Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[2 know him]

I know of no instance of consciousness "Living outside of matter". Do you have any evidence of this ever occurring?

I was proposing the possibility of it and it is as I see it. But the fact that the outcome of matters existence can be change by the observer in some quantum physics experiments suggests that is exactly the case.

 

[The Cadet]

I was proposing the possibility of it and it is as I see it. But the fact that the outcome of matters existence can be change by the observer in some quantum physics experiments suggests that is exactly the case.

This is a common misunderstanding of the observer effect. The observer does not need to be conscious, and the fact that the observer is conscious has no bearing on the outcome.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are introducing a deity into it. I am not.

Then where do you think the first life came from?

Where do we observe the origin of this first life?

I am only proposing that life comes only from life.

That doesn't explain where the first life came from.

Also, you are avoiding the question. What keeps scientists from testing whether life comes only from life?

How would that tell us where the first life came from?

Every observation indicates otherwise.

How does that tell us where the first life came from?

You are already testing it by trying to force nature into doing what it can't.

Where did you show that nature can't produce life from non-life?

You once claimed that dirty rags produced mice and rotten food maggots right? Try something similar with abiogenesis. Let's see what results you get.

Where did I claim that?

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem incapable of or unwilling to accept an explanation that doesn't
conform to your preconceptions of what was written. In short, you prefer to argue against your strawman.

I am unwilling to accept explanations that have no evidence to back them. What is wrong with that?

 

[Belk]

You know no instance of life arising from abiogenesis. Neither do you have evidence of it ever occurring. Yet that doesn't interfere with your beliefs.

You do not know my beliefs. Perhaps you should refrain from speaking on them until you do?

 

[Belk]

I was proposing the possibility of it and it is as I see it.

What makes you think it a possibility worth proposing?

But the fact that the outcome of matters existence can be change by the observer in some quantum physics experiments suggests that is exactly the case.

I make no claim to be an expert on quantum physics but what schooling I have had in the subject does not support your contention.

 

[Willis Gravning]

This is a common misunderstanding of the observer effect. The observer does not need to be conscious, and the fact that the observer is conscious has no bearing on the outcome.

Are you referring to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment? I'm curious about what an unconscious observer might be. Thanks.

 

[The Cadet]

Are you referring to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment? I'm curious about what an unconscious observer might be. Thanks.

...Any object within the quantum field. The fundamental issue of the observer problem is that observation changes the experiment. This isn't because just looking at it changes things, it's because, for example, a photon (which we need to observe an electron) will slightly shift a photon's tragectory.

 

[2 know him]

Are you saying that when you see a fire, that there is no test you can conduct to see if what you are looking at is actually fire?

I am saying that you cannot prove the fire to be real outside of your consciousness, the same as you cannot prove what you are seeing when you are dreaming is real. Is what you are seeing when you are dreaming real? What if this life is only a dream compared to the next (after death)? Yes the fire is real to you, but the physical world is not the substance of eternity: so what is? Consciousness can properly possess eternal properties, while the physical world doesn't.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am saying that you cannot prove the fire to be real outside of your consciousness, the same as you cannot prove what you are seeing when you are dreaming is real.

I hope that you aren't a fireman that is wandering in a daze while people are burning to death, all because you don't think that it is "proven" that your senses are informing you of external persons.

It's like you are asking for proof of color, but demanding that people must cut out their own eyes because they can't use sight to back up their claims.

This is rationalism-run-amok. You have plenty of evidence that fire is real. Asking for "proof" is just pointless philosophical masturbation because it demands an unrealistic and unnecessary epistemological standard.

Is what you are seeing when you are dreaming real? What if this life is only a dream compared to the next (after death)?

When Morpheus brings me the red pill, we'll talk. Until then, all of these imaginary possibilities have no philosophical weight. They are just imagination.

Consciousness can properly possess eternal properties, while the physical world doesn't.

*facepalm*

This is more imagination.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you referring to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment? I'm curious about what an unconscious observer might be. Thanks.

"In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that affects the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[1]

According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[2] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[3] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

In the famous double slit experiment, the observer is the photographic film, not the scientist doing the experiment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am saying that you cannot prove the fire to be real outside of your consciousness, the same as you cannot prove what you are seeing when you are dreaming is real. Is what you are seeing when you are dreaming real? What if this life is only a dream compared to the next (after death)?

What if you are just a brain in a vat?

Yes the fire is real to you

It seems rather real to everybody else as well....

, but the physical world is not the substance of eternity

What does that even mean?

Consciousness can properly possess eternal properties, while the physical world doesn't.

If you say so.

You're gonna have to make a lot more sense then that, though.

 

[2 know him]

What if you are just a brain in a vat?



It seems rather real to everybody else as well....



What does that even mean?



If you say so.

You're gonna have to make a lot more sense then that, though.

Does the physical world have eternal properties? Do you even know what an eternal property must look like? Eternal properties means something has the ability to be self-sustaining and the physical world does not have that capability and cannot even be proven to be real outside of a person's conscious existence. Since the physical world is not eternal and doesn't have eternal qualities, the minds of scientists keep looking to understand what is the beginning of the universe. Consciousness has the capability of being an eternal substance, as it is conceivably possible that a conscious existence can exist without being destroyed, if it exists outside of a physical body. When you dream, you dream you have a body and that you are in a physical world: but does that physical world or body exist? No, so why do you think this one does: outside of consciousness?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does the physical world have eternal properties? Do you even know what an eternal property must look like?

No, I have no idea what you mean by "eternal property".

Eternal properties means something has the ability to be self-sustaining

What does that mean, exactly?

and the physical world does not have that capability and cannot even be proven to be real outside of a person's conscious existence.

Or so you keep claiming.

To reasonable people however, it comes accross as rather philosophycal masturbation to state that one can't reasonably prove that fire is real and that it is a bad idea to stick your hand in it.

Since the physical world is not eternal and doesn't have eternal qualities, the minds of scientists keep looking to understand what is the beginning of the universe.

...without assuming the answers, yes.

Consciousness has the capability of being an eternal substance

What does that mean, and how do you know?

, as it is conceivably possible that a conscious existence can exist without being destroyed

Again, what does this mean?
As far as I know, consiousness is an emergent property of a physical brain. I have never witnessed a consiousness that is not emergent from a physical brain.

, if it exists outside of a physical body.

Again, what is your evidence to support this?
I've never seen a consiousness absent a physical brain....

It's like talking about a type of wood that doesn't come from a tree.
I don't know what that is...

When you dream, you dream you have a body and that you are in a physical world: but does that physical world or body exist? No, so why do you think this one does: outside of consciousness?

A dream is something that takes place between your ears. Why would you assume that it takes place in physical reality?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was proposing the possibility of it and it is as I see it. But the fact that the outcome of matters existence can be change by the observer in some quantum physics experiments suggests that is exactly the case.

No, it can't. You can't change matter by observing it.

 

[2 know him]

No, it can't. You can't change matter by observing it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/future-influences-present_b_816221.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/03/can-the-future-affect-the-past

 

[Ana the Ist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/future-influences-present_b_816221.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/03/can-the-future-affect-the-past

So here is a fantastic article debunking biocentrism. It not only explains all of the science that Mr. Lanza doesn't understand...it also explains all the science that proves biocentrism is completely false. Take a look...it's really a good article...

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/bioc...robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

Lanza really only gained a following amongst those who don't really understand science either. There's a good reason why scientists call biocentrism nonsense and don't give it any credence as a theory.

I don't know what your second link was supposed to be. It led me to a blank page.

 

[The Cadet]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/future-influences-present_b_816221.html

This is the same Robert Lanza behind the "Biocentrism" nonsense, right? This guy fell off the deep end ages ago.

 

[Ana the Ist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/future-influences-present_b_816221.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/03/can-the-future-affect-the-past

I was able to get the second link to load...but I don't see how quantum entanglement supports this notion of yours that consciousness affects reality. Maybe you could explain why you think it does?

 

[2 know him]

So here is a fantastic article debunking biocentrism. It not only explains all of the science that Mr. Lanza doesn't understand...it also explains all the science that proves biocentrism is completely false. Take a look...it's really a good article...

http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/bioc...robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/

Lanza really only gained a following amongst those who don't really understand science either. There's a good reason why scientists call biocentrism nonsense and don't give it any credence as a theory.

I don't know what your second link was supposed to be. It led me to a blank page.

I guess that is why Time magazine has him as 1 of the top 100 influential people of the world, in 2014: "Lanza really only gained a following amongst those who don't really understand science"; I have look at both sides of the arguments made for and against biocentrism and 13 years ago I looked at the Quantum physics experiments and felt that someone would write a book concluding what Robert did, as I had came to the same conclusions. A couple of years ago I did a search and saw Robert did write such a book, but he is not some quack scientist as you state: nothing can be further from the truth and maybe you should take a look at his credentials before you make the ignorant statements you do about him.

http://time.com/time100-2014/ Go to profession, then science, and you will see Robert there.

http://www.robertlanza.com/ Here are some of Roberts credentials, now let's see the credentials of your critics.