|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 14, 2014 10:40:19 GMT -5
Although not having been stated explicitly, there are at least a couple of atheists who regularly post here, you can derive this from their posting. I pondered how to raise this and ask how an atheist could be a part of a spirituality forum. And then it came to me that most Buddhists believe that Buddha did not believe in the existence of God and are therefore essentially atheists. (I personally believe this is an error, that Buddha deliberately didn't speak with reference to the existence of God or the nonexistence of God (except on occasion in personal exchanges, and then he expressed both views), because it wasn't relevant to awakening. Metaphysics comes later in Buddhism, and generally sticks with the psychology of man versus a whole cosmology, more or less).
So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? For an atheist, is that a relevant question or is it obvious that consciousness is somehow (in a way science can't yet explain, called the hard problem in philosophy) emergent from the material universe?
Now, I realize this might be a short thread, but decided to raise the question upon reading the new book, Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris.
sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 14, 2014 11:56:04 GMT -5
There is consciousness, there is 'me', and there is existence happening.. i have found that by setting aside the mindplay of conceptualizing beliefs about those actualities i am more capable of experiencing what is actually happening rather than believing what i 'think' about the happening..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2014 12:55:44 GMT -5
Although not having been stated explicitly, there are at least a couple of atheists who regularly post here, you can derive this from their posting. I pondered how to raise this and ask how an atheist could be a part of a spirituality forum. And then it came to me that most Buddhists believe that Buddha did not believe in the existence of God and are therefore essentially atheists. (I personally believe this is an error, that Buddha deliberately didn't speak with reference to the existence of God or the nonexistence of God (except on occasion in personal exchanges, and then he expressed both views), because it wasn't relevant to awakening. Metaphysics comes later in Buddhism, and generally sticks with the psychology of man versus a whole cosmology, more or less). So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? For an atheist, is that a relevant question or is it obvious that consciousness is somehow (in a way science can't yet explain, called the hard problem in philosophy) emergent from the material universe? Now, I realize this might be a short thread, but decided to raise the question upon reading the new book, Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris. sdp Similar to many other labels like it, "athiest" can mean alot of different things. For example, consider how many different types of Christians there are. Some speak in tongues, are born again, and believe that the bible is the literal word of God, others believe that one can only come to God through the agency of a priest, and still others will tell you that it doesn't matter what you believe, only what's in your heart. That last group is likely to have a lesbian pastor and host Bhuddist meditations at their church on Saturday afternoon. Generally speaking, the commonality between atheists seems to me to be a rejection of any explanation of reality that isn't rational, so I'd expect a common thread to be the view on your question that consciousness is an epiphenomenon that has to emerge from physical phenomena. Just like any other belief systems, the athiest doesn't question his core assumptions. If he did, he'd find them to be essentially entirely defined by what atheism isn't. The drive of the physical sciences to find a single "theory of everything" isn't a foregone conclusion and has at it's roots an uneasy truce between philosophers and the Vatican during the decades leading up to the historical period referred to as the "Enlightenment".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2014 13:28:54 GMT -5
Although not having been stated explicitly, there are at least a couple of atheists who regularly post here, you can derive this from their posting. I pondered how to raise this and ask how an atheist could be a part of a spirituality forum. And then it came to me that most Buddhists believe that Buddha did not believe in the existence of God and are therefore essentially atheists. (I personally believe this is an error, that Buddha deliberately didn't speak with reference to the existence of God or the nonexistence of God (except on occasion in personal exchanges, and then he expressed both views), because it wasn't relevant to awakening. Metaphysics comes later in Buddhism, and generally sticks with the psychology of man versus a whole cosmology, more or less). Atheism and theism both seem to miss the point when it comes to the sort of spirituality that we most often discuss here. The athiest rejects the God of the theist, which I do too, but I wouldn't call myself an atheist. Certainly, Buddha also saw the traditional concept of God as missing the point, so I can see him wanting to avoid that loaded term. There's no personal God, which is just a reflection/projection of the belief in the separate, volitional person, which is also false. It's also not so that consciousness arises from matter. The person is an expression of consciousness, but that expression is not what you are. You are that which is expressing, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 14, 2014 19:39:07 GMT -5
Although not having been stated explicitly, there are at least a couple of atheists who regularly post here, you can derive this from their posting. I pondered how to raise this and ask how an atheist could be a part of a spirituality forum. And then it came to me that most Buddhists believe that Buddha did not believe in the existence of God and are therefore essentially atheists. (I personally believe this is an error, that Buddha deliberately didn't speak with reference to the existence of God or the nonexistence of God (except on occasion in personal exchanges, and then he expressed both views), because it wasn't relevant to awakening. Metaphysics comes later in Buddhism, and generally sticks with the psychology of man versus a whole cosmology, more or less). So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? For an atheist, is that a relevant question or is it obvious that consciousness is somehow (in a way science can't yet explain, called the hard problem in philosophy) emergent from the material universe? Now, I realize this might be a short thread, but decided to raise the question upon reading the new book, Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris. sdp What you think you are has its existence in consciousness as does all existence, when physicists understand this 'the hard problem ' will disappear.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2014 22:45:17 GMT -5
Although not having been stated explicitly, there are at least a couple of atheists who regularly post here, you can derive this from their posting. I pondered how to raise this and ask how an atheist could be a part of a spirituality forum. And then it came to me that most Buddhists believe that Buddha did not believe in the existence of God and are therefore essentially atheists. (I personally believe this is an error, that Buddha deliberately didn't speak with reference to the existence of God or the nonexistence of God (except on occasion in personal exchanges, and then he expressed both views), because it wasn't relevant to awakening. Metaphysics comes later in Buddhism, and generally sticks with the psychology of man versus a whole cosmology, more or less). So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? For an atheist, is that a relevant question or is it obvious that consciousness is somehow (in a way science can't yet explain, called the hard problem in philosophy) emergent from the material universe? Now, I realize this might be a short thread, but decided to raise the question upon reading the new book, Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris. sdp What you think you are has its existence in consciousness as does all existence, when physicists understand this 'the hard problem ' will disappear. Yup. Most of the difficult problems are the result of the false assumptions that are at the core of them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 0:50:51 GMT -5
Although not having been stated explicitly, there are at least a couple of atheists who regularly post here, you can derive this from their posting. I pondered how to raise this and ask how an atheist could be a part of a spirituality forum. And then it came to me that most Buddhists believe that Buddha did not believe in the existence of God and are therefore essentially atheists. (I personally believe this is an error, that Buddha deliberately didn't speak with reference to the existence of God or the nonexistence of God (except on occasion in personal exchanges, and then he expressed both views), because it wasn't relevant to awakening. Metaphysics comes later in Buddhism, and generally sticks with the psychology of man versus a whole cosmology, more or less). So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? For an atheist, is that a relevant question or is it obvious that consciousness is somehow (in a way science can't yet explain, called the hard problem in philosophy) emergent from the material universe? Now, I realize this might be a short thread, but decided to raise the question upon reading the new book, Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris. sdp What you think you are has its existence in consciousness as does all existence, when physicists understand this 'the hard problem ' will disappear. They already do understand that physicality isn't independent of the observation of it, and have for decades. Physicists, however, simply aren't equipped to provide a definition of consciousness, because consciousness isn't a physical phenomena. Expecting otherwise would be as if you walked into a Boeing plant and asked them to grow you a bunch of bushels of corn or sent a class of med school graduates to the headquarters of the I.R.S. to do their internships. In terms of any scientific model of appearances, which is primary of consciousness and matter is really just an arbitrary assumption of the model.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2014 18:45:59 GMT -5
Although not having been stated explicitly, there are at least a couple of atheists who regularly post here, you can derive this from their posting. I pondered how to raise this and ask how an atheist could be a part of a spirituality forum. And then it came to me that most Buddhists believe that Buddha did not believe in the existence of God and are therefore essentially atheists. (I personally believe this is an error, that Buddha deliberately didn't speak with reference to the existence of God or the nonexistence of God (except on occasion in personal exchanges, and then he expressed both views), because it wasn't relevant to awakening. Metaphysics comes later in Buddhism, and generally sticks with the psychology of man versus a whole cosmology, more or less). So there is the question, do we exist in consciousness or does consciousness exist in us? For an atheist, is that a relevant question or is it obvious that consciousness is somehow (in a way science can't yet explain, called the hard problem in philosophy) emergent from the material universe? Now, I realize this might be a short thread, but decided to raise the question upon reading the new book, Waking Up, A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by the atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris. sdp What you think you are has its existence in consciousness as does all existence, when physicists understand this 'the hard problem ' will disappear. Physicists deal with evidence and mathematical theories which they hope to be able to verify by evidence. They therefore will not and cannot merely accept a theory that everything originates from consciousness. This is an insurmountable problem, one will never be able to give objective proof to another that everything originates in consciousness. Proof would merely expand the boundary of the known. sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2014 19:04:32 GMT -5
What you think you are has its existence in consciousness as does all existence, when physicists understand this 'the hard problem ' will disappear. They already do understand that physicality isn't independent of the observation of it, and have for decades.Physicists, however, simply aren't equipped to provide a definition of consciousness, because consciousness isn't a physical phenomena. Expecting otherwise would be as if you walked into a Boeing plant and asked them to grow you a bunch of bushels of corn or sent a class of med school graduates to the headquarters of the I.R.S. to do their internships. In terms of any scientific model of appearances, which is primary of consciousness and matter is really just an arbitrary assumption of the model. It's a popular misconception that physicists have known for decades that "physicality isn't independent of the observation of it". Some physicists believe this, as has been demonstrated in the What the bleep? film, but these are the ones who believe that everything arises from consciousness anyway. The vast majority of physicists are materialists OKA physicalists, don't believe in God or SOI, so, for them, for billions of years there wasn't any consciousness around for physicality to be dependent upon via observation. It doesn't take conscious observation to collapse the wave function and objectify a quantum state, a mechanical measuring device will work. sdp
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 15, 2014 19:38:25 GMT -5
They already do understand that physicality isn't independent of the observation of it, and have for decades.Physicists, however, simply aren't equipped to provide a definition of consciousness, because consciousness isn't a physical phenomena. Expecting otherwise would be as if you walked into a Boeing plant and asked them to grow you a bunch of bushels of corn or sent a class of med school graduates to the headquarters of the I.R.S. to do their internships. In terms of any scientific model of appearances, which is primary of consciousness and matter is really just an arbitrary assumption of the model. It's a popular misconception that physicists have known for decades that "physicality isn't independent of the observation of it". Some physicists believe this, as has been demonstrated in the What the bleep? film, but these are the ones who believe that everything arises from consciousness anyway. The vast majority of physicists are materialists OKA physicalists, don't believe in God or SOI, so, for them, for billions of years there wasn't any consciousness around for physicality to be dependent upon via observation. It doesn't take conscious observation to collapse the wave function and objectify a quantum state, a mechanical measuring device will work. sdp Along these lines, I just thought I'd mention a book that I found at the library a couple days ago, Zen Physics, by David Darling. If you haven't run across this one, you might want to check it out. To give an idea, Publishers Weekly says 'In this intriguing speculative essay, the author develops a...scientific pantheism, positing that, with death, we move from the narrow consciousness of our highly selective, reality-filtering brain to the wider, timeless consciousness of the unbound universe.' fwiw
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 15, 2014 20:04:54 GMT -5
It's a popular misconception that physicists have known for decades that "physicality isn't independent of the observation of it". Some physicists believe this, as has been demonstrated in the What the bleep? film, but these are the ones who believe that everything arises from consciousness anyway. The vast majority of physicists are materialists OKA physicalists, don't believe in God or SOI, so, for them, for billions of years there wasn't any consciousness around for physicality to be dependent upon via observation. It doesn't take conscious observation to collapse the wave function and objectify a quantum state, a mechanical measuring device will work. sdp Along these lines, I just thought I'd mention a book that I found at the library a couple days ago, Zen Physics, by David Darling. If you haven't run across this one, you might want to check it out. To give an idea, Publishers Weekly says 'In this intriguing speculative essay, the author develops a...scientific pantheism, positing that, with death, we move from the narrow consciousness of our highly selective, reality-filtering brain to the wider, timeless consciousness of the unbound universe.' fwiw Hi Silver: Those are ideas and theories that people choose to believe, "positing" their speculations as if they were more than snapshots of a process happening.. People can all experience the same tree, rock, food, but.. each person's understanding of those experiences is unique to that person, more so is each person's imagined reality beyond the commonly verifiable experiences of their existence, their mindscape..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 20:36:35 GMT -5
They already do understand that physicality isn't independent of the observation of it, and have for decades.Physicists, however, simply aren't equipped to provide a definition of consciousness, because consciousness isn't a physical phenomena. Expecting otherwise would be as if you walked into a Boeing plant and asked them to grow you a bunch of bushels of corn or sent a class of med school graduates to the headquarters of the I.R.S. to do their internships. In terms of any scientific model of appearances, which is primary of consciousness and matter is really just an arbitrary assumption of the model. It's a popular misconception that physicists have known for decades that "physicality isn't independent of the observation of it". Some physicists believe this, as has been demonstrated in the What the bleep? film, but these are the ones who believe that everything arises from consciousness anyway. The vast majority of physicists are materialists OKA physicalists, don't believe in God or SOI, so, for them, for billions of years there wasn't any consciousness around for physicality to be dependent upon via observation. It doesn't take conscious observation to collapse the wave function and objectify a quantum state, a mechanical measuring device will work.sdp Actually that's a misconception that any honest physicist will tell you is also a forever unprovable conjecture, and why that is should be obvious: even if it was the case, how would we ever be informed of that? How can you design an experiment to prove that it's true? Physicists know all about the Quantum Observer and it's part of the sophomore level curriculum. What you're referring to with the primacy of consciousness is interpretation and metaphysics, and I've never done a poll but they're likely all over the map on that. For example, I'm sure some of them just radically redefine materialism and consider the QO to be any individual and account for object permanence by noting that everything is entangled with everything else. If that's their interpretation then consciousness can arise as an epiphenomenon in the brain, and need not be singular. edit: by my recollection, there are several different metaphysical interpretations of QM that preserve material realism, but they all account for the Wigner's friend paradox in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 21:03:54 GMT -5
They already do understand that physicality isn't independent of the observation of it, and have for decades.Physicists, however, simply aren't equipped to provide a definition of consciousness, because consciousness isn't a physical phenomena. Expecting otherwise would be as if you walked into a Boeing plant and asked them to grow you a bunch of bushels of corn or sent a class of med school graduates to the headquarters of the I.R.S. to do their internships. In terms of any scientific model of appearances, which is primary of consciousness and matter is really just an arbitrary assumption of the model. It's a popular misconception that physicists have known for decades that "physicality isn't independent of the observation of it". Some physicists believe this, as has been demonstrated in the What the bleep? film, but these are the ones who believe that everything arises from consciousness anyway. The vast majority of physicists are materialists OKA physicalists, don't believe in God or SOI, so, for them, for billions of years there wasn't any consciousness around for physicality to be dependent upon via observation. It doesn't take conscious observation to collapse the wave function and objectify a quantum state, a mechanical measuring device will work. sdp How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 15, 2014 21:52:29 GMT -5
It's a popular misconception that physicists have known for decades that "physicality isn't independent of the observation of it". Some physicists believe this, as has been demonstrated in the What the bleep? film, but these are the ones who believe that everything arises from consciousness anyway. The vast majority of physicists are materialists OKA physicalists, don't believe in God or SOI, so, for them, for billions of years there wasn't any consciousness around for physicality to be dependent upon via observation. It doesn't take conscious observation to collapse the wave function and objectify a quantum state, a mechanical measuring device will work.sdp Actually that's a misconception that any honest physicist will tell you is also a forever unprovable conjecture, and why that is should be obvious: even if it was the case, how would we ever be informed of that? How can you design an experiment to prove that it's true? Physicists know all about the Quantum Observer and it's part of the sophomore level curriculum. What you're referring to with the primacy of consciousness is interpretation and metaphysics, and I've never done a poll but they're likely all over the map on that. For example, I'm sure some of them just radically redefine materialism and consider the QO to be any individual and account for object permanence by noting that everything is entangled with everything else. If that's their interpretation then consciousness can arise as an epiphenomenon in the brain, and need not be singular. edit: by my recollection, there are several different metaphysical interpretations of QM that preserve material realism, but they all account for the Wigner's friend paradox in one way or another. When Erwin Schrodinger proposed the famous experiment called Schrodinger's Cat, his intention was to poke holes in Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (precisely what we're discussing now), he was trying to show how absurd trying to take quantum physics into the classical (big stuff) world was, like a cat simultaneously being 1/2 dead and 1/2 alive, he didn't expect to be taken seriously. sdp
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 15, 2014 22:03:28 GMT -5
Along these lines, I just thought I'd mention a book that I found at the library a couple days ago, Zen Physics, by David Darling. If you haven't run across this one, you might want to check it out. To give an idea, Publishers Weekly says 'In this intriguing speculative essay, the author develops a...scientific pantheism, positing that, with death, we move from the narrow consciousness of our highly selective, reality-filtering brain to the wider, timeless consciousness of the unbound universe.' fwiw Hi Silver: Those are ideas and theories that people choose to believe, "positing" their speculations as if they were more than snapshots of a process happening.. People can all experience the same tree, rock, food, but.. each person's understanding of those experiences is unique to that person, more so is each person's imagined reality beyond the commonly verifiable experiences of their existence, their mindscape.. It sounds like a good read, it can't hurt to read it. I realize it's theory. We're (some of us) always wanting to know more, to venture forth in whatever direction seems promising.
|
|