Is consciousness an illusion?

[Jacob10]

Holes are just holes with separated Darkness and Light within them.Don’t get holes mixed up with darkness and light.

It's not a hole so much as a gravity well. We live within a gravity well ourselves, but a far smaller one.

You might prefer neuron stars, the gravitational field around them is slower than light speed, so they and their accretion discs are visible. If you fell into a neutron star, your shredded atoms would hit the surface at a third the speed of light. If you fell into black hole, your shredded atoms would disappear into the blackness.

Why would you doubt physics?

What is gravity? Do you know? Define it?

https://www.space.com/classical-gravity.html

Essentially, it is the warping of extremely thin stuff aka spacetime by much more dense stuff aka mass.

Why would you doubt gravity? What alternative can you offer?

Those "flowery" equations of Newton and Einstein allowed humans to build a craft that could land on Comet 67P, which is only a few kilometres long while being around half a billion kilometres away and travels through space at 135,000 kilometres per hour. Not flowery, but efficacious.

It is all “flowery maths” riding on the back of magnetism.

[Jacob10]

The atheist’s problem is that they don’t utilise natures logic in their deliberations.

They only utilise 0,1…1,0 half logic which is contrary to natures logic.

Magnetic force interactions are absolutes.


Gravity isn’t.

Nobody knows what it is.

[Sy Borg]

The atheist’s problem is that they don’t utilise natures logic in their deliberations.

They only utilise 0,1…1,0 half logic which is contrary to natures logic.

Magnetic force interactions are absolutes.


Gravity isn’t.

Nobody knows what it is.

The electric universe theory has been debunked. https://www.dapla.org/electric-universe-debunked/

Do you really believe that all the planets and objects all the way out to the Oort Cloud are being held in orbit around the Sun by magnetism rather than gravity?

[Jacob10]

The atheist’s problem is that they don’t utilise natures logic in their deliberations.

They only utilise 0,1…1,0 half logic which is contrary to natures logic.

Magnetic force interactions are absolutes.


Gravity isn’t.

Nobody knows what it is.

The electric universe theory has been debunked. https://www.dapla.org/electric-universe-debunked/

Do you really believe that all the planets and objects all the way out to the Oort Cloud are being held in orbit around the Sun by magnetism rather than gravity?

Not wanting to keep repeating myself but……

What is gravity? Nobody knows.

The gravity force is a theory only and therefore not factual unlike the magnetism forces which are factual.

Scientists only invented gravity because secularist believed that 0=1 and 1=0

Natures magnetic forces are ABSOLUTES and these forces have definitively confirmed that 0 doesn’t equal 1 and 1 doesn’t equal 0.

Electromechanical processes is what drives the universe according to nature and these electro mechanical processes adopt full logic 0,0..0,1…1,0…1,1

[Consul]

Still a simian, Consul. As I keep saying, why would God have a simian morphology unless its ancestors had evolved in trees? How does a deity that creates universes evolve from arboreal species? If I was a theist, I'd be plumping for the formless spirit of unconditional love version rather than the angry old white bloke.

I have heard from theists that this formless God is still masculine because it penetrates matter. So we are all being penetrated at every moment, and without consent, I should add. And even if The Penetrator does not exist, we still find ourselves routinely penetrated by neutrinos, and maybe dark matter as well. No matter what, we are all ultimately fornicated, so to speak.

"That God is a person, yet one without a body, seems the most elementary claim of theism."

(Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. p. 101)

A bodiless person has no physical morphology whatsoever, and is thus sexless. ("S/he" might have a "gender" in the postmodern, antibiological sense, i.e. a "fe/male mind"—whatever this is supposed to be.)

[Sy Borg]

Still a simian, Consul. As I keep saying, why would God have a simian morphology unless its ancestors had evolved in trees? How does a deity that creates universes evolve from arboreal species? If I was a theist, I'd be plumping for the formless spirit of unconditional love version rather than the angry old white bloke.

I have heard from theists that this formless God is still masculine because it penetrates matter. So we are all being penetrated at every moment, and without consent, I should add. And even if The Penetrator does not exist, we still find ourselves routinely penetrated by neutrinos, and maybe dark matter as well. No matter what, we are all ultimately fornicated, so to speak.

"That God is a person, yet one without a body, seems the most elementary claim of theism."

(Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. p. 101)

A bodiless person has no physical morphology whatsoever, and is thus sexless. ("S/he" might have a "gender" in the postmodern, antibiological sense, i.e. a "fe/male mind"—whatever this is supposed to be.)

God penetrates. It thrusts itself deep into every moment of every life. If God was female then it would lie back and let physical reality enter it.

[Sy Borg]

The atheist’s problem is that they don’t utilise natures logic in their deliberations.

They only utilise 0,1…1,0 half logic which is contrary to natures logic.

Magnetic force interactions are absolutes.


Gravity isn’t.

Nobody knows what it is.

The electric universe theory has been debunked. https://www.dapla.org/electric-universe-debunked/

Do you really believe that all the planets and objects all the way out to the Oort Cloud are being held in orbit around the Sun by magnetism rather than gravity?

Not wanting to keep repeating myself but……

What is gravity? Nobody knows.

The gravity force is a theory only and therefore not factual unlike the magnetism forces which are factual.

Scientists only invented gravity because secularist believed that 0=1 and 1=0

Natures magnetic forces are ABSOLUTES and these forces have definitively confirmed that 0 doesn’t equal 1 and 1 doesn’t equal 0.

Electromechanical processes is what drives the universe according to nature and these electro mechanical processes adopt full logic 0,0..0,1…1,0…1,1

Don't be ridiculous, general relativity has been tested and questioned countless times and has repeatedly been proven to be correct. Unlike your God Dunnit speculation.

Where are you getting this information? David Icke??

[Consul]

God penetrates. It thrusts itself deep into every moment of every life. If God was female then it would lie back and let physical reality enter it.

There are (mythical) goddesses who aren't so "laid back" such as the Furies (aka Erinyes), the chthonic goddesses of vengeance in Greco-Roman mythology.

For more, see:
"Girls Gone Wild: World Mythology’s Most Sexualized, Crazed, and Furiously Violent Goddesses"

[Sy Borg]

God penetrates. It thrusts itself deep into every moment of every life. If God was female then it would lie back and let physical reality enter it.

There are (mythical) goddesses who aren't so "laid back" such as the Furies (aka Erinyes), the chthonic goddesses of vengeance in Greco-Roman mythology.

For more, see:
"Girls Gone Wild: World Mythology’s Most Sexualized, Crazed, and Furiously Violent Goddesses"

That people would create such grotesque beings says much about the human condition. So often these - and modern horror creations - are metaphors for real life horrors.

(I think it's already been established that consciousness is not an illusion :)

[Jacob10]

The atheist’s problem is that they don’t utilise natures logic in their deliberations.

They only utilise 0,1…1,0 half logic which is contrary to natures logic.

Magnetic force interactions are absolutes.


Gravity isn’t.

Nobody knows what it is.

The electric universe theory has been debunked. https://www.dapla.org/electric-universe-debunked/

Do you really believe that all the planets and objects all the way out to the Oort Cloud are being held in orbit around the Sun by magnetism rather than gravity?

Not wanting to keep repeating myself but……

What is gravity? Nobody knows.

The gravity force is a theory only and therefore not factual unlike the magnetism forces which are factual.

Scientists only invented gravity because secularist believed that 0=1 and 1=0

Natures magnetic forces are ABSOLUTES and these forces have definitively confirmed that 0 doesn’t equal 1 and 1 doesn’t equal 0.

Electromechanical processes is what drives the universe according to nature and these electro mechanical processes adopt full logic 0,0..0,1…1,0…1,1

Don't be ridiculous, general relativity has been tested and questioned countless times and has repeatedly been proven to be correct. Unlike your God Dunnit speculation.

Where are you getting this information? David Icke??

I am not being ridiculous at all.

Electromechanical processes drive the universe.

Are you claiming that the 2 off magnetic forces in nature are not absolutes and when 2 off magnets interact they don’t produce 0,0…0,1…1,0…1,1 logic? They are absolutes and they do produce this logic.

Also, are you claiming that these 2 off forces of nature are the same? They are not the same and this is definitively confirmed by their interactions.

Gravity is an unproven theory force, that is why it is called a theory.Gravity is not an absolute.How can it be as it was a made up force from “flowery maths” also observations confirm definitively that the single BIg Bang and Big Crunch theories are total nonsense.

All matter is entering and exiting many many points.

Scientists are confusing an unknown force with an actual force which is an absolute.

[Jacob10]

Secular Scientist have made many claims that they are unable to definitively prove as factual and have then proceeded with these false claims (including incorrect logics) in producing incorrect scientific theories.False claims and Incorrect logics that were all based upon hopeful belief systems.

That is why we have ended up with the nonsense theories that we have now which are being definitively proven to be total nonsense.

[Sy Borg]

The electric universe theory has been debunked. https://www.dapla.org/electric-universe-debunked/

Do you really believe that all the planets and objects all the way out to the Oort Cloud are being held in orbit around the Sun by magnetism rather than gravity?

Not wanting to keep repeating myself but……

What is gravity? Nobody knows.

The gravity force is a theory only and therefore not factual unlike the magnetism forces which are factual.

Scientists only invented gravity because secularist believed that 0=1 and 1=0

Natures magnetic forces are ABSOLUTES and these forces have definitively confirmed that 0 doesn’t equal 1 and 1 doesn’t equal 0.

Electromechanical processes is what drives the universe according to nature and these electro mechanical processes adopt full logic 0,0..0,1…1,0…1,1

Don't be ridiculous, general relativity has been tested and questioned countless times and has repeatedly been proven to be correct. Unlike your God Dunnit speculation.

Where are you getting this information? David Icke??

I am not being ridiculous at all.

Electromechanical processes drive the universe.

Are you claiming that the 2 off magnetic forces in nature are not absolutes and when 2 off magnets interact they don’t produce 0,0…0,1…1,0…1,1 logic? They are absolutes and they do produce this logic.

Also, are you claiming that these 2 off forces of nature are the same? They are not the same and this is definitively confirmed by their interactions.

Gravity is an unproven theory force, that is why it is called a theory.Gravity is not an absolute.How can it be as it was a made up force from “flowery maths” also observations confirm definitively that the single BIg Bang and Big Crunch theories are total nonsense.

All matter is entering and exiting many many points.

Scientists are confusing an unknown force with an actual force which is an absolute.

No Jacob, gravity is called a theory because it has been established. If it was unproven it would be called a hypothesis. If you are to venture opinions on science, you need to get basics like this right. If you do decide to explore science to see what the fuss is about, what areas might you find most interesting? Physics, chemistry, geology, biology? I may be able to recommend some useful material, if you like.

I do not understand the point you seek to raise about magnetism. I can at least say that magnetism is not "absolute". The whole universe is relational.

There are four forces - the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity. Yes, gravity is unusual, being orders of magnitude less powerful than other forces and seemingly inconsequential at quantum scales. However, at large scales that very weak gravitational force can be huge, which drive supernovae and result in ultradense entities like black holes and neutron stars.

A question, what do you think LIGO is detecting?

I am guessing that we can at least agree that consciousness is not an illusion :)

[Jacob10]

Where does your weak and strong force and that mysterious illusionary force (up til now) gravity figure in natures absolute logic?

The 2 off forces of nature are absolutes and what I have explained is definitive.These absolute forces when they interact do have the full logic outputs I explained and do definitively confirm that these 2 off forces are different.

You cannot avoid factual definitive proof.

Forget the strong and weak forces, they are being mistaken for electromagnetic forces and you can forget gravity because that is an illusionary force which remains on the pages of the flowery math equations created by secular sciences.

[Belindi]

Still a simian, Consul. As I keep saying, why would God have a simian morphology unless its ancestors had evolved in trees? How does a deity that creates universes evolve from arboreal species? If I was a theist, I'd be plumping for the formless spirit of unconditional love version rather than the angry old white bloke.

I have heard from theists that this formless God is still masculine because it penetrates matter. So we are all being penetrated at every moment, and without consent, I should add. And even if The Penetrator does not exist, we still find ourselves routinely penetrated by neutrinos, and maybe dark matter as well. No matter what, we are all ultimately fornicated, so to speak.

"That God is a person, yet one without a body, seems the most elementary claim of theism."

(Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. p. 101)

A bodiless person has no physical morphology whatsoever, and is thus sexless. ("S/he" might have a "gender" in the postmodern, antibiological sense, i.e. a "fe/male mind"—whatever this is supposed to be.)

God penetrates. It thrusts itself deep into every moment of every life. If God was female then it would lie back and let physical reality enter it.

[3017Metaphysician]

With evolution, you have limitations to that theory (it's only a theory, and in the sense that it excludes the first species it only refers to an ensemble of creatures 'already' existing). And, if I remember correctly, even Darwin acquiesced to its limitations. Nevertheless, (you didn't respond to my query which in-turn may provide for more insight) I think you have a few concepts that we are working with here:

1. Emergence
2. Self-awareness
3. Volition
4. Intellect
5. Evolution of the will and sentience
6. The world as Will (propagation of the species through DNA/genetically coded design and other physical/metaphysical phenomena)

We've briefly touched on 1-5 ( and I welcome more discussion as it relates to the contrasting limitations of evolution), but 6 , I think, is the most glaring discrepancy. Essentially, 6 is that which Stephen Hawkins so infamously enunciated to the world of physics: :

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "


First, my interpretation to that metaphorical fire as it were, is the thing-in-itself called the metaphysical Will. Agree/disagree?

The points to consider of course, are consciousness, cosmology and a bit of Kantian/Schopenhauer metaphysics... . But, we can certainly exhaust those things that may relate to inert matter and evolution and whether things like feelings have evolved... .

The only weakness I see in evolutionary theory is that it starts with abiogenesis. I would have it start with the molecular clouds that form stars. That's when the organisation started that, in time, resulted in abiogenesis and subsequent life. The problem IMO is too much scientific siloing, although new fields like geobiology are emerging, which recognises the links between biology and geology, and the chemical changes that needed to occur to create conditions where abiogenesis can happen.

I think it's rather a jump to take Hawking's "fire in the equations" as being a metaphysical will. The equations did not exist in the pre-big bang universe, just waiting to be actualised. Matter and information being inextricably linked. If the matter is gone, then so is the information. Meanwhile, matter cannot avoid having a configuration.

Maybe your will is dark energy? Life's constant drive towards growth does rather echo dark energy's relentless expansion. We all tend to radiate outwards, physically and informationally.

SB!

You said that 'equations' didn't exist pre-BB right? In theory, what are you thinking existed pre-BB?

It does not matter what I think. I am just one more online random.

The most recent information is that before the big bang was space, replete with virtual particles appearing and immediately annihilating. Then one of them didn't annihilate. My guess is that this is far from the first, but it's just a guess.

Could you describe to me what you think equations are?

Why is it, as you say, 'a jump' , to interpret Hawking's metaphor as basically the 'world as will'?

It's a jump because no one actually knows, including the late man from Kent with the American accent.

Theists have always inserted the God of the Gaps into the universe's mysteries and, as ever more mysteries have been determined to have natural causes, theists would shift the goalposts.

It appears that you have inserted a "Will of the Gaps" into what would rightly be seen as a black box problem. It's jumping to conclusions (a conclusion that one likes) where there is still only mystery and clues that physicists and cosmologists are trying to understand.

I think one distinction between a dark energy analogy to the metaphysical Will, is that we understand the will to be non-physical is its ability to cause physical things to happen. The simple example of thinking that I want to move my arm, then it moves, starts with the thought itself, the purpose and the desire to do so. The only similarity I can compare dark energy to would be the Will's unknown origins. Both do have a mysterious quality to them... .

I won't defend the idea that the expansiveness of dark energy being is behind the expansiveness of life. It's just intuition.

What about when your arm moves without your will? Most of what happens in our bodies is only tangentially connected to the will via food energy. Numerous cellular and microbial communities within us are simply leading their microbe-style lives and this drives so much of what our body (and mind) does.

SB!

Thanks for the questions. I think:

1. God of gaps takes on many forms of course (cosmological argument, ontological argument, and so on). But hey, that's just logic. What we are discussing here is something beyond simple a priori logic. In the biological world of things-in-themselves, we also have a naturally automated process of propagation at work. In our discussion, we have this sense of Will, that involves the design and construction of genetically coded existence, which, includes consciousness. One common theme there would be metaphysics.

To answer your question, one subjective-truth relative to Will is that it seems to be the cause of all human behavior. In that context, the feelings that create needs for purpose, happiness and the like in order to maintain one's life and make it worth living (otherwise one could choose to end their life if they are miserable enough...). That said, the Hawking's metaphor relates to something that not only causes the aforementioned things to occur, but causes the genetically coded information to come alive (consciousness from inert matter to animate energy forms that feel). That breath of fire, as he postulated, could be things like self-awareness, sentience and the Will. What else could it be? In other words, what causes things to continue to exist both objectively and subjectively?


2. Sure , one's arm can move involuntarily. One could certainly analogize to dream states where you have an uncontrolled stream of consciousness at work. Or, driving while daydreaming....otherwise just simply Being (Being associated with dynamic existence, not static).

3. Your math question is intriguing. You asked about the description of "equations", as you may also be intrigued about the nature of same. Well, there's much to unpack. "Equation's" themselves or mathematics seem paradoxical and logically impossible (how can math be both objective and metaphysical at the same time/an unchanging truth that describes a world of change, etc. etc.):

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.