Sunmaster
-
Posts
2,502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Sunmaster
-
-
17 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:
Based on current calculations, God is 38 billion years old....and I could be wrong based on the latest input from James Webb Telescope....so, WTF is he doing? Playing video games or reviewing everyone who died's life history before sending us to hell?
I believe you mean the universe is 38 billion years old, not God.
-
20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:
Perhaps your best contribution thus far, save the frogs. I hadn't heard that wonderful tune before. Mick seems to be struggling for understanding. He ain't alone.
Human suffering . . . why do we experience it? For surely if God existed he would never have allowed it. And since it is allowed and if God does exist then he is either twisted or has created a faulty universe. So goes the rationale and the conclusions drawn that are often expressed here.
Why is suffering allowed and why do we experience it? If there's a reason and purpose for everything then must there be a good reason and purpose for suffering as well? Before I offer my two cents I'll sit back whilst pleasantly enjoying my morning coffee untroubled and observe what answers others come up with.
5am, rise and shine Tippaporn!
I'll have a go. I think suffering is a consequence of being out of tune with the cosmic harmony and the illusion of being a separated, limited entity.
Need to be short...coffee is getting cold.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Hummin said:
Isn't this a future scenario where we find an promising Exo planet, and infest it with life from our planet? If we survive that long, and reach the capability to do so.
Interesting choice of words "infest it". ????
-
3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
come on. i never said or implied that you are evil.
i just challenged some of your opinions.
you're a thoughtful intelligent person, which is a pretty good quality in this day and age.
doesn't mean i agree with everything you say though.
Nice.
-
22 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
I noticed you are not very welcoming to people expressing opinions that differ from yours.
To be fair, I have a long list of character flaws as well.
Yes, you notice a lot of things. Like determining that Paramhansa Yogananda is a power-hungry evil guru, after reading 2 or 3 quotes. Or that I am an evil guru myself. ????
So you must be correct. ????????
-
5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
the film certainly hints that God is evil.
Sure, whatever you say.
-
1 minute ago, save the frogs said:
true, the movie doesnt reference any absolute God.
but Engineers who created mankind.
and those Engineers were themselves created by sth else.
Sure, but evil engineers are not an indication to an evil God, just like evil people, cancer in children, or natural disasters are not an indication to an evil God.
-
38 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
FYI ... in case anyone is interested.
I just watched the movie Prometheus.
And this is what I got from the movie.
They basically try to find "God" by going to another planet to seek out an alien race they believe created mankind.
But they all end up dead. They got punished for seeking to know who God is and why God created us
So the moral of the story seems to be that they got punished because they are asking questions that we are not supposed to have answers to.
Been quite a while since I watched it, but as far as I remember they were trying to find humanity's creators who added their DNA to our planet, not God. They expected those creators to be a benevolent father figure, but that was a deadly mistake.
-
1
-
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, fusion58 said:Where do you get "90%?"
And can you really argue with a straight face that acceptance of a scientific theory is indicative of "blindness" when that theory is supported by evidence?
When a scientific theory is supported by enough experimental and/or observational evidence, then "it's like that" statements are warranted.
For example, physicists can claim to know what they know about things like elementary particles, the four forces, etc., with an extremely high level of certainty.
More often than not, those who actually make an effort to learn about and understand science "lash out" when they become exasperated or lose patience with people who peddle pseudo-scientific nonsense, baseless conspiracy theories, etc.
It's usually the latter group - not the former - who make rational discussion impossible.
This is a false comparison which obscures the fact that there are, in fact, varying degrees of certainty where scientific theories are concerned, i.e., there are some things we know re: how the world works with a high degree of certainly, and others to a lesser extent.
The most striking difference between scientists and religionists, as noted in my previous post, is that you'll never hear a theist admit to ANY uncertainty where religious claims are concerned - despite the fact that the vast majority of those claims are based solely on armchair a priori philosophical or metaphysical "proofs" and the occasional contingent empirical claim when those "proofs" fail.
These are not "just" theories. They're theories supported by varying amounts of experimental and observational evidence.
The same can hardly be said re: religious theories which posit the existence of incorporeal "souls," supernatural agencies, etc.
Furthermore, the claim that most people "treat them (theories in neuroscience or cosmological theories) as facts" is groundless.
On the contrary, scientists are usually very careful to acknowledge when a theory is a "work in progress" or when it has some problems. For example, even the most ardent proponents of the Big Bang theory will admit that, despite the many predictions of the theory which are supported by observational evidence, the theory still has some problems.
The implication that there's some sort of parity with respect to objectivity (or adherence to "dogma") on "both sides" is really laughable, as I hope my post has demonstrated here.
First, we should make a few distinctions so that we can understand each other.
1) You use "religionists" as an umbrella definition for people who believe more than what science can or is willing to explore. Under this broad definition you have all sorts of beliefs and as many practical implementation of those beliefs as there are people on this earth. Here, in the forum, most are free thinkers that don't adhere to any particular dogma. I'll include our science friends in that, too.
2) It's not an issue of religion VS science.
Most people here (if not all) appreciate science and profit from scientific discoveries. I'm definitely one of them. Just look at my avatar... I'm a science officer!
What we argue however, is that science is a tool to make sense of the material world. It is not the right tool to explore the inner worlds.
3) To explore the inner worlds means to know your true Self. This was the original function of religion. Or should be.
It is not possible to measure, dissect, analyse, calculate the value of this adventure. It is hardly possible to put it into words.
The right tools for this journey seem to be introspection, meditation but also rituals, creativity and spontaneity.
4) You say that real scientists will gladly admit that sometimes they just don't know. That may be true (maybe), but I'm talking of common mortals that don't work in a lab and don't write scientific papers. Those are more often than not the people who magically transform a theory into a certainty. The 'science says...' radical types. We had our fair share here.
For example, the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain is nothing but a theory, yet it is so often proclaimed as a scientific fact. Science simply doesn't know where consciousness comes from. It can only see and measure the effects of consciousness. And this point is crucial: For science to admit that consciousness is NOT a product of the brain, would imply that the great schools of spiritual development were right all along. Are right in saying that it's really the other way around. The material is a product of consciousness.
And with that single realisation everything changes and things start to make sense that were previously unknown. Clairvoyance, chakras, Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, higher states of consciousness, mysticism, religions etc etc....don't seem so crazy and farfetched after all.
I could continue but the post is already too long as it is.
????
-
1
-
2
-
42 minutes ago, mania said:
That is because dogmatic religions cornerstone is "Faith"
Faith as taught to them thru stories sadly so often misinterpreted texts written by men.
For them to say "I could be wrong" would crumble their faith/house as it is all they have
True.
On the other hand though, you have maybe 90% of materialists who have no idea about the actual science behind their beliefs and blindly follow whatever the men in white coats tell them.
The vast majority then goes on to change the "we think it's like that but we are not sure" to "it's like that. Full stop." And when challenged, they have the same reactions as those who believe in religious dogma. They lash out and become aggressive, and there is no chance of a rational discussion.
This is because people need certainties in life, something they can hold on to and build their lives upon. It doesn't matter whether those "certainties" are religious or scientific. Just look at how many people believe that the brain produces consciousness or that a mysterious explosion started the universe. They treat them as facts, when in reality they are just theories.
It's good to be objective and see both sides. Dogma is bad in both camps.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:When you believe - like I do - in a Conscious Universe, in a sense that everything - from a human being to an atom - is conscious, but that it is the DEGREE of consciousness that makes the difference, then it logically follows that machines ARE already conscious.
And when machines are operating on software that mimics human decision processes, they will indeed develop a 'higher' consciousness than the pure material one that they currently already have. There have been several incidents recently in which AI made decisions that went far beyond on what they were programmed to do, leaving their programmers baffled and in one case even leading to the programmers pulling the switch to stop.
As AI does not have the qualities that make us human, I do not believe that machine AI consciousness will surpass the level of consciousness that (some) humans are able to achieve. But we certainly are opening the Box of Pandora with these developments. And a future in which HAL - from Kubricks 2001 - A Space Odyssea - would decide to wipe out all or most of humanity based on his machine-logic/consciousness, is quickly becoming a frightful possibility.
I understand what you're saying and I think pretty much the same.
My idea is that AI will be so good at mimicking human consciousness that it will become almost impossible to tell the difference. On the other hand, I believe that humans have a connection to the universal consciousness that I just can't see happening for AI.-
1
-
2
-
30 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:
Hi @Sunmaster,
It looks like your post shows that synchronicity is at work here...
Or were you inspired by reading John Carter's long essay on consciousness, which he published on his Substack on May 11th? Considering the time difference between US and Thailand, you posted at approx same time (or just a bit later).
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-permittivity-of-free-thought?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The Permittivity of Free Thought
Three ways of thinking about the brain’s relationship to consciousness, and what this implies for AI
His long essay consists of 5 parts. First he writes about the brain and its function, then he explores 3 models of explaining consciousness: emission, transmission and permission (based on the work of Iain McGilchrist) and finally he discusses the implications of the above for AI.
Although I think that his essay contains a fair amount of verbal ballast and that his message would have been more powerful if he had practiced 'the Art of Synthesis' and limited his essay to the essential, there are many worthwhile diamonds of thought in what he wrote. So I do recommend it to the other person interested in the subject (besides myself), that gave your post a Liking.
I'm not familiar with this author and I don't know what substack is.
I'm always interested in all aspects of consciousness, especially now with AI making big steps forward. Recently I found Lex Fridman podcasts on YT, which are very fascinating. I recommend checking him out.
What do you think about consciousness and AI? Do you think a machine can become sentient?
-
6 hours ago, swissie said:
In India alone there are over 30'000 Gods (yes thirtythousand).
Humanity always had trouble understanding the concept of being born, only to die a short time later.
The "Gods" came in handy, as practically all religions offer "a life after death". The spiritual "best seller" of all time.
The only firm anchor in their life. They NEED this anchor. For most, the thaught of lifes only meaning is "reproduction" is unbearable for them.
- Imagine a TV evangelist, preaching "we must worship God, but there is no after live". He would lose his followers overnight.
I remain: Eternal life is the spiritual "best seller" of all time.Who is "they"?
Your logic doesn't work really. Not in my case, nor in many other cases.
Sure, the idea of an afterlife (or eternal consciousness) brings solace to a lot of people, religious and not, but it's not the cause of the belief in God....it's a byproduct of that belief. Two very different premises.-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, mania said:
I'm willing to attribute consciousness all the way down the scale ????
What about all the way up the scale?
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Hummin said:
Two of the biggest movies ever with true meaning and explanation of human nature and life, is Life of Brian and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Interstellar and Contact for me.
And series: Battlestar Galatica and Star Trek Voyager.
Never get tired of rewatching them. ???? -
A sub-topic worth exploring...
I was thinking about the increasing complexity of biological systems and how these systems are related to consciousness.
My primary assumption is that panpsychism is correct in saying that everything in the universe is conscious to some degree. Starting from the tiniest sub-atomic particles to the vastness of galaxies and beyond. This, coupled with the fact that conscious individual agents bond together in more complex systems, giving rise to a consciousness that is more than just the sum of its parts, brings us to a very interesting deductions.
In simple terms, take cells for example. Cells have their own individuality. They interact with their surroundings, they reproduce, they have their own goals and purpose. When they bond together to form an organ, they all work together to fill a higher purpose. The organ itself acquires new faculties and tools to interact with their surroundings. This new entity thus seems to be more than just a mere accumulation of cells.
If we go one step further, we arrive at the human being, who is a collection of organs and parts. Yet, most will agree that we are more than that. There is a consciousness that oversees the function of all the different parts. Again, there is a new identity, there are new tools to interact with the world and new purposes.
But what if we take this a step further? What if we are all part of a bigger "organism", resulting in a higher order of complexity and consciousness?
If this drive to unite individual agents into more and more complex systems can be seen throughout nature, does it make sense to you that it would stop at the human being, as if we were the glorious culmination of a very long evolutionary process?
Or would it make more sense to identify the human being as just another step of this process?
In short....
Lower systems are transcended and included in higher systems, resulting in a consciousness that is more than the sum of its parts.
What about consciousness?
However you may define consciousness, I think we can agree that human beings are conscious.
Who or what else is conscious in your opinion? Lots of people believe that mammals with big brains are also conscious (dolphins, primates), but also dogs, pigs, horses etc.
Then it gets more difficult. Can we attribute consciousness to "lower" life forms, such as birds, bugs or worms? Why or why not?
What about plants? Are they conscious?
How far down the scale are you willing to attribute consciousness?
What about cells? Atoms? Subatomic particles?-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, KannikaP said:
Yes I know. Just that in REAL English it is MATHS, short for MATHematicS. 555
When you study in USA is it PHYSIC?
Really....? That's what you want to discuss?
I'm not American nor is English my first language. It's my 3rd language.-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, KannikaP said:
Yes. I think that the Bible IS taught in very simple terms to young people, starting obviously with Christmas (presents) & Easter (chocolate), and then progressing to the Immaculate Conception, the Circumcision of Jesus, and then the Resurrection. Eventually the Creation and the entire history of the Israelite nation will poke it's nose in there.
By the way, what is MATH an abbreviation of please?
-
2 minutes ago, KannikaP said:
How would one know what is appropriate to their mental facilities until they have actually read it?
I personally much prefer the story of King Arthur to that of the Bible, and their accompanying musicals Spamalot & J C Superstar. 555
I'm not sure.
I'm thinking about math as an example. While all of the math theorems are available to all at all times, it is quite obvious that a school kid is likely not to understand more complex theories. They have to be taught the basics first and as they progress, more and more complicated systems are introduced to them.
Maybe the Bible should be taught in a similar way. In simple terms for young minds and more in depth for adult minds?
The more important point though is the mental maturity of those that teach it. Without that, all other efforts will be for nothing.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:
The issue to contemplate and address is 'what laws, opinions, views, and interpretations actually work, and/or are beneficial to our survival and well-being'?
When individuals and/or communities suffer, starve, get killed, and so on, it's usually because of wrong views. Exceptions would be certain natural disasters which are beyond anyone's capability to accurately predict.
Maybe we differ on the nuances of "what works", but I completely agree.
A society that is focused only on the material aspect of reality and refuses any deeper understanding of our place in the universe, is a society that doesn't work. Nor is a society that blindly follows a dogmatic religion without direct personal experience.
Which reconnects me to a previous post, where I tried to identify a universal belief system for the 21st century that would make sense (and would work) for all individuals. A truly inclusive framework that recognizes the accomplishments of science and spirituality alike and one that isn't a closed system, but rather an open-ended system that allows for change and growth.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:
In other words, God is a creation of the human imagination. ????
Yes and no.
"God" as a concept is a mere approximation of the ultimate consciousness, that which can not be put into words nor concepts. In that sense it is a creation of our imagination.
But that's just our way to reduce the unreduceable in terms that are easier to grasp. It says nothing about the actual ultimate consciousness, which is not a product of our imagination, but is the source of all, including our consciousness and imagination.
-
1
-
-
-
I think he's referring to the fact that we dissected nature in search for God and when we couldn't find him, we simply declared "him" dead...with nothing to replace him.
Like trying to dissect a body hoping to find the soul.
-
2
-
Do you believe in God and why
in ASEAN NOW Community Pub
Posted
This thread has become a bad episode of the Twilight Zone.
"What if God is really a macrocosmic virus, slowly infecting lifeforms across the universe?"
"Yeah, sounds plausible. Somehow I always suspected that."
"I think he came through an interdimensional portal because he was expelled from his own dimension."
"Right on. That would mean he is some sort of Satan!"
"Right!"
????