Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[HypnoPsi]

If the conscious-thinker (posited as "God") is not self-sustaining then naturally there would have to be something more fundamental.

If God is "self-sustaining" then you have no basis to attack "self-sustaining" as applied to material. Why is the nonsensical property of "self-sustaining" acceptable for God but not material?

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.

I have no idea what qualities "God" has - none, zip. The Buddhists don't even like to personify this "thing" in the first place and the gnostics had their whole Demi-urge idea.

My view is that we don't have enough information to meaningfully speculate beyond "conscious-thinker". "God" may be the Christian trinitarian God or the something else for all I know.

The point I'm making is that I don't know if this "conscious-thinker" is self-sustaining or not.

If God is not "self-sustaining" and there is something more fundamental, then you have become a materialist.

I don't see how - and again, I'm not saying there is something more fundamental either. I'm saying I don't know.

Either way it seems like you have taken a huge turn in the direction of your arguments here.

No, my only argument has been that a conscious thinker of the Universe is more parsimonious than any idea about some self-sustaining matter/information stuff. Beyond that I don't know.

Is anybody else reading this as an admission that HypnoPsi realizes his/her arguments aren't holding up to scrutiny on this forum?

All that seems to have happened in this thread is that no matter however many different ways I try to explain my ideas you all seem to read something else, no doubt borne of your preconceptions about what "God" means.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

OK, with that I agree (with the proviso that I do not agree that whatever we are discussing is "outside spacetime", since that does not necessarily follow, the possibility of self-sustention, but not self-creation, always being a logical possibility). Either guess is speculation and neither is more parsimonious since the "sustainer of the universe" is certainly not proved by knowledge that thought exists while "something that causes motion" is. So we are left with deciding what we think the origin of motion and time *is* (both of which we also know by the cogito -- that there is motion and time, not what their origin is).

I see no way out of the dilemma, no more parsimonious solution. Choose God, choose "energy", they are both equally parsimonious solutions.

Okay, first, I would like to point that I'm very glad that you certainly seem to understand what I've been saying but, perhaps obviously, I cannot agree with your second conclusion.

Whatever you are defining "energy" as (and ultimately "uncuttable" thing or as pure information) I still say that a conscious thinker is a much more parsimonious solution to the question of its existence than it being self-sustaining; again, the point being that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is predicated on consciousness while any type of self-sustaining substance or information (which I see as much less likely) simply isn't predicated on anything.

So, we are back to square one with it all being a wash and the decision resting on people's inclinations. The point is to decide and to know that it is a decision, so that we can stop all this bickering about "I know the ultimate truth and you guys are wrong."

Yes, this is very true. Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.

My offering is only that my solution is the most parsimonious theory given the current state of affairs.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

The arguments from the materialists here have been less than persuasive. They attack (1) by basically kicking a rock and saying, "Did you see that? That's a material thing! I felt it, so it must be a physical object!"

Unquestionably the biggest red herring of them all and I was truly surprised how long they held onto this given that there is very clearly nothing in either phenomenalism or idealism that says observables are less "real" somehow.

(3) and (4) have led to absurd claims of doubting your own consciousness and the existence of conscious toasters (the extra-fancy model actually possessing self-awareness).

The fascinating thing about all of these strange claims is how belief and reality have became blurred. Some have been arguing from a position that computational (sic physical) theories of consciousness seem almost like dogma to them.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[paximperium]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.

I have no idea what qualities "God" has - none, zip. The Buddhists don't even like to personify this "thing" in the first place and the gnostics had their whole Demi-urge idea.

My view is that we don't have enough information to meaningfully speculate beyond "conscious-thinker". "God" may be the Christian trinitarian God or the something else for all I know.

The point I'm making is that I don't know if this "conscious-thinker" is self-sustaining or not.

Translation: My claim that "I don't know but god is involved and I don't know a thing about god" is more parsimonious than you materialists claim of "I don't know".

Maybe if you keep repeating this line or reasoning it will make sense to a child.

I don't see how - and again, I'm not saying there is something more fundamental either. I'm saying I don't know.

So you claim you don't know a thing about this god and you don't know how this god sustains itself but it somehow sustains the cosmos...because you say so? Yeah.

No, my only argument has been that a conscious thinker of the Universe is more parsimonious than any idea about some self-sustaining matter/information stuff. Beyond that I don't know.

Keep claiming that and people will continue to think of that argument as completely stupid and dishonest garbage.

All that seems to have happened in this thread is that no matter however many different ways I try to explain my ideas you all seem to read something else, no doubt borne of your preconceptions about what "God" means.

No, you argument is very simple. You make a claim based on your definition of parsimony that no one else uses based on your ignorance and special pleading and you ignore any and all criticisms of your illogical thought process.

Very simple, very silly and not even that original.

 

[paximperium]

Okay, first, I would like to point that I'm very glad that you certainly seem to understand what I've been saying but, perhaps obviously, I cannot agree with your second conclusion.

Whatever you are defining "energy" as (and ultimately "uncuttable" thing or as pure information) I still say that a conscious thinker is a much more parsimonious solution to the question of its existence than it being self-sustaining; again, the point being that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is predicated on consciousness while any type of self-sustaining substance or information (which I see as much less likely) simply isn't predicated on anything.

False nonsense again
Energy=Available capacity of a system to perform work
Seems pretty parsimonious enough explanation for self sustaining. Energy sustains matter. Where this energy comes from? Don't know but no one else here seems to make bold unfounded claims except for theists.

And you can keep claiming that consciousness is magically self-sustaining without a brain without a hint of evidence and it won't make your reasoning any less nonsensical and stupid.

You can keep claiming an unknown process that is invariably linked to materialistic processes called consciousness somehow magically takes a leap of logic off a cliff and makes your god claim valid as somehow more parsimonious and we can keep calling such special pleading and non-sequiters silly.

Yes, this is very true. Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.

So why are making an unfounded claim based on absolutely nothing but your ignorance?

My offering is only that my solution is the most parsimonious theory given the current state of affairs.

No. It is nonsense. Your continued claim of "Don't know but goddidit" is in no way more parsimonious than "Don't know." It is just dishonesty wrapped in nonsense.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Hey, I'm back. Been a bit busy over the last week or so but I'll try to continue where I left off in the discussion :-X

Another instance: I sometimes experience lucid dreams - that is, I am aware that I am dreaming, and have some control over the course of the dream. I can even voluntarily wake myself from this state. And yet, I'm in REM sleep.

Consicousness is self awareness. The rest is interesting, but it's not consciousness.

Okay, so it seems we're using two different definitions of 'consciousness'. Now that we've got that established, atleast, what I was driving at is that all the 'interesting' stuff I was mentioning is the part of the conscious experience that we don't fully understand yet. Its the hard part of the 'hard problem'.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.

The damn thinker has to be self-sustaining, too! It's a self-sustaining thinker vs. self-sustaining matter. Let me factor it for you:

(self-sustaining) (thinker vs. matter)



~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay, first, I would like to point that I'm very glad that you certainly seem to understand what I've been saying but, perhaps obviously, I cannot agree with your second conclusion.

Whatever you are defining "energy" as (and ultimately "uncuttable" thing or as pure information) I still say that a conscious thinker is a much more parsimonious solution to the question of its existence than it being self-sustaining; again, the point being that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is predicated on consciousness while any type of self-sustaining substance or information (which I see as much less likely) simply isn't predicated on anything.

Why do you know that thought exists in the first place? Because of the cogito. But that argument tells us more than you think. Thinking must take place in time or it wouldn't be possible and thinking requires some form of energy. So both time and energy are more fundamental than thought. Energy is most definitely predicated on the same argument that you are using. There is no way of telling how that energy is manifest -- consciousness, something more diffuse -- but it must be there by the cogito. There is no way to decide what that "stuff" is, though, so ultimately you must decide for yourself. In other words, your argument is not the most parsimonious. It is one of two independent arguments that are equally parsimonious.

Yes, this is very true. Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.

My offering is only that my solution is the most parsimonious theory given the current state of affairs.

~
HypnoPsi

It's more fundamental than that. We can't know about the fundamental constituent of the universe. We can describe some of its attributes, but that is all. Any argument that supposes to know it is simply wrong.

Your solution is not the most parsimonious.

 

[PixyMisa]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.

You don't have an argument. You have an assertion. Which happens to be false.

I have no idea what qualities "God" has - none, zip.

Then why do you keep claiming that you do?

My view is that we don't have enough information to meaningfully speculate beyond "conscious-thinker". "God" may be the Christian trinitarian God or the something else for all I know.

Like that, for example?

 

[HypnoPsi]

The damn thinker has to be self-sustaining, too! It's a self-sustaining thinker vs. self-sustaining matter. Let me factor it for you:

(self-sustaining) (thinker vs. matter)

The "damn thinker" only has to be self-sustaining to someone who adheres to judeo-christian-islamic traditions or similar.

For all I know the gnostics with their demi-urge could be right or the Buddhist taboo against ever personifying the source of reality could be the truth.

I don't know - or claim to know who is right or wrong.

All I've been trying to do here is strip things down to the bare essentials in regards to answering the question of why the Universe exists as best as we can (i.e. parsimoniously) given the very limited circumstances we find ourselves in.

My conclusion that a distinct conscious thinker is more parsimonious than any self-sustaining substance (matter) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) is just what it is - no more and no less.

As I see it, further speculation about the nature and/or properties of said thinker are just that - speculation; or, more precisely, belief.

That said, let me be clear that I, on a personal level, will not hesitate to state that my personal belief is that the thinker is self-sustaining and self-aware (in otherwords, "God"). The difference I'm pointing out to you is that I accept there is a difference between logically formed theory and my personal beliefs.

Why can you not accept that?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Translation: My claim that "I don't know but god is involved and I don't know a thing about god" is more parsimonious than you materialists claim of "I don't know".

Agnositicism is the claim that we don't know. Materialism has a completely different history (and common currency) than you consistenly seek to use the word for.

So you claim you don't know a thing about this god and you don't know how this god sustains itself but it somehow sustains the cosmos...because you say so? Yeah.

No. I am saying, that all things considered, the most parsimonious solution to the question of existence is a conscious thinker of reality rather than some self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) since only the former and neither of the latter is predicated on anything known.

I don't even know if this "God" is sustaining itself or if it's some kind of demi-urge like the agnostics used to (still to?) claim. For all I know it could be Gods all the way down. I don't personally believe that reality is sustained by a series of ever more powerful Gods or that the cause of our universe is the demi-urge but I do not hesitate to say that I don't know one way or the other.

Atheistic materialism (or whatever you choose to call it) isn't like that. That is the affirmative belief that the physical laws of the Universe are all there is (or that there is some ultimate substance or other). Ergo, that is the affirmative belief that it is self-sustaining.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Energy=Available capacity of a system to perform work

Which is perfectly fine for a purely physical system...

Seems pretty parsimonious enough explanation for self sustaining. Energy sustains matter. Where this energy comes from? Don't know but no one else here seems to make bold unfounded claims except for theists.

I don't think you speak for everyone here at all.

What I have to ask though is why you don't make any bold assumption beyond "don't know"? Are you afraid of criticism?

Science is found in thesis defence not in sitting on the fence. Skepticism is the easy half of science. I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in believing in some self-sustaining substance or other and/or conscious toaster ovens.

The reason we insist in science upon thesis defence is to separate those who can produce and defend theories from those who can't - because it is only by advancing ideas that we move forward.

So, I ask again, are you afraid of criticism or are you merely incapable of formulating and/or defending a theory?

And you can keep claiming that consciousness is magically self-sustaining without a brain without a hint of evidence and it won't make your reasoning any less nonsensical and stupid.

Aside from the fact that I have never claimed consciousness is magically self-sustaining, comments like these only show that my views are getting to you and you know it.

Peoples inclinations seem to be driving a lot of the debate here due to the fact that we just don't have enough information about consciousness and the Universe (in terms of how it operates) to meaningfully answer the question of why it exists.

So why are making an unfounded claim based on absolutely nothing but your ignorance?

Sheesh... truly unbelievable. Constructing a parsimonious theory is precisely about filling in what we are "ignorant" about with what currently seems like the most logical conclusion.

The practice has a firm foundation and necessary purpose in science.

The reason we insist upon thesis defence is so that we can move forward. Nobody can move forward if everybody just insists upon using language in such a way that they are only skeptical of the other guys theory (or completely agnostic about the matter at hand).

For example, I might disagree with Pixy for any number of reasons. But I cannot and will not fault him on his willingness to advance and defend his theory that toaster ovens are self-aware no matter how ludicrous a proposal I find it to be.

Your whole "I don't know" fails as science as you have no "but I consider the best theory to be.... for the following reasons" on the end of it.

Your continued claim of "Don't know but goddidit" is in no way more parsimonious than "Don't know." It is just dishonesty wrapped in nonsense.

I have never once claimed that "Goddidit" is more parsimonious than "Don't know". Nor would I for the very obvious and simple reason that "Don't know" isn't a theory - parsimonious or otherwise.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[paximperium]

Agnositicism is the claim that we don't know. Materialism has a completely different history (and common currency) than you consistenly seek to use the word for.

Maybe now you'll get it and stop projecting your nonsense onto materialism. Most Materialists are also agnostics. Most materialists believe that "matter" is all there is but what "matter" really may never be ultimately be known.

No. I am saying, that all things considered, the most parsimonious solution to the question of existence is a conscious thinker of reality rather than some self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) since only the former and neither of the latter is predicated on anything known.

Nope, complete and utter garbage as usual as mentioned by everyone. This is the reason people laugh at your nonsense, you ARE ASSERTING this nonsense without one hint of evidence. "Just because Hypnopsi says so" is not a good reason.

It is NOT more parsimonious to overlay "magic" onto stuff. Stuff exists, you then assert that this stuff somehow MUST(just according to you) be sustained or it will somehow dissipate without a mind to sustain it. So you have created a problem by "hand-waving" idealism into the argument WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BACK UP THIS ASSERTION. It is nonsense and continues to be nonsense.

As asked many many many times and which you seem unable to answer, how do you know you are conscious? How do you know your consciousness is yours and not someone elses?

I don't even know if this "God" is sustaining itself or if it's some kind of demi-urge like the agnostics used to (still to?) claim. For all I know it could be Gods all the way down. I don't personally believe that reality is sustained by a series of ever more powerful Gods or that the cause of our universe is the demi-urge but I do not hesitate to say that I don't know one way or the other.

So why do you keep asserting this nonsense? All I can smell is dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Claiming "I don't know the characteristics of god" and then turning around and claiming "God sustains the cosmos because I say so" smells kinda odd.

Atheistic materialism (or whatever you choose to call it) isn't like that. That is the affirmative belief that the physical laws of the Universe are all there is (or that there is some ultimate substance or other). Ergo, that is the affirmative belief that it is self-sustaining.

Yes...so?

For some reason you believe that agnosticism and a positive claim is somehow exclusive.

You see, materialism(or monism or even more accurate a-dualism as it is more accurate description) believes that there is only one substance in this world because we reject the idea of magic/god/overmind being laid on top of what is known. We don't know if we will ever know what this ultimate "material" is but we keep searching.

Which is perfectly fine for a purely physical system...

EXACTLY. Makes great parsimonious sense huh?

I don't think you speak for everyone here at all.

Now, that's very obvious. You've created a meandering self-contradictory pseudo-philosophy that no one else believes in order to reject reality. Bravo.

What I have to ask though is why you don't make any bold assumption beyond "don't know"? Are you afraid of criticism?

Because I don't know? Because unlike certain people who enjoy making stuff up, I don't make assertions I can't back up. I'm not well versed enough in physics to come up with my own hypothesis that won't contradict all that is already known about matter. I'm honest like that.

Science is found in thesis defence not in sitting on the fence. Skepticism is the easy half of science. I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in believing in some self-sustaining substance or other and/or conscious toaster ovens.

And? That was a criticism how?
Are you going to claim to be some pioneer now based purely on your useless and baseless assertions? Yeah, what an ego.

I'll keep to my medical research and defend my research in that area.

The reason we insist in science upon thesis defence is to separate those who can produce and defend theories from those who can't - because it is only by advancing ideas that we move forward.

Yeah, and continuong to harp of useless, unfalsiable magic thinking moves us backwards. Why don't you try bringing back to "Aether" Hypotheisis of "Demon possession causes seizures" hypothesis?

So, I ask again, are you afraid of criticism or are you merely incapable of formulating and/or defending a theory?

So, you asserting that I don't get to criticize crap if I can't formulate my own crap? Sorry, I care about quality not quantity.

So that's all you have left? The wonderful Tu Quoque Fallacy.

Aside from the fact that I have never claimed consciousness is magically self-sustaining, comments like these only show that my views are getting to you and you know it.

What an ego. So all you have left is an attempt to "hand-wave" away arguments to prevent your cognitive dissonance.

Oh yeah, your god/overmind argument that this disembodied conciousness must somehow magically sustains reality but somehow has some unknown mechanism to explain how it sustains itself basically is your entire argument. A big pile of begging the question and special pleading.

Sheesh... truly unbelievable. Constructing a parsimonious theory is precisely about filling in what we are "ignorant" about with what currently seems like the most logical conclusion.

Yes indeed, so why is your claim neither based on what is known or logic. So why do you keep claiming this pile of garbage?

The practice has a firm foundation and necessary purpose in science.

Hallelujah, bless Science.

The reason we insist upon thesis defence is so that we can move forward. Nobody can move forward if everybody just insists upon using language in such a way that they are only skeptical of the other guys theory (or completely agnostic about the matter at hand).

Okay. Evidence? Any at all?
You don't get to defend your thesis based on semantic juggling alone.
So how do you falsifly your nonsense anyway?

For example, I might disagree with Pixy for any number of reasons. But I cannot and will not fault him on his willingness to advance and defend his theory that toaster ovens are self-aware no matter how ludicrous a proposal I find it to be.

That's because YOU refuse to define Conciousness or Self-Awareness despite being asked many many times.

Your whole "I don't know" fails as science as you have no "but I consider the best theory to be.... for the following reasons" on the end of it.

Nope, don't have to. I don't have to put forth a claim to counter yours.
I don't have to put forth any other explanation to be able to reject your claim that you saw bigfoot.

BTW: Your nonsense continues to be nonsense. Stop attempting to weasel in your magic claim as some sort of scientific claim. It isn't in the same league because it is Not-parsimonious, not verifiable and not falsifiable. It is fantasy.

I have never once claimed that "Goddidit" is more parsimonious than "Don't know".

Suuuure, you didn't. Anyone can easily read your posts to see otherwise.

Nor would I for the very obvious and simple reason that "Don't know" isn't a theory - parsimonious or otherwise.

No, it is not a hypothesis but is intellectual honesty.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The "damn thinker" only has to be self-sustaining to someone who adheres to judeo-christian-islamic traditions or similar.

The external world is clearly self-sustaining. It sustains itself. It lasts beyond your conscious awareness of it. It sits there and exists.

(self-sustaining) (thinker vs. matter)


~~ Paul

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Agnositicism is the claim that we don't know. Materialism has a completely different history (and common currency) than you consistenly seek to use the word for.

Oh, I get it now. Your repeated claims of low-level psi ability are based on your belief that you can read other people's minds, aren't they? Otherwise, how could you tell them what they believe with such profound accuracy? Quick, guess how many fingers I'm holding up! Guess which finger I'm holding up.

No. I am saying, that all things considered, the most parsimonious solution to the question of existence is a conscious thinker of reality rather than some self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) since only the former and neither of the latter is predicated on anything known.

So your unsupported claim wins in a black vs. white contest against a strawman. Big surprise you'd actually repeat that.

I don't even know if this "God" is sustaining itself or if it's some kind of demi-urge like the agnostics used to (still to?) claim. For all I know it could be Gods all the way down. I don't personally believe that reality is sustained by a series of ever more powerful Gods or that the cause of our universe is the demi-urge but I do not hesitate to say that I don't know one way or the other.

Then why do you impose such a ridiculous requirement on materialism while letting your own God off the hook?

Atheistic materialism (or whatever you choose to call it) isn't like that. That is the affirmative belief that the physical laws of the Universe are all there is (or that there is some ultimate substance or other). Ergo, that is the affirmative belief that it is self-sustaining.

Didn't I already explain to you that it's perfectly sensible to accept the conclusions that the evidence currently points to, even if it turns out to be incomplete or proven wrong at a later time? You seem to be assuming that agreement with the current scientific model is tantamount to chiseling one's beliefs in stone. To that I say, quit projecting. You're talking to people who would be willing to change their minds if shown new evidence.

Which is perfectly fine for a purely physical system...

I hope you know that ellipses are used to indicate an omission or truncation, rather than a spoken delay at the end of a complete thought the way you seem to be using it.

Science is found in thesis defence not in sitting on the fence. Skepticism is the easy half of science. I could sit here all day pointing out the flaws in believing in some self-sustaining substance or other and/or conscious toaster ovens.

The reason we insist in science upon thesis defence is to separate those who can produce and defend theories from those who can't - because it is only by advancing ideas that we move forward.

Your God-mind consciousness that is exempt from the rules, as well as your idea that consciousness is independent of physiology, are non-falsible assertions. They also run headlong into the wall of evidence that causality runs from physiology to consciousness, not the other way around.

Sheesh... truly unbelievable. Constructing a parsimonious theory is precisely about filling in what we are "ignorant" about with what currently seems like the most logical conclusion.

The practice has a firm foundation and necessary purpose in science.

The reason we insist upon thesis defence is so that we can move forward. Nobody can move forward if everybody just insists upon using language in such a way that they are only skeptical of the other guys theory (or completely agnostic about the matter at hand).

You don't have a theory. At most, you have an untestable hypothesis. You have no way of supporting it other than the argument from incredulity, the tu quoque fallacy, and your argument from persecution. The God-mind consciousness claim doesn't do anything to "move science forward" any more than intelligent design does, so the parade you're throwing is rather premature.

By the way, the number I was thinking of, between 1 and 3, was 2.71828.

 

[rocketdodger]

I wish you would try to understand this: my argument that a conscious-thinker of the Universe is the most parsimonious theory is only what it is, namely that the "thinker" argument is more parsimonious than the self-sustaining "matter" arguement.

I fully understand your argument. All the smart people here do.

The problem with your argument is that it only works if you constrain the context of reality to whatever is between this conscious thinker and our own consciousness.

Outside of those bounds, your theory looses steam rapidly. And everyone is pointing out to you why it looses steam.

You can't claim magic is more parsimonious without also analyzing the magic.

I mean, seriously. Your argument is that what we experience is best explained by a universal consciousness. O.K.... what is a universal consciousness? You just give up at this point. How can you expect that to fly in a forum with intelligent people?

You are saying your theory makes more sense... except for the universal consciousness, because you have no idea what that might be.... but still, it makes more sense. We say our theory makes less sense in a narrow context but makes more sense in the broader one. Your theory doesn't even have a broader context. And that is why it utterly fails.

You think the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle. But what does the turtle rest on?

 

[tsig]

I fully understand your argument. All the smart people here do.

The problem with your argument is that it only works if you constrain the context of reality to whatever is between this conscious thinker and our own consciousness.

Outside of those bounds, your theory looses steam rapidly. And everyone is pointing out to you why it looses steam.

You can't claim magic is more parsimonious without also analyzing the magic.

I mean, seriously. Your argument is that what we experience is best explained by a universal consciousness. O.K.... what is a universal consciousness? You just give up at this point. How can you expect that to fly in a forum with intelligent people?

You are saying your theory makes more sense... except for the universal consciousness, because you have no idea what that might be.... but still, it makes more sense. We say our theory makes less sense in a narrow context but makes more sense in the broader one. Your theory doesn't even have a broader context. And that is why it utterly fails.

You think the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle. But what does the turtle rest on?

It is sustained by his faith.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

By the way, the number I was thinking of, between 1 and 3, was 2.71828.

Damn, I knew it. Or I was close, really close. I thought it might be 42.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I mean, seriously. Your argument is that what we experience is best explained by a universal consciousness. O.K.... what is a universal consciousness? You just give up at this point. How can you expect that to fly in a forum with intelligent people?

This is not an accurate assessment of my views at all. I am saying - for very good reason - that valid theory stops, in terms of parsimony, at the point of the "universal consciousness" theory. Questions and further investigation most definitely do not stop at this point.

I have never claimed this theory answers all the questions we have. I have only ever claimed that a conscious thinker of the Universe is much more parsimonious than either a self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) due to the fact that the former is predicated on something known unlike the latter theories.

Without evidence to base ideas "God as a person" or "God as self-sustaining" on, for example, I don't see how they can legitimately be part of the theory.

Against the argument that my theory leads to X, Y and/or Z things for which we have no evidence I can only respond by saying that so to materialism and/or physicalism.

Nobody has the answer - and why people are getting so incredibly uptight about a theory presented as pure theory and accepted as such by the proponent as well as being declared as not able to answer all the questions we have is trully stunning.

I am being called for everything in this thread by more than a few people for no reason other than having a theory that they disagree with.

Given such, I am now beginning to lessening my participation in this thread and becoming more active (time permitting) on another forum that I believe a few of you are familiar with http://forum.mind-energy.net/ trusing that the moderators there will help to keep things in check.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have never claimed this theory answers all the questions we have. I have only ever claimed that a conscious thinker of the Universe is much more parsimonious than either a self-sustaining substance (materialism) or self-sustaining information (physicalism) due to the fact that the former is predicated on something known unlike the latter theories.

But parsimonious is not the right word.

I am being called for everything in this thread by more than a few people for no reason other than having a theory that they disagree with.

You don't have a theory. You have an undeveloped idea.

Given such, I am now beginning to lessening my participation in this thread and becoming more active (time permitting) on another forum that I believe a few of you are familiar with http://forum.mind-energy.net/ trusing that the moderators there will help to keep things in check.

Say hello to the dogs who know when their owners are coming home!

~~ Paul