Welcome Anonymous, It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 3:17 am                    >>Main Site<<

God, Free Will & Contingency

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:01 pm

Abdul,

I really think I have said all that I had to say on the issue. Stretching the discussion doesn't seem very fruitful to me anymore. I will just touch upon a few points of your post.

Charles wrote:Show me a mystic who can explain the difference to a person who has not tasted both the fruits.


So you admit that scientists can't explain the difference in an objective way? That is why the mystics say that one has to experience it for himself/herself.

At one point you wrote
and you think that mystics don't know that we live in relation to the universe and all others?
now you are de-emphasizing the need to know about the world outside me?
No wonder I say, theistic mind, be it mystic lover, meditation lover is incoherent.


There is no incoherence; we prioritize things all the time and act accordingly. If one thinks that peace is more important than having the various luxuries, it doesn't mean that he has to denounce/shun/oppose the luxuries. It is simply a question of priority.

Another point against mysticism and meditation is that they de-emphasize the importance and necessity of passion. They say, don't want things, worldly things.
I say, bull shiiit.


Not surprising at all. The whole world is running after passion, and worldly things. Many are running after some imaginary things too (houris, heaven, hell, eternal life etc) with great passion. It takes a different kind of understanding, and a different angle to look at things, to stop running.

Give me the serenity of a Buddha over any luxury any day.

One is living and another is just surviving.


I could try telling you that the way we live, engrossed in thoughts of either the past which is no more, or the future which is not yet, is living in a sleep. I could try telling you that the way to live is to live in this very moment as reality is always only in the present. But I know it is no use; our very approaches are different.

Why would they make me meditate? To what end?

Answer: CAE and HUP will make you do it.


I asked why, and not who.

Tell me how did you understood that "your thought is not yours own" by meditation? You said you experienced it. Did you experienced that thought is not your own?


I saw it. Try watching/observing your own thoughts some day (another way to meditate) and you will see that too.

I disdain, irrationality. I almost hate super-naturalist. I have concluded the root cause of all evil is super-naturalism either consciously or subconsciously.


I read your statement as: a certain ECR/ECP (electrochemical reaction/process) disdains irrationality which is another type of ECR/ECP. One ECR/ECP almost reacts differently (hates) another ECR/ECP. One ECR has reacted in a particular way (concluded) the root cause of another ECR/ECP (all evil) is yet another ECR (super-naturalism) either a particular ECR (consciously) or another kind of ECR( subconsciously).

Yes it is also true that Fathom's irrationality is also due to CAE and HUP.


Then how does a particular ECR decide if your kind of ECR is superior to Fathom's?

I will now ask you a very tough question.
Do you think dumb people, with lower IQ, with little knowledge of the world we live in could be a good person?


Your question is like, if Sodium's reaction with Chlorine is better or worse than Magnesium's reaction with Chlorine. Unless you define what is "good", your question is meaningless.

I really feel I haven't much left to say on the issue. The Cat has been raising good points about free will which are backed up by scientific experiments. I don't remember you addressing those points. If you have, please give me the links to your responses.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby BBG » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:09 pm

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
Do you think that everything in life should be understandable to us or fit into our concepts? Should the computer program be able to understand the programmer? It's interesting that someone can tell you there was a big bang and you think that's perfectly understandable, even though it means something coming from nothing, which makes no sense at all. Or, someone can tell you that existence always existed. Any notion about the origin of life or existence will always be absurd, whether that be a non created creator, or something coming from nothing, or an infinite backwards chain of causes or origins (infinite regression). So with that guaranteed absurdity in mind, no matter how we slice it, why is it that you expect a comprehensible answer to the origin of consciousness, or whatever you want to call it, when there is no comprehensible answer to the origin of life itself?? Mister machine is only capable of scratching the surface, which is fine, except for the fact that he assumes he has the answers. That is a terrible assumption. If we are merely machines, then how come we can observe ourselves and have an opinion of ourselves and judge ourselves?? Can a machine do that? How come we can ask about the purpose of our existence?? Can a machine do that?


No MBL, i have said it so many times before also that i am OK with unanswerability or unknowability to certain questions.

And let me tell you, you, charles and the cat are not the only people i have asked those questions, i have asked the same questions before from others also, from some here at FFI too. Most of the time, in the end, it is either we do not know where the consciousness came from, where the soul came from or that it always existed, it does not need to come from somewhere. You are asking me if big bang is comprehensible to me, why consciousness always existed is not? But i never said it is incomprehensible to me. If matter could have always existed, consciousness could also have always existed, i do not see any thing incomprehensible there. But what i have seen from my experience about these questions, i think neither the mystics nor scientists have any clear answers as yet. I don't know if you know about that rig vedic hymn called nasdiya sukta which comes to the same conclusion that certain answers about origin of universe and life are perhaps unknowable, i said earlier it is my favorite from rig veda since i find the situation to be same after some 4000 years after that hymn was composed.

The reason Abdul's position is more comprehensible to me is because first he is also admitting that science does not have answers to some questions as yet and secondly because since i have never been into meditation or mysticism, mystic way is always a bit more difficult to understand for me than the way of science. And if you think Abdul is just scratching the surface, fine, let us wait and see where the debate leads further!
BBG
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:35 am
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:03 pm

Charles and BBG [And others]

Most of your questions are answered here.
http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/faqs.htm
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/

BBG wrote:i am OK with unanswerability or unknowability to certain questions.

you are correct. We can live with unknowablity but we will fight back with our argument against people claims that are solely based upon their own subjective experience that contradicts science. See below the "Personal Experience Based Reality" section.
Charles wrote:
Abdul wrote:Show me a scientist who can explain the difference to a person who has not tasted both the fruits.
Show me a mystic who can explain the difference to a person who has not tasted both the fruits.
So you admit that scientists can't explain the difference in an objective way? That is why the mystics say that one has to experience it for himself/herself.


Of course, science can't describe the feeling of tasting mango or banana nor can mystic. Science can only detect the taste but it can't taste itself. neither science nor mystic can explain other dozens of important things that is happening in the Universe.
But science explains far more number of things and far better way than any other methodology can.

Mysticism wrote:Mysticism and meditation are about experience,

What you need to understand is that sorting out truth for false on the basis of personal experience is not only unreliable but dangerous.

Charels wrote:I asked why, and not who.

Science doesn't know "why" of many questions. But neither do Mystic.
Science knows a lot more number of why than any other methodology.

Charles wrote:Then how does a particular ECR decide if your kind of ECR is superior to Fathom's?

Very good question.
I myself asked you this question in more generic and more comprehensive form and also gave you the answer.
The way we figure out which is truth which is false, which is superior to others, which is beneficial and which is harmful etc. what is good or not (earlier you asked the definition of good) is by:
Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology
Do you have a better method?
I will take it any time.


Charles wrote:Mysticism and meditation are about experience,
The only problem with scientific approach is that it discards all subjective experiences.

No. It doesn't discard all experience.
Science discards ONLY the inconsistent, incoherent personal experience.
Recall your statement to IAndOnlyHIm: How do you differentiate between a schizophrenic truth from a general truth.

I will not let you get away with schizophrenic truth.

Below are the example what your subjective experience led to.

"Personal Experience Based Reality"
Have you ever experience Jesus?
Millions have.
How can you then reject Jesus is the lord?
Remember, no reason, no logic, no science can tell you the experience of Jesus, Allah, or taste of banana. you will have to experiencce it by yourself.
AS you just said that no science can even describe the taste of sweet.
You got to experience Jesus on your won.
I challenge you.
I challenge you again to think on the following fact.
Far greater number of people have experienced Allah and Jesus than the number of mystics has experienced connectedness or peace. Mysticism, usefulness of meditation is over hyped, way, way over hyped. There is no scientific evidence of its validity except that it exist only in people's mind. Thought of Jesus and Allah do exist in people's mind. This experience is as genuine as Christian and Muslims' experience

Earlier I asked you the following but you conveniently ignored it. You did not answer. Now I am trying the second time.
1. Don't tell me that those millions of Muslims don't feel/experience the presence of Allah when they perform Hajj pilgrimage.
2. Don't tell me that millions of Hindu doesn’t feel good, peace when they take bath on the Ganges river.
3. Don't tell me those 100 of millions of Muslims don't feel good when they slowly saw the neck of a caw on the day of Eid-ul-Adha and let it bleed for minutes. And they do it in the name of the entity (Allah) they love, admire, and look up to and consider all merciful. What kind of sick soul would perform such an act? It is all personal experience.
4. Hundreds of millions of Christians feel the presence of Jesus. As a matter of fact Jesus even personally talks to them. They feel great. What the fuuuck do you know about the feeling of presence of Jesus?
[My anger is not directed to you personally but to the irrationality of personal experience. You already know that I don't believe in Jesus.]

Do you realize that most of these experience, feelings are genuine?
Some lies but many genuinely feel it. Many of this feeling, religious experience, and near death experience are detectable under fMRI as well.

What sadden me is to see people somberness on their own experience and not see that their experience that are contradictory to the scientific methodology are a malfunction of their brain.
People who rely on their own experience to discover truth from lies has subconscious level "God Complex".
True humbleness is not to rely on his/her own experience when it goes against objective truth.

I admit, scientific method is not perfect. But there is no better method.

You also skipped the following challenge.
I challenge you, I challenge you with passion.
Please do the following thought experiment.
Put 100 million mystic followers in a large island like Australia.
Put 100 million scientists in another similar island.
Check back with these two societies in 20, 30 or 50 years.
What do you see?

Mystic ask for detachment from material world so that you can reduce your pain. Obviously, mysticism is not after the truth but for CC (cognitive consonance). What they don't realize pain and pleasure both are necessary to experience the life that is not contradictory to reality or science.

Do you think your mystics would climb Mount Everest?

They got no passion for it. They are the one who is MBL's machine, not me.
Do you think your mystic will go to the moon?
They got no use for it.
Do you think your mystic will invent penicillin to cure plague?
They got no knowledge of it.
Do you think Mystic lovers will shoot for 8 Olympic Gold Medal in swimming as Michael Phelps did?
They got no desire or body for it.
Do you think Mystic lover would do objective neuroscience research on human psyche?
they got no brain for.
Disregarding all the objective truth they think what they feel is the ultimate truth. That is the ultimate selfishness and God complex.

Whereas, scientific method surrender its own experience in the court of Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology
That is ultimate humbleness.

One should not accept or reject Free Will or No Free Will as truth on the basis of the consequence of this truth but on the basis of its logic and evidence. Desperately asking for the solution for potential societal issue of law and order, crime and punishment, personal responsibility shows person's love for his.her own CC and not for the truth.

After all, meditation is mostly about your own personal CC anyway.
Mystic lovers are not love with the truth.
A truth lover on the other hand will go after the truth regardless of its consequence. However, if that person is already in love with the truth then CC will come as a by product.


Charles, please clarify about your earlier comment on "No choice" is a "choice"Here was my response that you skipped.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=700#p114353

Argument for Free Will is solely dependent upon personal experience. Mysticism, meditation is about personal experience based reality. That is why I attacked Mysticism and Meditation in this post.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:23 am, edited 4 times in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby Muhammad bin Lyin » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:21 pm

BBG wrote:You are asking me if big bang is comprehensible to me, why consciousness always existed is not?


No, that's not what i was asking you. i was asking you why you need an answer to where consciousness comes from, and you told me you don't need one. My answer is and always has been that it's ultimately unanswerable, because once we do that and put it into words and categories, we have distorted it's reality. It's pasted all over that one article I posted.

BBG wrote: But i never said it is incomprehensible to me.


But it should be. Where did that tiny mass that exploded come from?? We're right back to the problem of infinite regression. Time never ending we can understand, but time never beginning???

BBG wrote: If matter could have always existed, consciousness could also have always existed, i do not see any thing incomprehensible there.


When everything you have ever seen or experienced can be said to have a beginning, how can it make sense to you for something to have no beginning?? People just pretend it makes sense to them, but it actually makes no sense at all. It's weird. It's like people fool themselves without having the faintest idea of it. How can "something" have no beginning?? Or, the other problem, how can "something" come from "nothing"?? It will always be absurd no matter what angle you choose.

BBG wrote: But what i have seen from my experience about these questions, i think neither the mystics nor scientists have any clear answers as yet. I don't know if you know about that rig vedic hymn called nasdiya sukta which comes to the same conclusion that certain answers about origin of universe and life are perhaps unknowable, i said earlier it is my favorite from rig veda since i find the situation to be same after some 4000 years after that hymn was composed.

The reason Abdul's position is more comprehensible to me is because first he is also admitting that science does not have answers to some questions


Because it can't. Does anybody think I hate science or disagree with it?? Not at all. In fact, I corrected the machine's understanding of the Copenhagen view of QP. He had the popular misconception of it that was closer to the "many worlds" view, not the more conservative Copenhagen view.

BBG wrote: as yet and secondly because since i have never been into meditation


I can't meditate. I don't know why. I suppose I think too much or something. So I really know nothing about it. I can't be hypnotized either. I wanted to as a technique to quit smoking a long time ago, but I just couldn't go into a trance.

BBG wrote: or mysticism, mystic way is always a bit more difficult to understand for me than the way of science. And if you think Abdul is just scratching the surface, fine, let us wait and see where the debate leads further!


No, this guy is finished, He's already 100% assured he knows, so he's completely closed. He's not capable of considering anything outside of his existing, preconceived notions and merely reads not to understand, but to confirm his pre-existing notions. That's all he is capable of understanding, so what's the point? Anything the least bit abstract completely eludes him.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
 
Posts: 5959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby The Cat » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:33 pm

AbdulRahman wrote:How about if i lobotomize your brain, would you still have consciousness? How about if I started to take your brain out one spoon at a time, let me know when you lose your consciousness. Point is, of course consciousness is the product of material stuff. No matter (this include energy), no consciousness.

If I have a lobotomy, I'll still have consciousness since every cell of mine is conscious, not only my brain. Even when I die, this consciousness enshrined in my DNA will stay, as many experiences have shown. In fact everything that potentially exist can only be through consciousness, even non-physical phenomenons like emotions, feelings, up to mathematics and science itself. Internet isn't matter but has relayed conscience!
Image

When will you realize that by your own scientific god, your linear time/space/atom is obsolete? This matter of yours is but a personal illusory reality. The deepest level of energy isn't found in matter at all, but in the Quantum immaterialized potentiality within the waves' spontaneity. So your naturalistic argument is groundless by the very standard of... science.

In the words of Equestrian: Determinism cannot be proven by scientific investigation. Determinism is validated only through inductive methods of reasoning. So the very foundation of Abdul's belief forbids Determinism. If the physical world is all there is and Determinism is not physical, then Determinism is false. Thus naturalism and determinism are logically inconsistent. In fact naturalism is a false belief, as it is self-refuting. If naturalism needs non-physical assistance with fully understanding its own foundation, then naturalism is false. Now, deal with yourself.



Now, sit and wonder why the word 'science' is part of the words 'conscience' and 'consciousness' i.e. with-knowledge, within-knowledge. So the science of consciousness, as in meditation, is THE Knowledge as per Socrates': ''Know yourself and you'll know the world and the gods.'' This is simply the old wisdom that is now underlined by the QM, wherein the observer tends to create his own scheme of reality.

John Hagelin: http://istpp.org/military_science/Hagel ... cture.html
Image

Post after post, you've been proving that you don't even understand how the universe truly works. In your understanding, science is authoritative while it's not its aim at all, which basically is tentative. So the laws of nature aren't the laws of Moses, yet to deal with both of them... it takes Free Will !

:roflmao: Image
Last edited by The Cat on Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby Fathom » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:42 pm

AbdulRahman wrote:Argument for Free Will is solely dependent upon personal experience.


Not true. The argument for Free Will is dependent upon science, just like Determinism is. My position on Free Will has absolutely nothing to do with theology, since theology teaches that the "Will of God" is in control of all things. In fact, Determinism far more closely resembles the "Will of God" than Free Will ever could.

The Libet experiment fails for the simple reason that it was a controlled and pre-programmed experiment. The participants were programmed to make a choice right from the beginning, with absolutely no pressure, no rationality, no reasoning, and no emotional input factored in. This pre-programming had enough time to seep deep down into the subconscious, and affect the conscious, as well as the results to what you've read about.

But real life spontaneous experience does not allow for the conditions employed by the Libet experiment. In complex decision making situations, the making of a choice will not be made until all the data is available. Then, using rationality and reason, a final decision will be made. This decision has not been pre-determined. Instead, it has been consciously rationalized.

In cases where split-second decision making is employed, such as a case where the decision makers life may be threatened, a heightened sense of conscious awareness borne out of fear can make a person react instantaneously to any sound all around them in which he can choose to move, or not to move. This instantaneous ability to choose demonstrates a speed the exceeds the time it would take for the choice to move from the subconscious to the conscious, and then to manifest itself.

This is reality. This is life experience. This is not a controlled experiment such as Libet.

One other thing ... the concept of an "unconscious mind" is still a concept, and has never been established as scientific fact. This begs the question of "Do we really have an unconscious mind?" Therefore, before you can make any claim of validity for Libet's experiment, you first must prove that the unconscious mind actually exists.
User avatar
Fathom
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby The Cat » Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:46 am

BBG wrote:The Cat, if i have understood the above correctly you are saying consciousness can not arise from matter and that consciousness arise from consciousness. Or may be that the consciouness was always present. Thanks.

I shall add that since time doesn't really exist, only the NOW does. This now being self-aware, self-actualizing, consciousness. There's ever only one moment: the self-made, immaterial, present. Meditation as the science of conscience, portrayed by so many mystics is just to be immerse into its eternity, which cannot emerge from the conditioned, materialistic self. So consciousness doesn't comes from the brain, from electro-chemicals reactions, or the laws of nature, but from the timeless of the NOW, which is pure act with or without motion.

I still have one more question that has relvence to the debate on free will and the question is whether consciousness can arise from matter, The Cat has already answered in No. Abdul seem to be suggesting that consciousness arise from matter. So i guess the question is open to debate.

Matter needs consciousness to be, while the opposite isn't true: Consciousness has no other need but itself. Consequently, conscience is creating matter, not the other way around. That's what QM has found out


The reason Abdul's position is more comprehensible to me is because first he is also admitting that science does not have answers to some questions as yet and secondly because since i have never been into meditation or mysticism, mystic way is always a bit more difficult to understand for me than the way of science.

AR's position has NO scientific ground at all. His determinism or naturalism (see above & below) are both unscientific and illogical. Get it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%2 ... of_mind%29
Having a perspective on the world is a psychological state. Therefore, the special sciences presuppose the existence of minds which can have these states. If one is to avoid ontological dualism, then the mind that has a perspective must be part of the physical reality to which it applies its perspective. If this is the case, then in order to perceive the physical world as psychological, the mind must have a perspective on the physical. This, in turn, presupposes the existence of mind.

The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism
The argument holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all of our thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then we have no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it—or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause—and we could not even suppose it, except by a fluke. By this logic, the statement "I have reason to believe naturalism is valid" is self-referentially incoherent in the same manner as the sentence "One of the words of this sentence does not have the meaning that it appears to have," or the statement "I never tell the truth." That is, in each case to assume the veracity of the conclusion would eliminate the possibility of valid grounds from which to reach it.

To summarize the argument in the book, Lewis quotes J. B. S. Haldane who appeals to a similar line of reasoning: If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. —J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds, page 209.


Following AR's arguments you never have any choice on anything. If you agree with him, it means that you didn't choose to make this post or to participate in this thread. In short you're an EC reaction, a brained plant. Tell me how his argument isn't delusive...
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby The Cat » Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:19 am

charleslemartel wrote:Science has not yet been able to settle the issue of consciousness, so I prefer not to be sure of anything. Please remember that the existence of consciousness is different from the issue of existence of a creator God, and hence, I feel reasonably sure that a creator God does not exist. I am not totally free of bias, and I must admit that I am biased in favor of The Cat's previous post about consciousness. However, since I don't feel as sure as he does, I have avoided making those claims myself. Or may be I should say that the EC reactions in my brain haven't yet let me decide one way or the other.

If you let your EC reactions decide, I'm afraid you'll chase your tail endlessly since they don't 'decide' anything.

Is consciousness only material when science is disproving matter, the atom, to be the unity of reference to the universe? Most obviously consciousness isn't only matter as it is upholding many non-physical phenomenons as well: intuition, premonition, procrastination, feelings, experience, and so forth. And being immaterial as well as material, consciousness also calls for Free Will.

That's the one major flaw in AR mechanical beliefs, based on Aristotelian/Cashmore biologists assertions. Yet still plants have some spontaneous consciousness like when they are turning to get as much light they can or when some plants close themselves at nighttime. It's also consciousness that leads the bees to find nectar. Not electro-chemical reactions which have no will power nor feelings. So it's conscience that upholds everything, including the laws of nature.

Now energy as understood by QM isn't related to matter anymore, just as the light isn't related to any time/space equation. So even light is not matter and without it matter would be a helpless black hole. This was perfectly understood by Plotinus and the Stoics. In fact, most of our false understanding comes from Aristotle who's mistakes are simply systematic like this Anthony Cashmore, another biologist, on whom AR based his erratic convictions.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-bio/
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_book ... /ch04.html
Why Aristotelian logic does not work (excerpts, a most read)
http://www.abelard.org/category/category.php
By Aristotelian logic, I mean category logic, excluded-middle logic, on/off logic, either/or logic. No greys – only black and white. This false ‘logic’ lies at the heart of authoritarianism, conflict, and a great deal of inadequate ‘science’. The problems caused by Aristotelian logic are legion and accumulate. They include the misuse of ‘properties’, as well as a failure to match ‘theory’ to the real world. Those who take a pragmatic/empirical approach are less likely to be caught by the consequences of this theoretical paradigm.

You have been raised in an unsane culture. Driving that unsanity is a slavery to words. For sanity, you must learn to attend to reality outside yourself. The woods and the trees are real. To discuss them adequately, you must learn to communicate with clarity. That means understanding the confusions of language that are rife in western culture. Every time you use a word you make a choice, you form a category to which only you have access.

The errors of Aristotelian logic are so pervasive that they cannot be sorted by one or two simple fixes. Thus I must tackle them in parallel until you may grasp the problems as a gestalt, or else take a leap of faith in completely revising your expressive mental set. Until that point, you are liable to attempt to drive a broken cart that will not go. It is not enough to attempt to fix Aristotelian logic if you are to cogently discuss issues such as mathematics, politics, philosophy, psychology, economics and the like in a sane and rational manner. For the invasive elements of Aristotelian logic make rational discussion of subtle real-world issues effectively impossible.

Just like Anthony Cashmore, Aristotle extended biology to understand behavior, relationship and philosophical questions like ontology.
This is like using substance to resolve an abstraction or using matter to imprison consciousness and meditation, the self-science...

Albert Einstein: "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:21 am

The cat,

There is no shortage of mumbo-jumbo; pseudo scientific video on the internet that misuses, abuses, scientific terms to pray on week mind that are looking for someone to take care of them, as a little boy wants his mama and daddy to take care of him. I myself can post dozens and dozens of new age, money making, and fraudulent videos from the internet. From Maharishi University, to Mr. Templeton Funded research to Deepak Chopra feel goody, sweet talk, 700 clubs and many more who are controlling your mind and making money out of you.

Your video claim there is no reality as we know it.
It doesn't matter if the reality is the real reality but what matter is the consistency and coherency of laws, rules.
Using science we built the world, civilization where you love to live. Jesus can't give you what reason, logic, science can give you.

Is consciousness only material

I agree that consciousness is not matterial thing.
Awareness is not material, walking is not material, taste is not material, swimming is not material. [Although water is matter, human body is matter etc.]
But all of these are the result of matter. Remove all matters and all of the above non-material things disappear. Change the composition and configuration of matter and all the above non-material things changes.
No matter, no consciousness.
Do you think the moon exist when you are not looking at it?
Other people are looking at it.
How about when no one is looking at the moon, does it exist then?
Did Sun exist 4 billion years ago when there was no life on Earth?
Now if you interpret consciousness and awareness as such that even electrons are aware and have consciousness then I have no problem.
If you say than even electron has free will then I have no problem. That is consistency in argument.

Do you believe in hell or heaven?
Do you believe in devil?
Do you believe life after death?
Do you believe in Jesus?
Do you believe all merciful personal god?
Do you believe human salvation?

Everyone will watch how you duck these questions.

Although not perfect but the way to get closer to the truth is via Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology
If you have a better method I will take it.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:06 am, edited 5 times in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby The Cat » Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:31 am

AbdulRahman wrote:The cat,
Everyone will watch how you duck these questions.

Correction: everyone is seeing how you duck your own incoherence through Non Sequitur, Red Herring and Strawman. Once again. YAWNN...

Remove all matters and all of the above non-material things disappear. Change the composition and configuration of matter and all the above non-material things changes.

That was already done by the QM: Matter disappeared... Hey, but not consciousness, more fundamental than ever! :prop:
Last edited by The Cat on Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
 
Posts: 2063
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:33 am

The Cat wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:The cat,
Everyone will watch how you duck these questions.

Correction: everyone is seeing how you duck your own incoherence through Non Sequitur, Red Herring and Strawman. Once again. YAWNN...

Do you believe in hell or heaven?
Do you believe in devil?
Do you believe life after death?
Do you believe in Jesus?
Do you believe all merciful personal god?
Do you believe human salvation?

Everyone will watch how you duck these questions.
The Cat,
Did you answer above questions?
Be brave and answer them.
People dies for Jesus and you can't even answer those questions?
shame on you.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby iandonlyhim » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:10 am

Abdul Rehman Wrote:


Although not perfect but the way to get closer to the truth is via Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology
If you have a better method I will take it.


Wow, you are using this statement with all huh? Since there is fundamental problem in your statement above, please find qualified, thirdpart and doubleblind. Qualified - by who? Thirdparty - Who would that be? Double-blind - Find that someone who is double-blind(to both sides of this subject) and then we can talk. And Statistical method for philosophical subjects? (Hey I learn something new everyday). Lastly, show me one person who is qualified to lecture on consciousness. PHD in consciousness, maybe? :lol:

Ask anyone Dude, anyone. What you say makes no sense at least not in real world. And please dont take this in insulting way either. I cant tell you that you are stupid but I hope you can see your mistake.

So now you are only left with successive approximation. Good luck using that with consciousness too.

(I will not respond to any responses unless there are intelligent response. I like the rest here are doing in this thread so by no means I plan to derail this thread but just thought I showed you your own mistakes.) - Hope it helps.
iandonlyhim
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:36 pm
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:29 am

To All:

Susan Blackmore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX5JEOyu ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rglQHgMdHuQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjNF4rPDtuQ

I am glad I discovered No Free Will on my own, 35 years ago, at the age of 17.
It took me only 6 months to digest and come up with answers without reading about Free Will. I knew all the basic sciences and training on reasoning. I just applied those.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/
http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/index.htm
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby Muhammad bin Lyin » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:50 pm

:lotpot: Are you telling me that a 52 year old man behaves like you?? Are you telling me that a 52 year old man has to lie about being paid by Saudi Sheiks?? Are you telling me that a 52 year old man, then reacts in frustration of being caught lying, by trying to make the person who caught him look like a liar any way he can in some sort of childish revenge??

Are you serious??? I certainly hope not. :lol:

Who did this to you? Islam or your culture?? I honestly don't know at this point since you "claim" you are not a Muslim.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
 
Posts: 5959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby Muhammad bin Lyin » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:58 pm

AbdulRahman wrote:
The Cat wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:The cat,
Everyone will watch how you duck these questions.

Correction: everyone is seeing how you duck your own incoherence through Non Sequitur, Red Herring and Strawman. Once again. YAWNN...

Do you believe in hell or heaven?
Do you believe in devil?
Do you believe life after death?
Do you believe in Jesus?
Do you believe all merciful personal god?
Do you believe human salvation?

Everyone will watch how you duck these questions.
The Cat,
Did you answer above questions?
Be brave and answer them.
People dies for Jesus and you can't even answer those questions?
shame on you.


Something stinks in here. I smell a Muslim. :lol: The above is the sort of thing a Muslim would ask. Religious questions don't directly have anything to do with free will because even if there is no God, that doesn't necessarily change the question of free will at all. But a Muslim would do something like this and not see the problem or logical fallacy. :ermm:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
 
Posts: 5959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:44 pm

AbdulRahman wrote:Of course, science can't describe the feeling of tasting mango or banana nor can mystic. Science can only detect the taste but it can't taste itself. neither science nor mystic can explain other dozens of important things that is happening in the Universe.
But science explains far more number of things and far better way than any other methodology can.


So what is wrong in mystics saying that one has to experience certain things to know about them? Now don't start lecturing me how subjective experience is of no value, dangerous and all; I know that already, and you have seen me debunking the claims of experiencing Jesus, God etc. Mystics I am talking about don't say that you should experience Jesus, Muhammad or Krishna. They say that you should be more and more conscious, more and more aware. If you have any objection to this teaching of theirs, bring it to the table.

Do I need to remind you that mysticism explains things which are not explained by science? You are unnecessarily turning this discussion in to science vs mysticism; Their domains are different, and they are not antagonistic to each other.. I am not denying the role and importance of science, scientific method, logic and reason in human endeavor and learning at all. So please don't go on repeating the value of science, reason and logic in each post to me as if I need convincing of their importance.

If you insist on asserting that everything under the sun is the domain of science, please give us a scientific view point about "Why humans are generally in misery, and what can be done to alleviate it?".

Charles wrote:Then how does a particular ECR decide if your kind of ECR is superior to Fathom's?

Very good question.
I myself asked you this question in more generic and more comprehensive form and also gave you the answer.
The way we figure out which is truth which is false, which is superior to others, which is beneficial and which is harmful etc. what is good or not (earlier you asked the definition of good) is by:
Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology
Do you have a better method?
I will take it any time.


I only asked you how to decide if a particular ECR is better than another. To take an example from my previous post, how does one decide if a reaction creating NaCl is better than MgCl2? First give me your answer, then proceed to tell me how you have applied "Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology".

No. It doesn't discard all experience. Science discards ONLY the inconsistent, incoherent personal experience.
Recall your statement to IAndOnlyHIm: How do you differentiate between a schizophrenic truth from a general truth.
I will not let you get away with schizophrenic truth.


Ask yourself, or try to find out, why scientists try to study the brain activities of meditaters and not that of schizophrenic with the same interest. While you are at it, also try to find out the difference between the brain activities of a meditater and a schizophrenic.

Far greater number of people have experienced Allah and Jesus than the number of mystics has experienced connectedness or peace. Mysticism, usefulness of meditation is over hyped, way, way over hyped. There is no scientific evidence of its validity except that it exist only in people's mind. Thought of Jesus and Allah do exist in people's mind. This experience is as genuine as Christian and Muslims' experience.


Abdul, please don't mind if I seem to be losing patience. I feel that you are so intent upon your own position that you continue to miss the points of others. I don't know if you read the article from scientific American I linked you to, but here is a part from that article:

From the perspective of neuroscience, meditation can be characterized as a series of mental exercises by which one strengthens one’s control over the workings of their own brain. And, The unexpected result of this experiment was that the EEG of long-term meditators exhibited much more gamma-synchrony than that of naive meditators. Moreover, normally human brains produce only short bursts of gamma-synchrony. What was most remarkable about this study was that long-term meditators were able to produce sustained gamma-activity in a manner that had never previously been observed in any other human. As such, sustained gamma activity has emerged as a proxy for at least some aspects of the meditative state.

I hope you will now be able to understand the difference between subjective experience of meditaters and other humans.

Spoiler! :
Earlier I asked you the following but you conveniently ignored it. You did not answer. Now I am trying the second time.
1. Don't tell me that those millions of Muslims don't feel/experience the presence of Allah when they perform Hajj pilgrimage.
2. Don't tell me that millions of Hindu doesn’t feel good, peace when they take bath on the Ganges river.
3. Don't tell me those 100 of millions of Muslims don't feel good when they slowly saw the neck of a caw on the day of Eid-ul-Adha and let it bleed for minutes. And they do it in the name of the entity (Allah) they love, admire, and look up to and consider all merciful. What kind of sick soul would perform such an act? It is all personal experience.
4. Hundreds of millions of Christians feel the presence of Jesus. As a matter of fact Jesus even personally talks to them. They feel great. What the fuuuck do you know about the feeling of presence of Jesus?
[My anger is not directed to you personally but to the irrationality of personal experience. You already know that I don't believe in Jesus.]

Do you realize that most of these experience, feelings are genuine?

Some lies but many genuinely feel it. Many of this feeling, religious experience, and near death experience are detectable under fMRI as well.


Read my response above.

What sadden me is to see people somberness on their own experience and not see that their experience that are contradictory to the scientific methodology are a malfunction of their brain.


I don't wish to appear as someone questioning science, and the scientific method, as I subscribe to science and the scientific method myself. But your posts seem to suggest that you don't understand the limitations of science.

True humbleness is not to rely on his/her own experience when it goes against objective truth.


Either tell us all if the experience (enhanced awareness) of a true mystic goes against objective truth, or ....
Either tell us where the true mystics stray from the path of reason and logic, or ....

You also skipped the following challenge.I challenge you, I challenge you with passion. Please do the following thought experiment.
Put 100 million mystic followers in a large island like Australia. Put 100 million scientists in another similar island. Check back with these two societies in 20, 30 or 50 years. What do you see?


The day you realize why the billionaires, even with all the material comforts at their disposal, need to go to psychiatrists, and fake religious gurus, you would stop asking such foolish questions. The day you realize why princes like Gautama and the twenty four tirthankaras of Jainism needed to renounce all their wealth and embark upon a path to find true inner peace, you would be a changed man.

Mystic ask for detachment from material world so that you can reduce your pain. Obviously, mysticism is not after the truth but for CC (cognitive consonance). What they don't realize pain and pleasure both are necessary to experience the life that is not contradictory to reality or science.


Without the ability to live in the present, one can neither experience pain nor pleasure properly. No human lives his life more fully, more intensely than a mystic. A mystic lives "reality", whereas a scientist theorizes about it. A whole team of scientists who only study the gamma-synchrony of a meditator can't match the sense of fulfillment of the latter. The meditator drinks the wine whereas your scientists analyze its chemistry without ever being able to taste and appreciate it.

Do you think you are living properly? Do you understand the simple statement that "the past" is no more, and "the future" is not yet? Let me tell you how you don't actually live properly:

Each of us live in an imaginary world (most of the time) created by our minds. To give you a few examples, when you are driving to your office you are either planning your day ahead during the drive, or ruminating over some past event. Only a fraction of your awareness is involved in the act of driving. Most of this act is executed by your subconscious mind by habit. So while you are in your car, you rush by the road, the trees on the both sides and other things and experiences which would have been available to you if you were there in your car in totality. Then when you are taking lunch during the break, again the same thing happens; you are either planning the hours ahead, or thinking over the past events of the morning in the office. Do you really "experience" your lunch? Do you really feel the taste of each and every morsel of food your hand supplies to your mouth?

Try watching yourself and find out how many moments during the waking hours of a day you really live and experience consciously. If you are able to watch it, you won't have much difficulty in finding out that you (and each of us) live most of our lives as automatons driven by habits and the commands from the subconscious.

Do you think your mystics would climb Mount Everest? They got no passion for it. They are the one who is MBL's machine, not me.
Do you think your mystic will go to the moon? They got no use for it.


Do you think that is a great achievement? Any moron with a strong enough body to withstand the hardships can climb mount Everest. How does climbing the Everest, or landing on the moon change the quality of living? How do such acts make their lives more meaningful, more fulfilling?

Do you think your mystic will invent penicillin to cure plague? They got no knowledge of it.


The mystics have already invented the ultimate medicine (meditation) to cure humanity of its madness. Since no real mystic claims to be a doctor or a scientist, it is as foolish to expect them to invent penicillin as it is foolish to expect a painter to do so.

Do you think Mystic lovers will shoot for 8 Olympic Gold Medal in swimming as Michael Phelps did? They got no desire or body for it.


:lol:

Do you think Mystic lover would do objective neuroscience research on human psyche? they got no brain for.


They have already done this research, and now the scientists are taking them seriously enough to try to study the effects of meditation of human brain.

Disregarding all the objective truth they think what they feel is the ultimate truth. That is the ultimate selfishness and God complex. Whereas, scientific method surrender its own experience in the court of Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology
which can't even explain the difference in the tastes of different food which is one of the most basic of human experiences. One still has to rely on his/her own subjective experience to know the truth of differences in tastes.

One should not accept or reject Free Will or No Free Will as truth on the basis of the consequence of this truth but on the basis of its logic and evidence. Desperately asking for the solution for potential societal issue of law and order, crime and punishment, personal responsibility shows person's love for his.her own CC and not for the truth.


I will come to the experiments you are relying so much on a bit later. They are not yet conclusive; try understanding them once again. You have already been told of the problems in Libet's experiment, and you have not yet addressed any of them.

After all, meditation is mostly about your own personal CC anyway. Mystic lovers are not love with the truth. A truth lover on the other hand will go after the truth regardless of its consequence. However, if that person is already in love with the truth then CC will come as a by product.


You have no idea what you are talking about.

Charles, please clarify about your earlier comment on "No choice" is a "choice".
The option of not choosing one from the available options is also a choice in itself.
Last edited by charleslemartel on Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby charleslemartel » Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:43 pm

Abdul, let us see if the experiments carried out so far are conclusive:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Libet found that the unconscious brain activity leading up to the conscious decision by the subject to flick his or her wrist began approximately half a second before the subject consciously felt that she had decided to move.[2][3] Libet's findings suggest that decisions made by a subject are first being made on a subconscious level and only afterward being translated into a "conscious decision", and that the subject's belief that it occurred at the behest of her will was only due to her retrospective perspective on the event.

The interpretation of these findings has been criticized by Daniel Dennett, who argues that people will have to shift their attention from their intention to the clock, and that this introduces temporal mismatches between the felt experience of will and the perceived position of the clock hand.[4][5] Consistent with this argument, subsequent studies have shown that the exact numerical value varies depending on attention.[6][7] Despite the differences in the exact numerical value, however, the main finding has held.[8][9][10] Philosopher Alfred Mele critisizes this design for other reasons. Having attempted the experiment himself, Mele explains that "the awareness of the intention to move" is an ambiguous feeling at best. For this reason he remained skeptical of interpreting the subjects' reported times for comparison with their 'readiness potential'.[


2. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... 21-03.html

As the researchers report in today's Journal of Neuroscience, when the subjects stopped themselves from pushing the button, blood flow increased to the dorsal frontomedial cortex and two smaller regions, indicating that they were active. Those regions were quiet during trials in which subjects actually pushed the button. These brain areas may be the source of our ability to stop ourselves from doing things, the researchers say. The insight might lead to a better understanding of conditions such as attention deficit disorder that involve impulsivity and a lack of self-control.

Neuroscientist Richard Passingham of the University of Oxford in the U.K. says that the work provides a clue to the brain's ability to veto an action. The area the researchers identified has been fingered in other studies as playing a role in self-reflection, he notes, which may be related to inhibition. But he and Brass agree that the experiments don't solve the old puzzle of so-called free will. The MRI scans are not precise enough to tell whether the veto decision happens before the subject is conscious of it.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
User avatar
charleslemartel
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah
Gender: Male

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby AbdulRahman » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:59 am

Charles wrote:So what is wrong in mystics saying that one has to experience certain things to know about them?

It becomes wrong only when it contradicts logic and science. Otherwise, personal experience is fine.
Obviously, the next question you can ask, "show me where does it (mysticism) violate scientific methodology?"
Answer: Exertion of force on matter by non-material awareness/free will is the violation of scientific findings. [To make your hand move to pick up a cup of tea instead of coffee brain has to produce the electrochemical signal and send it to hand. To produce the decision/free will/choice in your brain that will produce the above electrochemical signal your awareness has to exert force on the brain material neurons. That is the rub. How can non-material awareness/free will/choice exert force on matter.]
Charles wrote:you have seen me debunking the claims of experiencing Jesus, God etc.

You and I are able to debunk personal experience of Jesus, Allah, only because we used scientific Methodology. We agreed to uphold scientific methodology and dump Muslims and Christian's personal experience based evidence into dumpster. However, your double standard is obvious when you do not want to dump your personal experience of mysticism when it is in conflict with scientific methodology.
If I started to play devil 's advocate and take the side of Muslims or Christians and use your trick of personal experience then you will not be able to debunk my assumed role of Muslim or Christian's experience of personal God.

It is just a matter of Mystic's personal experience versus Muslim's personal experience.
You just don't like Muslim's or Christian's personal experience - you like your personal experience.
I only asked you how to decide if a particular ECR is better than another. To take an example from my previous post, how does one decide if a reaction creating NaCl is better than MgCl2? First give me your answer, then proceed to tell me how you have applied "Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology".


NaCl vs MgCl2, Calmness versus Anger, Love vs. Hate all have their places - pro and con. Same thing could be good to meet certain goal or objective. But the same thing could be bad to meet other goal.
Love is a good thing but then too much love can spoil the kid. Pretty much everything could be double edge sword.
Obviously, then, good and bad depend upon what one is trying to achieve - the goal. Then the question comes in, what should we try to achieve?
How do we decide what goal is worth pursuing for?
I say, we decide the goal by using Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Methodology.
Charles wrote:Ask yourself, or try to find out, why scientists try to study the brain activities of meditates and not that of schizophrenic with the same interest.

Science study both brains with great interest.

"Charles wrote:Abdul, please don't mind if I seem to be losing patience. I feel that you are so intent upon your own position that you continue to miss the points of others. I don't know if you read the article from scientific American I linked you to, but here is a part from that article:
From the perspective of neuroscience, meditation can be characterized as a series of mental exercises by which one strengthens one’s control over the workings of their own brain. And, The unexpected result of this experiment was that the EEG of long-term mediators exhibited much more gamma-synchrony than that of naive mediators. Moreover, normally human brains produce only short bursts of gamma-synchrony. What was most remarkable about this study was that long-term mediators were able to produce sustained gamma-activity in a manner that had never previously been observed in any other human. As such, sustained gamma activity has emerged as a proxy for at least some aspects of the meditative state.


I know, you are not understanding what I am saying. Let alone, agree or disagree. Please first try to understand.
Awareness is the result of underlying material activity in human body and brain. The moment you take the material stuff away the awareness vanishes. There is 100% co-relation between the awareness and the underlying material. Of course, awareness, meditation does increase gamma-activity. But the point is what drives the meditation in the first place. Answer: the underlying material world. Awareness rides on top of matter. Awareness is dependent upon matter NOT vice-versa.

Following might help you to understand.

Do you agree that "Awareness" and "Meditation" are non material thingy? I do.
If you don't then awareness is definitely controlled by the underlying material. therefore, No Free Will.
If you do then how would awareness control material?
How would awareness produce new thoughts that would exert force onto the neuron and body (independent of material) to pick up a cup of tea or coffee?
And if awareness/free will can exert force on matter inside your body then it can exert force on matter outside the body as well. Hence, The Cat's belief on Psychokinesis, Clairvoyance, Precognition, and Telepathy that prompted me to abolish the debate with him. I do not like to surround myself around irrational people.

For non-material awareness and/or Free Will to have an effect on your material body (material) it must exert force.
Therefore, do you think, your non-material awareness can exert force on matter?
Without exerting force nothing will change in your brain, nor would your hand move to pick up a cup of tea.

Therefore, you must now say that non-material thought/awareness can exert force on matter.

If thought can exert force on matter inside your body then it can do so outside your body too.

Therefore, you can't deny the claims of Deepak Chopra, Maharishi, and many other new age pseudo-scientific gurus who want millions of people simultaneously meditate to stop an Earth Quake or to reduce the suffering on the planet.

Summary, non-material, thought, awareness, free will can't exert force on matter.

Meditation at least temporarily reduces blood pressure not because meditation exerted force on heart muscle but because the underlying chain of reaction already had started to reduce the blood pressure. This chain of movement of material in our body and then in our mind created the awareness. Awareness is the result of material reaction but awareness itself has no affect on material world.
That is why the case for No Free Will is so strong.

Charles wrote:]Either tell us all if the experience (enhanced awareness).

Experience that is not in conflict with science can enhance the awareness.
Charles wrote:Either tell us where the true mystics stray from the path of reason and logic, or ....

They stray in their understanding about the passivity of awareness. Mystics are deluded to think that their awareness is on the driver seat. Alas, their self-righteousness has no idea how feeble, how weak, how helpless we are. Mystics do not know that behind the scene it is the matter that created the awareness in the first place and then the same matter is having an effect in the next batch of happenings. Mystics think they are in charge, but in fact they are not.

Is "detachment" from the worldly thing the teaching of Buddha or not?
I say, that is a bad teaching.
We must have attachment with the entire worldly thing. Moderation, flexibility, situation based sometime attachment and detachment is the key.

Passion is not Buddha's detachment.

I say, no passion, no life.
I say, Live, love and Learn with passion, think with intelligence.

Ask yourself:
Can non-material awareness/thought/Free-Will exert force on matter?
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:02 am, edited 3 times in total.
AbdulRahman
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby BBG » Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:04 pm

The Cat wrote:Matter needs consciousness to be, while the opposite isn't true: Consciousness has no other need but itself. Consequently, conscience is creating matter, not the other way around. That's what QM has found out.


The Cat, before the site went down, i had asked you to tell me more about the above since now you are clearly saying that matter arises from consciousness, not the other way around. If you are still following the debate, please reply.


Following AR's arguments you never have any choice on anything. If you agree with him, it means that you didn't choose to make this post or to participate in this thread. In short you're an EC reaction, a brained plant. Tell me how his argument isn't delusive...


Yes, it is sad to accept that we might be just like robots or brained plants, dependent on some electro chemical reactions taking place in our body. But if that is reality, what can we do?
BBG
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:35 am
Gender: None specified

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Postby BBG » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:28 pm

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
No, that's not what i was asking you. i was asking you why you need an answer to where consciousness comes from, and you told me you don't need one. My answer is and always has been that it's ultimately unanswerable, because once we do that and put it into words and categories, we have distorted it's reality. It's pasted all over that one article I posted.


I did not say i do not need the answer to the question where consciousness comes from. I only said if you and others say that the question is unanswereable or unknowable, i can understand that perhaps at present there is no answer to this question and it is open to debate. May be i was not clear enough.

In order to answer many questions about human condition, our existence, our actions, our behaviour, it is important to have an answer to this question and similar other questions. The Cat had, in some earlier post said that this debate has come to a point where it is important to have an answer to this question whether consciousness is a brain chemistry product, a physical phenomenon only. Therefore i do want to know whether consciousness arise from matter or matter arises from consciousness. If we have an answer to this question, the debate on free will is easily settled.


But it should be. Where did that tiny mass that exploded come from?? We're right back to the problem of infinite regression. Time never ending we can understand, but time never beginning???


I know there will still be the problem of infinite regression but in order to explain things, we have to begin somewhere, let us begin by assuming something always existed, it could be matter or consciousness or something else. To me this question is open to debate, that is what i meant by when i said it is not incomprehensible to me.


When everything you have ever seen or experienced can be said to have a beginning, how can it make sense to you for something to have no beginning?? People just pretend it makes sense to them, but it actually makes no sense at all. It's weird. It's like people fool themselves without having the faintest idea of it. How can "something" have no beginning?? Or, the other problem, how can "something" come from "nothing"?? It will always be absurd no matter what angle you choose.


Yeah it will be, but don't you think in order to explain things, we can at least assume something always existed.


No, this guy is finished, He's already 100% assured he knows, so he's completely closed. He's not capable of considering anything outside of his existing, preconceived notions and merely reads not to understand, but to confirm his pre-existing notions. That's all he is capable of understanding, so what's the point? Anything the least bit abstract completely eludes him.


Actually abstract things elude me too, that is why i have been his co traveller in this debate. May be its all the fault of electro chemical reactions in our brains, so you and others can bear with us for the sake of this debate ;)
Last edited by BBG on Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
BBG
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:35 am
Gender: None specified

PreviousNext

Return to God & Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 797 on Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:49 pm

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

Info

The team
Delete all board cookies
• All times are UTC [ DST ]