What if God is weak?

[Dontaskme]

No one has ever seen a mind...its just a known concept, believed to be here/there.

Nobody has ever seen time.
Nobody has ever seen energy.
Nobody has ever seen gravity.

It's just taken for granted, but its all conceptual imagined belief, NOT ACTUAL.

It is just a USEFUL concept. Like time, energy and gravity.

The actual is the only real reality, reality without a concept.

Reality is a concept.

In the story, yes, there are concepts, but they are not real...only the actual is real.

You have no access to the 'rea'l except through your mind. So, I guess you are stuck - like the rest of us.

Nope, no one to be stuck...no fictional concept can be known without its complimentary opposite existing in the exact same moment, namely, here now nowhere, this direct actual manifestation manifesting all at once one without a second.

What is real without relating to unreal?..what is unreality without reality?

Nothing is real or fake, and everything is real and fake. When nothing is known, everything is known.



.

[TimeSeeker]

Nope, no one to be stuck...no fictional concept can be known without its complimentary opposite existing in the exact same moment, namely, here now nowhere, this direct actual manifestation manifesting all at once one without a second.

What is real without relating to unreal?..what is unreality without reality?

Nothing is real or fake, and everything is real and fake. When nothing is known, everything is known.

And yet you make decisions to NOT breathe underwater

[Dontaskme]

Nope, no one to be stuck...no fictional concept can be known without its complimentary opposite existing in the exact same moment, namely, here now nowhere, this direct actual manifestation manifesting all at once one without a second.

What is real without relating to unreal?..what is unreality without reality?

Nothing is real or fake, and everything is real and fake. When nothing is known, everything is known.

And yet you make decisions to NOT breathe underwater

This is just a programme within the entity to act in this way...all I'm saying is that no one is acting, its just nature applying itself to act as and through the action figure...no one is doing anything...and yet nothing is left undone, including holding ones breath underwater.

There is no separate I doing this action. If there was I would be able to hold my breath long enough to survive. If it was my breath and I had ultimate control over it...which I haven't ..there is no one controlling anything.

.

[TimeSeeker]

This is just a programme within the entity to act in this way...

Yes. You have a survival instinct.

all I'm saying is that no one is acting, its just nature applying itself to act as and through the action figure...

So now you are saying that Nature is dualistic?

One aspect of nature (a bear) is programmed to kill another aspect of nature (a human). Because a bear is programmed to eat.
And a human will fight back because a human is programmed to survive.

Congratulations. You have equivocated all of natural selection

[Dontaskme]

Congratulations. You have equivocated all of natural selection

There is only life interacting with itself.

It's all alone with itself which is infinite in form.

.

[TimeSeeker]

There is only life interacting with itself.

Most of the life that interacts with itself doesn't make proclamations about itself in English

Bears don't care about narrating their existence. Only humans do.

[seeds]

There is absolutely nothing about the mysterious essence of life and consciousness that can be reduced to atoms and quantum wavicles...

That's magical thinking - argument from ignorance. We do not need to reduce consciousness to atoms/quarks Brains can be reduces to atoms/quarks. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains, so need to synthesize consciousness from neuroscientific knowledge...

I have no problem in thinking that consciousness is an emergent property of brains.

Consciousness is NOT an emergent property of brains. I
The statement that consciousness comes from brains is nothing more than a flimsy metaphysical assumption that collapses upon further metaphysical examination. Of course most scientifically minded people ignore metaphysics which produces sloppy science at best.

Agreed. It’s sloppy thinking.

Reflex and Ramu,

After reviewing some of the posts in this thread, I did not want your comments to go unaddressed.

Now I am not suggesting that I cannot be wrong, but keep in mind that I believe that the entire universe is literally alive, and that everything that we consider to be physical matter is absolutely saturated with the life essence of a higher consciousness...

...(in precisely the same way that our dreams are saturated with our own life essence).

Therefore, what I am suggesting is that it is the unique configuration of a brain that causes the life essence...

(again, an essence that is already imbued within the underlying fabric of the brain itself)

...to somehow be drawn-forth and focused into triggering into existence a new individualization of consciousness. And in the case of a human consciousness, we are talking about a new eternal soul – a “seed-like” offshoot of the universal Soul.

Therefore, it is in that particular context that consciousness appears to be an “emergent property” of a brain.

Needless to say, I am sure that whatever TimeSeeker has in mind, it is more in line with hardcore materialism.

(P.S., if you guys have any alternative suggestions as to how a new human consciousness is awakened into existence, then I’d love to hear them.)
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is absolutely nothing about the mysterious essence of life and consciousness that can be reduced to atoms and quantum wavicles...

That's magical thinking - argument from ignorance. We do not need to reduce consciousness to atoms/quarks Brains can be reduces to atoms/quarks. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains, so need to synthesize consciousness from neuroscientific knowledge...

I have no problem in thinking that consciousness is an emergent property of brains.

Consciousness is NOT an emergent property of brains. I
The statement that consciousness comes from brains is nothing more than a flimsy metaphysical assumption that collapses upon further metaphysical examination. Of course most scientifically minded people ignore metaphysics which produces sloppy science at best.

Agreed. It’s sloppy thinking.

Reflex and Ramu,

After reviewing some of the posts in this thread, I did not want your comments to go unaddressed.

Now I am not suggesting that I cannot be wrong, but keep in mind that I believe that the entire universe is literally alive, and that everything that we consider to be physical matter is absolutely saturated with the life essence of a higher consciousness...

...(in precisely the same way that our dreams are saturated with our own life essence).

Therefore, what I am suggesting is that it is the unique configuration of a brain that causes the life essence...

(again, an essence that is already imbued within the underlying fabric of the brain itself)

...to somehow be drawn-forth and focused into triggering into existence a new individualization of consciousness. And in the case of a human consciousness, we are talking about a new eternal soul – a “seed-like” offshoot of the universal Soul.

Therefore, it is in that particular context that consciousness appears to be an “emergent property” of a brain.

Needless to say, I am sure that whatever TimeSeeker has in mind, it is more in line with hardcore materialism.

(P.S., if you guys have any alternative suggestions as to how a new human consciousness is awakened into existence, then I’d love to hear them.)
_______

Your above views of there must be something i.e. "the life essence of a higher consciousness" is triggered by a defense mechanism to soothe an inherent cognitive dissonance arising from an existential crisis.

Note:
"No-I" NonDualism is a Defense Mechanism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25259

Note Wittgenstein's
'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'

Thus one cannot jump into some conclusion like there must be "the life essence of a higher consciousness."

Note also the most significant benefits of jumping to such a conclusion is merely a psychological soothing of a 'disturbed' [subliminal] mind.

[seeds]

Your above views of there must be something i.e. "the life essence of a higher consciousness" is triggered by a defense mechanism to soothe an inherent cognitive dissonance arising from an existential crisis.

You seem to be presenting yourself as a classic example of someone who believes that just because you yourself have not experienced anything that would point to the existence of a transcendent level of reality, then neither has anyone else.

Now look at what you’ve done, you have forced me to quote an old bard:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Note:
"No-I" NonDualism is a Defense Mechanism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25259

Are you having trouble finding participants in one of your conversations?

My particular take on reality is the antithesis of nondualism and the “No-I” nonsense. So what exactly is your point in referring me to that particular thread?
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your above views of there must be something i.e. "the life essence of a higher consciousness" is triggered by a defense mechanism to soothe an inherent cognitive dissonance arising from an existential crisis.

You seem to be presenting yourself as a classic example of someone who believes that just because you yourself have not experienced anything that would point to the existence of a transcendent level of reality, then neither has anyone else.

Now look at what you’ve done, you have forced me to quote an old bard:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Seem?? yes, only seemingly.

I was a theist for many years and have had experienced various altered states of consciousness, e.g. cosmic consciousness, and the likes.
I realized via extensive readings and reflections these including the inclination for theism are all deceptions in the mind of the empirical self to soothe an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Note:
"No-I" NonDualism is a Defense Mechanism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25259

Are you having trouble finding participants in one of your conversations?

My particular take on reality is the antithesis of nondualism and the “No-I” nonsense. So what exactly is your point in referring me to that particular thread?

The idea of God or higher consciousness which are transcendental and beyond empirical proofs are also triggered by the existential defense mechanism within the brain and mind of the empirical self to soothe an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

That is happening along the same continuum of the point within that link, albeit of a more serious degree.

[TimeSeeker]

The idea of God or higher consciousness which are transcendental and beyond empirical proofs...

That depends on what you consider to be valid empirical proof.

The scientific method uses ensamble averages ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_ ... _mechanics ) it tells you about COLLECTIVE experiences. It does not tell you about the world line ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line ) of the individual datapoints.

You need ergodic theory to unite the two perspectives. And through an ergodic lense I find plenty of empirical proof for the transcendental hypothesis.

[surreptitious57]

Nobody has ever seen time
Nobody has ever seen energy
Nobody has ever seen gravity

You experience time
You are made of energy
You experience gravity

[TimeSeeker]

You experience time
You are made of energy
You experience gravity

Great. But until I can measure (quantify) my own experiences (yay SI units!) they are not useful to me beyond basic predictions.

And so you've given me a non-answer because science has two conceptions for:
* Time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
* Gravity: https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20161201/
* Energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

So am I experiencing a GR universe or a Quantum universe? Both? Neither?

The elusive Toe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

[surreptitious57]

You experience time
You are made of energy
You experience gravity

But until I can measure ( quantify ) my own experiences ( yay SI units ! ) my experiences are not useful to me beyond basic predictions

And so you ve given me a non answer because science has two conceptions for :
Time : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
Gravity : https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20161201/
Energy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

So am I experiencing a GR universe or a Quantum universe ? Both ? Neither ?

The elusive Toe : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Time is the passing of an event or the distance between events
And it can be objectively measured using the scientific method

The problem regarding the arrow of time and why it only travels in one direction is an entirely separate matter

Newtonian gravity is universal and can be demonstrated by dropping a heavier than air object on to the ground
And general relativity is responsible for the Earth orbiting the Sun and that also is an observable phenomenon

You are experiencing a quantum universe because the fundamental units of matter are quantum [ electrons / quarks ]

[TimeSeeker]

Time is the passing of an event or the distance between events
And it can be objectively measured using the scientific method

Now there is an illusion. WHICH scientific method? There isn't only one.

The one that conceptualizes 'prediction' as time+N (N of what?) e.g it ASSUMES the arrow of time is broken in the Quantum world thanks to entanglement.

Distance between events? In space-time - that assumes a GR universe already! Some conceptions suggests that spacetime is emergent, not fundamental.

The problem regarding the arrow of time and why it only travels in one direction is an entirely separate matter

There are no "separate matters" unless you are rooting for this interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worl ... rpretation

Newtonian gravity is universal and can be demonstrated by dropping a heavier than air object on to the ground

But it can't be demonstrate by dropping quarks on the 'ground' Also - you don't need air. Gravity works just fine in space.

So I guess your definition of 'universal' needs some adjustments.

You are experiencing a quantum universe because the fundamental units of matter are quantum [ electrons / quarks ]

And yet you start with GR assumptions and can't resolve the paradox between quantum and Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity