2017-11-03, 07:02 PM
2017-11-03, 08:39 PM
(2017-11-03, 07:02 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ] I guess that means I can't.
I asked you, twice, a simple Yes/No question and you ducked it. Conversation over. Comprende? TIA.
2017-11-03, 09:19 PM
(2017-11-03, 08:39 PM)Pssst Wrote: [ -> ]I asked you, twice, a simple Yes/No question and you ducked it. Conversation over. Comprende? TIA.
No I didn't duck anything. I just didn't understand what you were saying.
"Conversation over"
No worries.
Comprende?
For once in a conversation with you, yes.
2017-11-03, 09:26 PM
As is the status quo. 
2017-11-12, 02:00 AM
Maybe ghosts don't need to interact with the outside physical world at all. To be made aware of they just need your mind. But not a physical brain bit tho', the consciousness bit.
Which leads me to ask. If a ghost can't exist because it's 'field' or 'particles' that would be necessary in order to interact with the physical universe have never been detected, then what are the fields or particles that carry consciousness? Or is that explained away as consciousness is just an illusion, as that fellow Dennet pronounces?
If consciousness is an illusion and therefore there is no necessity in looking for it's physical mechanism it is nonetheless very real... actually the very essence of what a human is....as real as any atom, molecule, table, chair or automobile in fact.
So why not the same for supernatural presences. IOW, whatever gives rise to consciousness, and that's 'real' to us, could also give rise to the various supernatural beings people say they experience and therefore just as real as our own consciousness.
I'm a big science advocate because it does provide the ability to interact with the physical universe and apply that knowledge towards the creation of technology regardless of whether or not what we take to be 'reality' is objective or just a dream. Whatever 'it' is, 'it' has a set of rules that can be followed.
Having said that, the models that science, even in physics, has come up with are woefully simplistic... or rather 'just good enough' to get by with as much as we have. I mean, the standard model as I understand is a cobbled together inelegant mess really but good enough so that the equations can give stuff like microprocessors, etc etc. Sometimes I think that when physicists say the math says certain X particle should exist, that when they build the machine to detect it, the universe obligingly offers it up. lol
Which leads me to ask. If a ghost can't exist because it's 'field' or 'particles' that would be necessary in order to interact with the physical universe have never been detected, then what are the fields or particles that carry consciousness? Or is that explained away as consciousness is just an illusion, as that fellow Dennet pronounces?
If consciousness is an illusion and therefore there is no necessity in looking for it's physical mechanism it is nonetheless very real... actually the very essence of what a human is....as real as any atom, molecule, table, chair or automobile in fact.
So why not the same for supernatural presences. IOW, whatever gives rise to consciousness, and that's 'real' to us, could also give rise to the various supernatural beings people say they experience and therefore just as real as our own consciousness.
I'm a big science advocate because it does provide the ability to interact with the physical universe and apply that knowledge towards the creation of technology regardless of whether or not what we take to be 'reality' is objective or just a dream. Whatever 'it' is, 'it' has a set of rules that can be followed.
Having said that, the models that science, even in physics, has come up with are woefully simplistic... or rather 'just good enough' to get by with as much as we have. I mean, the standard model as I understand is a cobbled together inelegant mess really but good enough so that the equations can give stuff like microprocessors, etc etc. Sometimes I think that when physicists say the math says certain X particle should exist, that when they build the machine to detect it, the universe obligingly offers it up. lol
2017-11-13, 09:04 PM
(2017-11-12, 02:00 AM)iPsoFacTo Wrote: [ -> ]If consciousness is an illusion and therefore there is no necessity in looking for it's physical mechanism it is nonetheless very real...
Consciousness is not illusory but, if it were, why would there be "no necessity in looking for it's physical mechanism" unless it is your preference to choose this belief.
Physical reality is an illusion yet we know the fundamental mechanism of its creation.
What you are is vibrating consciousness, vibrating energy, you are a resonance, a frequency, a pitch of energy. That is your unique signature vibration and whatever you define that to be, will be the experience that you allow yourself to have, as a reflection back to you.
2017-11-14, 02:24 PM
(2017-11-13, 09:04 PM)Pssst Wrote: [ -> ]Consciousness is not illusory but, if it were, why would there be "no necessity in looking for it's physical mechanism" unless it is your preference to choose this belief.
Physical reality is an illusion yet we know the fundamental mechanism of its creation.
What you are is vibrating consciousness, vibrating energy, you are a resonance, a frequency, a pitch of energy. That is your unique signature vibration and whatever you define that to be, will be the experience that you allow yourself to have, as a reflection back to you.
Oh, I was just speaking there in the voice of what maybe a contemporary strictly materialist scientist might say. That is, that consciousness might be akin to an emotion, like love or hate for example. I doubt they wouldn't even bother to describe a field or particle that's the carrier of love or hate in that regard