Food for Thought for both Theists and Atheists

Simply something to consider when you feel like firmly defending what may simply be a conditioned belief...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfNbmwiTIlE

(If you discuss, be sure to have watched it to the end to make sure you don't miss any certain point)

That was beautiful.

For some reason I smell an abundance of straw man fallacies along with a great false dichotomy at the start and a few non-sequiturs towards the end just to name the structural flaws of the contents of this piece. Fortunately however this is not something any user said in this thread yet so I can wait until someone comes along to reiterate and confirm some of the nonsense before responding. This will be fun

I think the Ceramic & Automatic thesis simplifies the History of science too much. I think I understand the rationale for this construct, but not certain I will stipulate to it.

However, I grant that humans are clever, and deep insights into the nature of the universe are not uniquely new.

The concept that we are a extension of the big bang is plausible in so far as energy is not destroyed, it just changes. Further, the quantum theory supports that things are not as they seem, however my toe is still stubbed when it tries to occupy the same space as the door, despite the fact I know that there is more space than matter in all our combined atoms...

That we are stardust is undeniable and in 5 billion years the atoms which once comprised me will again become stardust...

But, consciousness as we know it is a unique phenomena of our nervous system, and to impose our form of consciousness-constructs on the energy-field (force) of the universe, seems a particularly human hubris....

Gisteron wrote: For some reason I smell an abundance of straw man fallacies along with a great false dichotomy at the start and a few non-sequiturs towards the end just to name the structural flaws of the contents of this piece. Fortunately however this is not something any user said in this thread yet so I can wait until someone comes along to reiterate and confirm some of the nonsense before responding. This will be fun

Really ? :dry:

Arkayik wrote: But, consciousness as we know it is a unique phenomena of our nervous system, and to impose our form of consciousness-constructs on the energy-field (force) of the universe, seems a particularly human hubris....

I sort of view it the other way around, if for no other reason then it seems to allow greater scope to work with it, namely that its not 'our' form of consciousness-constructs, but rather a reflection of that force on a shard of the universe. I'm pretty sure I just didnt say the same thing
:dry: :lol:

All that we have to interface with the universe is our senses and the "central processor" which "groks" the data (note I didn't attempt to define the number of senses).

What adds to the confusion - I think - is our processors don't often get a complete picture and we have difficulty communicating our resultant analysis. Added to the above is we're all ever-so-slightly differently wired, which leads to further nuances in perception, which we already imperfectly understand (process/grok).

Whichever model one posits - a Ceramic or Automatic view - of the universe, they arise from the Scientific Method which is at root a philosophy. It is often conflated with Technology, which is a different beast entirely. Scientific Methods employ Technology, but they are two different endeavors.

Technology has massively benefited from the the disciplined application of the scientific method, but in fact, since the first fire-starter-bow, Tech evolves from human stubborn determination and a lot of trial and error, regardless of philosophy employed.

The Scientific method is a philosophy which is subject to the triumphs and flaws of all philosophies:

"...Help, help, there's a human in my philosophy! Hurry, get it out!"...

Are there other approaches which can achieve insights similar to the Scientific Method?

Which is more important, the philosophy used or the insights gained?

To come back to Mr. Watts again, whether or not the preamble about Ceramic vs Automatic is accurate, it doesn't necessarily validate or invalidate the observation of humanity as an extant wave propagation from the big bang.

If one event caused everything (big bang), what does it matter to observe that the one event is still causal today... The question, seems to me, what does that observation allow us to deduce?

What does it mean?

If your brain is the box, how do you think outside it (with apologies to Voltaire)?

I think Mr. Watts makes a very good and valid point, but in the process, I think he limits it and perhaps impedes...

...that is to say, he (in effect) tells us, "It's not that side of the coin, that's nonsense... it's actually, really, THIS side of the coin".

But no, it actually isn't. It's actually BOTH sides of the coin. I'm the "Big Bang", *AND* I'm this body of systems, physically existing in this one finite body in this highly localized place at the edge of it all as well.

After all, if we are what we are able to perceive ourselves to be, to whatever degree, then let's perceive ourselves to be all that we can be - from any and all angles, as it benefits us to do so. All the tools are available, so we may use each according to it's duties as needed.

Yes?

Tarran wrote: I think Mr. Watts makes a very good and valid point, but in the process, I think he limits it and perhaps impedes...

...that is to say, he (in effect) tells us, "It's not that side of the coin, that's nonsense... it's actually, really, THIS side of the coin".

But no, it actually isn't. It's actually BOTH sides of the coin. I'm the "Big Bang", *AND* I'm this body of systems, physically existing in this one finite body in this highly localized place at the edge of it all as well.

After all, if we are what we are able to perceive ourselves to be, to whatever degree, then let's perceive ourselves to be all that we can be - from any and all angles, as it benefits us to do so. All the tools are available, so we may use each according to it's duties as needed.

Yes?

Actually, he was stating two sides of a coin (the clay model and the fully automatic model), and then instead proposing the entire coin at once (that we are inherently a combination of both models, plus some).

Theist...Atheist...Pantheist...Greek labels. The Greeks, a very philosophical people. Very concerned about the machinations of the universe. I used to be in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. A lot of labels. After I've thought like that for awhile, I like to go outside, close my eyes, and listen. I remember how silly all the labels are. In the end, it is. And it is good.