In fact, a recent disagreement between two high priests over how to chant undocumented opcodes led to a bit of friction the other day, which ended in accusations of heresy, threads mysteriously disappearing and a couple of members leaving to form their own breakaway faction. Thankfully, the conspirators covered everything up and hardly anybody was burnt at the stake. ;)
That'll be why I saw a moonwalking rhino a few days ago.
You stepped on dangerous subject. I spuspect this thread to be closed soon. :)
Just notice that there may be some God, completely different than popular beliefs.
There may be God but not life after death. You'll never meet Him, as He decided not to reveal his existence to humans.
And finally definitions.
You may say that God is the world, that God is laws of physics, that God is time. Then everybody would agree that such a god exists. But it's not a god that most people would like to have.
Well one thing I always wondered is what is the centre of conciousness. What I mean by this is what is it that's receiving the images, sound, smell, touch and from this provokes emotion, and response be it an external one, or simply a train of thought.
You see I believe the brain is a store of data that and many of our emotions and impulses are formed by associations between the data. And that some of this data and its associations were formed from a very young age, possibly even in the foetal stages of development. For example, for many babies and young children rocking will send them to sleep. This is because when you were in the womb, your mum frequently walked about. Therefore being rocked takes a baby or young child back to that experience and is comforting as is a playing a recording of a heat beat. But then why someone likes say Rock, but hates the clean bleepy bloopy sound of electronica or visa versa is something I'm not sure about. My dad loved Led Zep and the Blues Breakers and played it lots when I was little. However, I could not say I'm in to that style of Rock now or ever. So what made me not like it? They were halcyon days, so surely by association I should find this music conforting, but I don't. I like music that would make my dad cringe, geeky synth based music from the late 60's and 70's.
However, I do not believe its just that, genetics plays some part in what we like and dislike, but then even identical twins are not guaranteed to like the same things. So that makes me think, ether there is some mild randomness to the mental associations we see as good or interesting early on, or there is some underlying spirit which drives our mind and body.
I've even considered the possibility that our spirit is not one thing, i.e. it is the culmination of primary forces each of different strengths.
Basically I don't know what to believe, but I do not think (well I really hope so) death is the end.
OK - I'll out myself as an Atheist here, whilst agreeing with your basic points.
Believing in souls is something that everyone grapples with at some time or another. I did my fair share of thinking about this when I was a teenager. After years and years of thinking, and scribbling, and trying to come up with conceptual shortcuts to explain away the weaknesses, I just gave up, and personally speaking, I believe there cannot possibly be souls in the universe. It's just too complex a system to be governed via natural laws (I'm sure everyone knows the arguments against souls). This complexity is already far too extreme even without adding religious concepts such as 'good' ness and accruing achievement points for analogue behaviors.
Yes, we all have consciousness and it impossible for anything to feel more special but I view this as the complexity and uniqueness of our genetics, life experiences and random explosions of creativity that occur in our brain.
So, for soul logic, there are only two simple answers that are simple enough to be governed via natural laws.
There are no souls in the Universe. Emptiness awaits our death. If so, how do we explain our initial creation?
The entire Universe can be viewed as a single stateful soul that perceives itself through the matter within the Universe. We are all cameras within a room that simply exists. When we die, the camera switches off but the room remains. The Universe is indifferent to new brains being formed and destroyed but all of these brains are running concurrently. I won't ever notice my death the same as I don't notice the moment I fall to sleep. I will simply be taken out of the 'tick' of the Universe and I will never know.
I tend to favor the latter (as a theory, not as a belief) but only because this is something that can easily be governed via natural laws. I still classify myself as an Atheist as I don't see any meaning or causation in the Universe. Its for ourselves to draw meaning and to try to be better people for its own sake.
As to the matter of God, well, it depends on the definition. If you view the natural laws of the Universe as God, then you may classify me as a believer. If you point to a personal God that intervenes and has a divine plan, I tend to think the Universe is a little too complicated for such a feat plus I would have a damn hard time knowing which one to pick from the hundreds of available options.
If only everyone agreed and then knew that there was nothing, then people wouldn't waste their lives..but then that's the whole point of belief & indoctrination..control.
I've never understood why time isn't considered infinite, and why what we call the Universe isn't actually bigger than claimed - why isn't it a collection of "Big Bangs" sufficiently far enough such that an observer in one area covered by one Big Bang cannot observe other Big Bangs. As far as I'm concerned, time and space are infinite in all directions, and haven't seen a convincing argument that that isn't the case.
As far as I'm concerned, time and space are infinite in all directions,
It's not infinite, but boundless. There is a big difference between infinite and boundless.
To explain the difference, consider a ball. Consider its surface in 2D. The surface is not infinite - it has an area of pi * r ^ 3 as we all know. However, the surface is boundless. If you start in a given direction from a given point on the ball, you'll not encounter a boundary (eventually you'll return to your starting position).
A good introduction to this kind of thing is Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace" (Michio Kaku is a physicist).
but I do not think (well I really hope so) death is the end.
The human mind isn't equipped to envision non-existence (it wouldn't be very useful, really) any more than the human mind can picture a 5 dimensional object. We can describe a 5D object easily enough with maths, but we can't envision it because our brains do not have the machinery to do so.
Essentially - think of it this way. How did you feel 2 years before you were born? That's what being dead feels like.
You just die, and that's it. Once the machinery of your brain shuts down, there's nothing. No, not blackness because blackness is something. There is simply... nothing at all, just like how you felt 2 years before you were born. It is impossible to imagine what that's like, so the human brain, which cannot effectively deal with this, invents things because some sort of other existence can be imagined, but non-existence cannot.
Death is really, fundamentally, just a very serious case of data loss. If only we could back up our brains.
I've never understood why time isn't considered infinite,
As far as I know modern science doesn't claim that time is finite. It doesn't claim that it is infinite either. It just doesn't know :)
It says that there was some Big Bang about 17 milliards (I mean 10^9, do you call it billions in UK and USA?) years ago and that it is a beginning of our universe.
But it's not the start of time, point 0.
We are just unable with our scientific tools to say what was before it. Our speculations can take us to some moment when we suppose that all matter is gathered at some small place. We can't say if it a true beginning or not.
Some people talk about some ocean of universes and that our universe is some kind of bubble in that ocean. but it is just a poetic vision.
The human mind isn't equipped to envision non-existence (it wouldn't be very useful, really) any more than the human mind can picture a 5 dimensional object. We can describe a 5D object easily enough with maths, but we can't envision it because our brains do not have the machinery to do so.
Essentially - think of it this way. How did you feel 2 years before you were born? That's what being dead feels like.
You just die, and that's it. Once the machinery of your brain shuts down, there's nothing. No, not blackness because blackness is something. There is simply... nothing at all, just like how you felt 2 years before you were born. It is impossible to imagine what that's like, so the human brain, which cannot effectively deal with this, invents things because some sort of other existence can be imagined, but non-existence cannot.
Death is really, fundamentally, just a very serious case of data loss. If only we could back up our brains.
I think this is nice and simple explanation and I agree with it almost completely from an individual perspective, however I think the secret sauce is that we don't have a moment of life or death. We may just be the side effect of a mechasims that creates instances of conciousnesses per brain context-switching between instances. The illusion of self is one of the great unintended side-effects of the Universe and I'm happy to feel like I'm an individual.
In the individual perspective, what combination of factors popped your conciousness from a state of nothing to a state of something?
Many religions are so concerned with after-life that they forget that before-life is actually more interesting. The moment of 'on' interests me far more than the moment of 'off'.
If we treat ourselves as something special in the Universe then there can never be answers. Our very existance is just some really cool configuration of matter. Nothing special, but from the inside, how can we not see ourselves as the centre of the Universe?
Its not like 'I' am connected to anyone elses brain. I only have access to my own memories, not those of others. So - even though the universe is permitting my brain to function, simultaniously, all brains are functioning via the exact same mechanisms. When I end, its just my processing of my inputs that ends, my memories are lost, my data erased. Plenty of other life left in the Universe/Multiverse and without an active brain, the Universe would and could never be aware that I ever existed except in the matter that I had the opportunity to affect within my 'lifetime'. I think I am me now, but actually, I'm everyone now, I'm just not connected to other brains (the round-robin Universal concousness view) so I only have a memory of the last thing that 'I' did as opposed to what I did as someone else during the 'tick'.
The most perfect definition of death I've read in this thread was "the death is a serious data loss". We are now comparing human brain to a computer. I think, it is similar mistake, like faithfull people compare the god to an old man with big white beard sitting on a cloudlet. The truth is somewhere between, because human life posseses something more, than just collecting informations and ability to learn. I've already written it in some other thread, that the most fascinating thing of existence is:
Ability / feeling of realising of "ME". I mean that "me", that defines each single being, something that artificial intelligence will always suffer on lacking on it, something that cannot be explainable ever, I think. If the essence of "me" would be explained, I think it will clear up everything, and the meaning of being will be explained.
Maybe so, but at best that can only be a theory, albeit one which is mathematically consistent.
If you say "only a theory" it demonstrates you don't really understand what theory means in the scientific context :-)
Electromagnetism is a theory. But the light comes on when you switch it on, your computer works, etc. etc. When people say "only a theory" they are treating the word "theory" as if it were a hunch, kind of like when Columbo the detective has a hunch. Theory in the scientific sense does not mean guess or hunch, it's something thousands of times more rigorous - falsifiable, supported by observation, etc.
There are NO facts in science, ONLY theories. Some theories are more tested than others. Importantly, a theory is something falsifiable. Usually by the time something becomes a theory there are some good rules to be applied and a body of observation has shown that the theory has something to it. Once something becomes a theory it's pretty damned big.
In science you have "conjecture" and "hypothesis" which is something like "I think it might be like this", i.e. a hunch. Once something becomes "theory" it's usually got quite a bit of evidence behind it, for example if the theory of electromagnetism was badly wrong we wouldn't be able to make computers. If quantum theory was badly wrong then we wouldn't be able to make transistors. (And if you ever thought the imaginary number was just mathematical handwaving, complex numbers (a number with a real and imaginary part) are important in calculating various things in electronics.)
Theories can also break down eventually, take Isaac Newton's theories on motion. For normal every day speeds his theories describe reality pretty well, but as we get closer to light speed they don't. Albert Einstein is famous for showing where Newton's theories are false (this is important: that a theory is falsifiable) and came up with something better. Science should ALWAYS question, never take on faith. If a theory works well, it still should be tested - that way the theory becomes more and more refined.
Comments
That'll be why I saw a moonwalking rhino a few days ago.
:)
Just notice that there may be some God, completely different than popular beliefs.
There may be God but not life after death. You'll never meet Him, as He decided not to reveal his existence to humans.
And finally definitions.
You may say that God is the world, that God is laws of physics, that God is time. Then everybody would agree that such a god exists. But it's not a god that most people would like to have.
OK - I'll out myself as an Atheist here, whilst agreeing with your basic points.
Believing in souls is something that everyone grapples with at some time or another. I did my fair share of thinking about this when I was a teenager. After years and years of thinking, and scribbling, and trying to come up with conceptual shortcuts to explain away the weaknesses, I just gave up, and personally speaking, I believe there cannot possibly be souls in the universe. It's just too complex a system to be governed via natural laws (I'm sure everyone knows the arguments against souls). This complexity is already far too extreme even without adding religious concepts such as 'good' ness and accruing achievement points for analogue behaviors.
Yes, we all have consciousness and it impossible for anything to feel more special but I view this as the complexity and uniqueness of our genetics, life experiences and random explosions of creativity that occur in our brain.
So, for soul logic, there are only two simple answers that are simple enough to be governed via natural laws.
I tend to favor the latter (as a theory, not as a belief) but only because this is something that can easily be governed via natural laws. I still classify myself as an Atheist as I don't see any meaning or causation in the Universe. Its for ourselves to draw meaning and to try to be better people for its own sake.
As to the matter of God, well, it depends on the definition. If you view the natural laws of the Universe as God, then you may classify me as a believer. If you point to a personal God that intervenes and has a divine plan, I tend to think the Universe is a little too complicated for such a feat plus I would have a damn hard time knowing which one to pick from the hundreds of available options.
Mmmmm - puddings.
Nahh, it was Mr Staypuft who created all. ...
That is my proof !
I thought the proof was in the (aforementioned?) pudding and not in the tins!!!??? :-o
No, the proof of the pudding is in the E-Tin, he puts them in there as well !:smile:
One mans God is another mans higher being.
We'd be gods to cavemen and would be worshiped as such.
Bring me my slippers and pipe worm!
Yes oh mighty one.
(oh wait..that was my dad again).
No discussion needed. q.e.d. :)
It's not infinite, but boundless. There is a big difference between infinite and boundless.
To explain the difference, consider a ball. Consider its surface in 2D. The surface is not infinite - it has an area of pi * r ^ 3 as we all know. However, the surface is boundless. If you start in a given direction from a given point on the ball, you'll not encounter a boundary (eventually you'll return to your starting position).
A good introduction to this kind of thing is Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace" (Michio Kaku is a physicist).
The human mind isn't equipped to envision non-existence (it wouldn't be very useful, really) any more than the human mind can picture a 5 dimensional object. We can describe a 5D object easily enough with maths, but we can't envision it because our brains do not have the machinery to do so.
Essentially - think of it this way. How did you feel 2 years before you were born? That's what being dead feels like.
You just die, and that's it. Once the machinery of your brain shuts down, there's nothing. No, not blackness because blackness is something. There is simply... nothing at all, just like how you felt 2 years before you were born. It is impossible to imagine what that's like, so the human brain, which cannot effectively deal with this, invents things because some sort of other existence can be imagined, but non-existence cannot.
Death is really, fundamentally, just a very serious case of data loss. If only we could back up our brains.
Maybe so, but at best that can only be a theory, albeit one which is mathematically consistent.
https://discordapp.com/invite/cZt59EQ
Yes but at least I count every bean that I put in them there tins ( 42 ) !
As far as I know modern science doesn't claim that time is finite. It doesn't claim that it is infinite either. It just doesn't know :)
It says that there was some Big Bang about 17 milliards (I mean 10^9, do you call it billions in UK and USA?) years ago and that it is a beginning of our universe.
But it's not the start of time, point 0.
We are just unable with our scientific tools to say what was before it. Our speculations can take us to some moment when we suppose that all matter is gathered at some small place. We can't say if it a true beginning or not.
Some people talk about some ocean of universes and that our universe is some kind of bubble in that ocean. but it is just a poetic vision.
I think, therefore I am
a prat !
I think this is nice and simple explanation and I agree with it almost completely from an individual perspective, however I think the secret sauce is that we don't have a moment of life or death. We may just be the side effect of a mechasims that creates instances of conciousnesses per brain context-switching between instances. The illusion of self is one of the great unintended side-effects of the Universe and I'm happy to feel like I'm an individual.
In the individual perspective, what combination of factors popped your conciousness from a state of nothing to a state of something?
Many religions are so concerned with after-life that they forget that before-life is actually more interesting. The moment of 'on' interests me far more than the moment of 'off'.
If we treat ourselves as something special in the Universe then there can never be answers. Our very existance is just some really cool configuration of matter. Nothing special, but from the inside, how can we not see ourselves as the centre of the Universe?
Its not like 'I' am connected to anyone elses brain. I only have access to my own memories, not those of others. So - even though the universe is permitting my brain to function, simultaniously, all brains are functioning via the exact same mechanisms. When I end, its just my processing of my inputs that ends, my memories are lost, my data erased. Plenty of other life left in the Universe/Multiverse and without an active brain, the Universe would and could never be aware that I ever existed except in the matter that I had the opportunity to affect within my 'lifetime'. I think I am me now, but actually, I'm everyone now, I'm just not connected to other brains (the round-robin Universal concousness view) so I only have a memory of the last thing that 'I' did as opposed to what I did as someone else during the 'tick'.
6 pages and this thread hasn't went tits up yet ;)
Give it time, :razz::razz::razz:
Ability / feeling of realising of "ME". I mean that "me", that defines each single being, something that artificial intelligence will always suffer on lacking on it, something that cannot be explainable ever, I think. If the essence of "me" would be explained, I think it will clear up everything, and the meaning of being will be explained.
If you say "only a theory" it demonstrates you don't really understand what theory means in the scientific context :-)
Electromagnetism is a theory. But the light comes on when you switch it on, your computer works, etc. etc. When people say "only a theory" they are treating the word "theory" as if it were a hunch, kind of like when Columbo the detective has a hunch. Theory in the scientific sense does not mean guess or hunch, it's something thousands of times more rigorous - falsifiable, supported by observation, etc.
There are NO facts in science, ONLY theories. Some theories are more tested than others. Importantly, a theory is something falsifiable. Usually by the time something becomes a theory there are some good rules to be applied and a body of observation has shown that the theory has something to it. Once something becomes a theory it's pretty damned big.
In science you have "conjecture" and "hypothesis" which is something like "I think it might be like this", i.e. a hunch. Once something becomes "theory" it's usually got quite a bit of evidence behind it, for example if the theory of electromagnetism was badly wrong we wouldn't be able to make computers. If quantum theory was badly wrong then we wouldn't be able to make transistors. (And if you ever thought the imaginary number was just mathematical handwaving, complex numbers (a number with a real and imaginary part) are important in calculating various things in electronics.)
Theories can also break down eventually, take Isaac Newton's theories on motion. For normal every day speeds his theories describe reality pretty well, but as we get closer to light speed they don't. Albert Einstein is famous for showing where Newton's theories are false (this is important: that a theory is falsifiable) and came up with something better. Science should ALWAYS question, never take on faith. If a theory works well, it still should be tested - that way the theory becomes more and more refined.