we know it? Why should it exist at all? Why isn't nothingness simply the state of things. One thing I know, "nothing" is impossible. There is no such thing as "nothing." And proving that will be very important to me, if I can do it. Because it may be the case that the simplest imaginable state is nothingness, but if that's impossible, perhaps a necessary consciousness must be what has to fill the gap.

The mystery of it all!

I guess the mystery for me is trying to keep up here.  Dreams are a model by which we can understand creation and consciousness??? I'm not following you.  Can you control what you dream to the point of smashing a glass into some state of finding yourself??  I'm just not getting it... what study or testing are you using for this, theory???

What Gaps are you trying to fill?  I'm sorry that you seem to have a bad taste for me, and I'm good with it, but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here, so until you can do more, in a more logical manner, I'm done... Thanks for trying, though... Peace, DUDE...

Quote from: "Martin TK"but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here.

If you can't follow the discussion, that's not my fault.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Martin TK"but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here.

If you can't follow the discussion, that's not my fault.

Actually, communication is a dual responsibility. You cannot complain of Germans not understanding your message if you speak Portuguese.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Martin TK"but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here.

If you can't follow the discussion, that's not my fault. :livelong:

Quote from: "notself"Edward,

The mistake holding you back is that you believe everything you think.  The proper order is to hypothesize, test, re-test, define, and then perhaps believe.  In order to hypothesize you have to review all literature and studies on the subject not only those that agree with you.  You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

Okay. But one has to start somewhere. In order to talk about God, we have to start with a definition. I proposed a definition--assuming we're talking about the original post. Now everyone is all upset because like little birds wanting worms they are begging for proof, proof, proof, and I'm not even sure my definition is right.

I know there is consciousness. I have every reason to believe it exists externally to life forms. I have every reason to believe that non-living matter can't produce it. So, I reason that it is a primordial force. I know that before the universe existed there was a state of eternity. I reason that if consciousness is not created by physical matter that it probably existed before the universe. Thus we have the simplest possible state of being: consciousness in eternity. That's where I'm at.

Now, I suppose you want me to prove what the universe was like before it existed. I'm not even sure what kind of proof that would be. What I intend to do is propose a theory for how it was and how the universe came to be from it. I intend to model that mathematically and explore the implications of it philosophically.

As for proof. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. I say consciousness exists outside central nervous systems. You say prove it. I show you paramecium. You say that's not consciousness. I show you studies of behavioral training is parameciums, you say that's not proof of anything. I can't win. So, I'm not playing the game.

The bottom line is proof is in the eye of the beholder. What you belive, you assume is proved.

QuoteOne definition in my dictionary calls consciousness "an epiphenomenon or dependent accompaniment of physical existence".  What makes you think that consciousness is a precursor rather the immanent property of life?

It can't be an epiphenomenon. An epiphenomenon would be like a waterfall that makes a rainbow. Kill the waterfall, and the rainbow simply fades away. Some people think that's what consciousness is like, but in order to take that model to its logical implication, you would have to assume that the rainbow not only comes from the waterfall, but creates the waterfall to begin with. Epiphenominalism always, inevitably, in one way or another, no matter how you look at it, puts the cart impossibly before the horse.

Is that the whiff of snark I smell?  Come now.  Can you not admit that your comparison to dreams and what-not might beggar imagination?  I sure in hell don't dream that way.  

Put it in terms a simple rube like me might understand.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Is that the whiff of snark I smell?  Come now.  Can you not admit that your comparison to dreams and what-not might beggar imagination?  I sure in hell don't dream that way.  

Put it in terms a simple rube like me might understand.

I dream every night, all night long. I'm not sure everyone else does. But surely someone else does. I have studied my dreams very closely, and I assume other people have similar dreams that I do. Can I prove it? No. I just assume it to be true.

In my dreams, The ground is the ground, the air is just like air. A car is just like a car, etc. And yet all of those things, if (IF) I were to break them down in the dream, all the way to sub atomic particles, or whatever, and beyond. Eventually, I would find only myself. And it would be from me (my mind that is) that everythings finds its substance in my dream, as well as the other people in it, who seem to be different than me.

I therefore think that a dream may be a model for the real world, but the dream is of a lower order. Or, perhaps a dream is just as real as the real world. We don't stay in dreams long enough to find out.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Okay. But one has to start somewhere. In order to talk about God, we have to start with a definition. I proposed a definition--assuming we're talking about the original post. Now everyone is all upset because like little birds wanting worms they are begging for proof, proof, proof, and I'm not even sure my definition is right.

Nor are we sure, thus the requests for clarification.

QuoteI know there is consciousness. I have every reason to believe it exists externally to life forms. I have every reason to believe that non-living matter can't produce it. So, I reason that it is a primordial force. I know that before the universe existed there was a state of eternity.

Time, being one dimension of our reality, unfolded with the three spatial dimensions.  Therefore, any concept of "eternity" is meaningless.   And how did you come to "know" this, anyway?

QuoteI reason that if consciousness is not created by physical matter that it probably existed before the universe. Thus we have the simplest possible state of being: consciousness in eternity. That's where I'm at.

Bold, if not big, "if".  Your hypothesis falters when you consider that consciousness has only been shown to exist atop a material substrate.  Can you point me to one example of consciousness that doesn't have a physical base?  Even your paramecia are physical.

QuoteNow, I suppose you want me to prove what the universe was like before it existed.

No, even I know that Planck-time renders that question unanswerable.

QuoteI'm not even sure what kind of proof that would be. What I intend to do is propose a theory for how it was and how the universe came to be from it. I intend to model that mathematically and explore the implications of it philosophically.

Ugh, philosophy.  Surely you realize that thoughts must bow to reality, and not vice-versa?

QuoteAs for proof. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. I say consciousness exists outside central nervous systems. You say prove it. I show you paramecium. You say that's not consciousness. I show you studies of behavioral training is parameciums, you say that's not proof of anything. I can't win. So, I'm not playing the game.

Well, I don't think of this as a game, but a discussion.  If you refuse to discuss, however, you lose all chance of convincing those who don't agree.  Remember this passage if you ever complain that people won't listen to you:  "So, I'm not playing that game."

QuoteThe bottom line is proof is in the eye of the beholder. What you believe, you assume is proved.

Truer words were never spoken.  Physician, heal thyself.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Is that the whiff of snark I smell?  Come now.  Can you not admit that your comparison to dreams and what-not might beggar imagination?  I sure in hell don't dream that way.  

Put it in terms a simple rube like me might understand.

I dream every night, all night long. I'm not sure everyone else does. But surely someone else does. I have studied my dreams very closely, and I assume other people have similar dreams that I do. Can I prove it? No. I just assume it to be true.

In my dreams, The ground is the ground, the air is just like air. A car is just like a car, etc. And yet all of those things, if (IF) I were to break them down in the dream, all the way to sub atomic particles, or whatever, and beyond. Eventually, I would find only myself. And it would be from me (my mind that is) that everythings finds its substance in my dream, as well as the other people in it, who seem to be different than me.

I therefore think that a dream may be a model for the real world, but the dream is of a lower order. Or, perhaps a dream is just as real as the real world. We don't stay in dreams long enough to find out.

As I said, I don't dream that way, and frankly, I don't see the relevance.  Unless you're doing the "butterfly dreaming it's a philosopher" thing.

Come to think of it, even then I don't see the relevance, because at that point it is non-falsifiable.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Martin TK"but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here.

If you can't follow the discussion, that's not my fault. :brick:  :brick:

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"As for proof. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. I say consciousness exists outside central nervous systems. You say prove it. I show you paramecium. You say that's not consciousness. I show you studies of behavioral training is parameciums, you say that's not proof of anything. I can't win. So, I'm not playing the game.

You can't win! Does that mean you're giving up? I have been reading with interest, although you lost me on a few points and I'm still far from convinced on a few more, you have got me thinking about your idea of consciousness.

Fascinating little blighters them parameciums..

I can't see myself buying this car but I'm enjoying the sales pitch

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"As for proof. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. I say consciousness exists outside central nervous systems. You say prove it. I show you paramecium. You say that's not consciousness. I show you studies of behavioral training is parameciums, you say that's not proof of anything. I can't win. So, I'm not playing the game.

Again THIS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. As you yourself have stated, some protozoa exhibit this "consciousness" and others don't. If they need something internally to receive this external sense of consciousness how can this prove anything? It means something from within is already responsible for their consciousness. This alone does not, and cannot, prove the necessity of an external source for their consciousness.

Dude, there's little sense taking Occam's Razor to Jell-O such as this.

Quote from: "George"Fascinating little blighters them parameciums..

I can't see myself buying this car but I'm enjoying the sales pitch

It's a long way from parameciums to Jesus Christ. But if consciousness is external to us, then we have to ask where it comes from. To say it's generated from matter, perhaps as a consequence of sub-atomic physics, is a difficult theory to phathom. It seems rather to be like a force, a primary force, perhaps even more primary than gravity. But what is it?

It seems to have the following attributes: awareness, volition, and memory.

And then when you really start contemplating it, you realize you aren't you. You are just matter, like any other matter. Just like the atheists say. The consciousness however remains and it's more than just you--it's everything. It's God.

I mean we have no other term for it.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Again THIS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. As you yourself have stated, some protozoa exhibit this "consciousness" and others don't. If they need something internally to receive this external sense of consciousness how can this prove anything? It means something from within is already responsible for their consciousness. This alone does not, and cannot, prove the necessity of an external source for their consciousness.

Everything must be prevaded by consciousness to the same degree, or at least proportionately. However, some things have the ability to use consciousness better than others. Some things have senses, muscles, cillia, etc. Some things don't, like trees. All they can do is grow. It would seem the best structure in the world for utilizing consciousness is those creatures that have senses, brains, muscles and skeletons. Humans seem to have the best brains.

That doesn't mean we generate consciousness. It means we are better able to use it. We (along with the other higher mammals) also seem to form a psychological mind to better utilize it.

I must admit, however, at this time, I do not know the way or reason in which a primordial consciousness would begin to form itself into the matter of the universe. When I have that breakthrough, and I am praying for it, that will be the capstone of my theory.

Any brilliant atheists in here have any ideas?

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"It's a long way from parameciums to Jesus Christ. But if consciousness is external to us, then we have to ask where it comes from.

And if it isn't then we don't.

What in the pissing universe are you driving at here?

Quote from: "i_am_i"What in the pissing universe are you driving at here?

Nothing yet, we're still waiting for the car.

It's up on blocks, out back.  It's the one with weeds coming up through the engine compartment.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "George"Fascinating little blighters them parameciums..

I can't see myself buying this car but I'm enjoying the sales pitch :verysad:

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It's up on blocks, out back.  It's the one with weeds coming up through the engine compartment.

LOL!

Quote from: "George"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It's up on blocks, out back.  It's the one with weeds coming up through the engine compartment.

LOL!

I thought Thumpalumpacus was being generous.
It's more like a ambiguously car shaped shadow, cast by a couple of rocks at a certain time of day, viewed by a member of a species evolved to see patterns in the random.

Oh no... it's Edward the Theist. This guy recently got banned from atheistforums.com. I see he's doing nothing different here.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Any brilliant atheists in here have any ideas?

Yup. Science right. Bible wrong.  

Something to consider:  Back in the 60's and 70's bacteria were thought to have "memory".  Later on it was simply the interaction of chemotactic sensing upon those proteins involved in chemotaxis.  No actual memory as we think of it in a central nervous system sense but it did change the way the bacteria react to particular chemicals after its first encounter.  I'm surprised no one had mentioned chemotaxis before.

The thing I keep getting here is this REALLY BIG LOOP of nothingness.  If you question the OP's position you are nothing but an atheist, and it's not HIS fault if you can't keep up... well, I can't keep up, and I really am a pretty well educated fellow.  No, I agree I am NOT a scientist nor am I particularly strong in math and logic, but I do usually have a firm grasp on what is being presented on here.  Right now, I am LOST, so someone catch me up, quick.. please...

 

Quote from: SquidI'm surprised no one had mentioned chemotaxis before.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lol.gif" alt=":)" title="smile" /> I'm not.  None of us involved in this discussion are as informed in the biological sciences as you are.  I, for instance, was not even aware that scientists had tested paramecia for learning before reading Edward the Theist's posts.  The chemotaxis issue is something that I came across in researching the subject, but I only read some abstracts, and was not ready to bring it into the discussion.  However, in the paper (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_NyzI3_U78kJ:listserv.uhd.edu/cgi-bin/wa%3FA3%3Dind0805%26L%3DTBA-L%26E%3Dbase64%26P%3D181131%26B%3D------%253D_Part_5705_33439650.1211320615659%26T%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%3B%2520name%3D%2522paramecium.pdf%2522%26N%3Dparamecium.pdf%26attachment%3Dq+DISCRIMINATION+LEARNING+IN+PARAMECIA&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShwj9X4Z7xghwPLdlY7e82wnUV0md8JtLDbIuCQyLJnv8xfWHohksRlovFLXP27f76DOoFmBm8hl6BLAO1zYadcj776ogzLIsRa2olgxv1S2r8-q4SvwJ8EIkVUjah0I92gkHEG&sig=AHIEtbT_S9TUnQDCirl_O0saXui8dec5Qw) that Edward the Theist referenced, which was published in 2006, there is a description of an attempt to elicit a learned response from paramecia which seems to eliminate the possible effects of chemotaxis.  The conclusion of that paper is that

QuoteFrom "DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN PARAMECIA" by HARVARD L. ARMUS, AMBER R. MONTGOMERY, and JENNY L. JELLISON, of the University of Toledo

"...the results of these two experiments offer evidence that paramecia (P. caudatum) can and did learn a brightness discrimination and that illumination level acted as an acquired or secondary reinforcer."

This is fascinating stuff, but I still do not see any strong evidence that the "consciousness" of the paramecium is non-physical.  Edward the Theist has yet to show a good case (or any evidence that I can recall) for why the physical structures known to function as the paramecium equivalent to a nervous system are inadequate to that task.

Hmmm, I don't see anywhere in the paper if they utilized deionized water in the created medium, it was distilled but not deionized.  The thing is that shocking the medium will effect the water (even shooting photons through it as with a light) and it has already been shown that not only chemotaxis but ion sensitivity are important for paramecia motility especially in regard to Ca2+ dependent proteins in the cellular membrane.  I also ran across another follow up paper (by the lead author from the first paper) on this line of experimentation where they attempted to induce learning of a discrete action instead of making them stay in one place away from a cathode, it was unsuccessful.  Therefore it wouldn't be too unprecedented to think that the paramecium reacted based upon environment and did not display what one would think of as "learning".

I didn't know about it, thanks for the one-a-day.

Anyhow, I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate so I'm going to leave it at that.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"Again THIS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. As you yourself have stated, some protozoa exhibit this "consciousness" and others don't. If they need something internally to receive this external sense of consciousness how can this prove anything? It means something from within is already responsible for their consciousness. This alone does not, and cannot, prove the necessity of an external source for their consciousness.

Everything must be prevaded by consciousness to the same degree, or at least proportionately. However, some things have the ability to use consciousness better than others. Some things have senses, muscles, cillia, etc. Some things don't, like trees. All they can do is grow. It would seem the best structure in the world for utilizing consciousness is those creatures that have senses, brains, muscles and skeletons. Humans seem to have the best brains.

That doesn't mean we generate consciousness. It means we are better able to use it. We (along with the other higher mammals) also seem to form a psychological mind to better utilize it.

I must admit, however, at this time, I do not know the way or reason in which a primordial consciousness would begin to form itself into the matter of the universe. When I have that breakthrough, and I am praying for it, that will be the capstone of my theory.

Any brilliant atheists in here have any ideas?

This still doesn't provide any evidence to suggest we don't generate it. There is no proof of an external source.

Quote from: "Squid"Anyhow, I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate so I'm going to leave it at that.

Ah... You keep promising yourself that too..? Some debates, they have the gravity of black holes though, do they not..?  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Dude, there's little sense taking Occam's Razor to Jell-O such as this.

Did I take a sledgehammer to a peanut? Because I still don't think the nut's cracking.

Quote from: "Martin TK"The thing I keep getting here is this REALLY BIG LOOP of nothingness....  
Right now, I am LOST, so someone catch me up, quick.. please...  

You don't need to catch up it is as you say, a big loop.
Just stay still for a while and the nothing will come back around and you can jump on-board.

Quote from: "J-Buc"Oh no... it's Edward the Theist. This guy recently got banned from atheistforums.com. I see he's doing nothing different here.

Well he's got a fresh chance here, he'll get banned here if he breaks the rules of this forum. We may not agree with his ideas but there still his ideas.

Quote from: "notself"You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

A thought:
Take "underlying consciousness" and replace it with "fundamental particles with the form of vibrating strings of energy."

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "notself"You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

A thought:
Take "underlying consciousness" and replace it with "fundamental particles with the form of vibrating strings of energy."

Great, you still have the same problem I do.

Quote from: "Edward the Theist"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "notself"You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

A thought:
Take "underlying consciousness" and replace it with "fundamental particles with the form of vibrating strings of energy."

Great, you still have the same problem I do.

I personally think that it´s just a bunch of cool mathematics and probably not much more, so no.
What would even make you think that I was treating string theory the same way that you treat this "(g)od" theory of yours? I just pointed out that often ideas of all kinds are explored thoroughly despite having little or nothing to back them.

Incedentally, what is an od? This isn´t so helpful http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OD)

Odic force? Ã"ðr?

OOO, Ã"ðr´s wife is VERY cool.