Spiritual demographics of PowerSwitch

[Ludwig]

I know about entanglement, and I undersand that "spacetime" was not really the right word. But I wanted to get the notion of time in there, because I think all moments in time are related to each other in ways other than mere sequence.

What we call time is, in fact, just a function of our perception. Get rid of the function of memory, for example, and your perception of time would surely be almost unimaginably different.

Do you think the past is fixed? Or can it change?

It depends what you mean by "change". You may have heard of the issue of retrocausation in quantum mechanics. The way you perform a measurement on a particle actually seems to have a retroactive effect on the way that particle "travelled".

This is obviously highly speculative: but I think it may be possible to affect the past in the same way as the future - you can change it, as long as you don't know what you are changing it from. Just as Schroedinger argued that there is no objective resolution to the question of whether his cat is alive or dead until you look inside the box, so my speculation is that, in some bizarre way, the past is as indefinite as the future - until you start investigating it.

I'm not sure what the implications of this are... I'm not arguing that the World War 2 never happened... I suppose I'm arguing that "past" and "future" may actually be illusions; be just another way that our minds filter reality.

There are some Indians in America, the Tewa, who don't divide phenomena into past, present and future, but simply into categories of "the manifest" - things they observe to be the case - and "the manifesting" - things they don't know about yet, such as what's on the other side of a mountain. Their sole basis for categorising phenomena is their own knowledge. They have no developed conception of what we call time. I wonder if there is a profound truth in their way of viewing reality.

In his book "The Conscious Universe", Dean Radin describes experiments involving qm-based random number generators that appeared to show that retrocausative telekinetic effects may be real.

[Ludwig]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/

Instead of trying to explain how consciousness arises from matter, or, like the idealists, trying to explain material reality in terms of consciousness, neutral monism claims that reality is made of neither matter nor consciousness but something else entirely.

That does not make sense to me. How can matter or consciousness arise from something that is "entirely" different from either of them?

According to neutral monism (at least some forms of), it doesn't. What we call "matter" and "consciousness" are names we give to ways of interpeting what does exist, from our perspective. If you could conceptually "stand outside" the whole system, then you'd "see" a single, unified reality which was neither mental nor physical. Perhaps it helps to think of it as self-existing information. You'd also be able to "see" how consciousness and matter "map onto" this neutral reality.

I think our disagreement is down to terminology. When I talk of consciousness, I mean not just individual consciousness, but also any putative "proto-consciousness" attributable to subatomic particles, and any putative "cosmic consciousness". I am also including what we call the subconscious, which I speculate may be a window into the cosmic consciousness that, for our own sanity, we have limited access to.

It gets quite difficult to explain these ideas, because in the West, our reductionist habits of thought insist that each word has one meaning only. Subtlety and ambiguity are frowned upon.

[UndercoverElephant]

On the topic of Hindu Gods....

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/ ... anesh.html

Christian group condemns zoo's elephant sculpture

"The displaying of different gods in a public place like this is an offence to our beliefs..."

The really sad thing is that the Hindus themselves have absolutely no problem with other people's Gods. Want a put up a picture of Jesus? No problem...Jesus was a Hindu too!

[Ludwig]

On the topic of Hindu Gods....

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/ ... anesh.html

Christian group condemns zoo's elephant sculpture

"The displaying of different gods in a public place like this is an offence to our beliefs..."

The really sad thing is that the Hindus themselves have absolutely no problem with other people's Gods. Want a put up a picture of Jesus? No problem...Jesus was a Hindu too!

I think I read somewhere that the problem for the Abrahamic religions is that they got entangled with classical philosophy, which in general is concerned with the pursuit of objective truth. So we have ended up with "all-or-nothing" religions: in the case of Xianity, either you accept the literal truth of the Bible (actually impossible, given all its internal contradictions), or you're out on your ear.

[Ludwig]

That does not make sense to me. How can matter or consciousness arise from something that is "entirely" different from either of them?

According to neutral monism (at least some forms of), it doesn't. What we call "matter" and "consciousness" are names we give to ways of interpeting what does exist, from our perspective. If you could conceptually "stand outside" the whole system, then you'd "see" a single, unified reality which was neither mental nor physical. Perhaps it helps to think of it as self-existing information. You'd also be able to "see" how consciousness and matter "map onto" this neutral reality.

I think our disagreement is down to terminology. When I talk of consciousness, I mean not just individual consciousness, but also any putative "proto-consciousness" attributable to subatomic particles, and any putative "cosmic consciousness". I am also including what we call the subconscious, which I speculate may be a window into the cosmic consciousness that, for our own sanity, we have limited access to.

It gets quite difficult to explain these ideas, because in the West, our reductionist habits of thought insist that each word has one meaning only. Subtlety and ambiguity are frowned upon.

Just clarifying a bit what my thoughts are... I agree I think with your idea of "information"... though I prefer the term "ideas". My hypothesis is that ideas have existence that extends beyond the time and place where they were formed, and that can become manifest in what we perceive as "objective" reality. E.g. there are cases of people being diagnosed with cancer, who then proceed to show symptoms of cancer and die; yet when they're examined, there is no cancer there. The subjective certainty of the doctor and the patient seems to have had an effect on reality. I can think of many events in my own life that follow this pattern: I was absolutely certain that something would happen, and it did, even though I had no direct control over its coming about.

[UndercoverElephant]

According to neutral monism (at least some forms of), it doesn't. What we call "matter" and "consciousness" are names we give to ways of interpeting what does exist, from our perspective. If you could conceptually "stand outside" the whole system, then you'd "see" a single, unified reality which was neither mental nor physical. Perhaps it helps to think of it as self-existing information. You'd also be able to "see" how consciousness and matter "map onto" this neutral reality.

I think our disagreement is down to terminology. When I talk of consciousness, I mean not just individual consciousness, but also any putative "proto-consciousness" attributable to subatomic particles, and any putative "cosmic consciousness". I am also including what we call the subconscious, which I speculate may be a window into the cosmic consciousness that, for our own sanity, we have limited access to.

It gets quite difficult to explain these ideas, because in the West, our reductionist habits of thought insist that each word has one meaning only. Subtlety and ambiguity are frowned upon.

Just clarifying a bit what my thoughts are... I agree I think with your idea of "information"... though I prefer the term "ideas". My hypothesis is that ideas have existence that extends beyond the time and place where they were formed, and that can become manifest in what we perceive as "objective" reality. E.g. there are cases of people being diagnosed with cancer, who then proceed to show symptoms of cancer and die; yet when they're examined, there is no cancer there. The subjective certainty of the doctor and the patient seems to have had an effect on reality. I can think of many events in my own life that follow this pattern: I was absolutely certain that something would happen, and it did, even though I had no direct control over its coming about.

Funny old world, isn't it?

[Catweazle]

I voted Atheist because it is the closest to what I actually believe - rather than what I know.

I will never claim that there is not a God, to do so is arogant and impossible to justify. How can you possibly argue against the existence of a supreme being that doesn't want to be seen ? You can't.

[2 As and a B]

Likewise, but I voted Agnostic.

[snow hope]

I voted Atheist because it is the closest to what I actually believe - rather than what I know.

I will never claim that there is not a God, to do so is arogant and impossible to justify. How can you possibly argue against the existence of a supreme being that doesn't want to be seen ? You can't.

Then you should have voted Agnostic as I did.

[emordnilap]

well sometimes Im a atheist then sometimes Im a shiva kali bear worshiper, which is my own understanding of hindism where the spirits of shiva and kali take the forms of teddybears who in the form of shiva are constructive and make porridge and cakes, and in the form of kali bear drive tanks over peaceful villages while listening to songs like the end by the doors .

Ive talked to hindu gurus and they think that its ok to see shiva and kali as teddybears if thats how you see them.

The bear in my sig picture is in fact a hindu god called henry the bear sometimes hes good and kind and sometimes hes something else entirely .

I have a facebookgroup for people interested in becoming shiva kali bear worshipers or for people who like to eat porridge

That last sentence makes them sound like mutual exclusives! Still, like, far out man.

[Prono 007]

I will never claim that there is not a God, to do so is arogant and impossible to justify. How can you possibly argue against the existence of a supreme being that doesn't want to be seen ? You can't.

Do you hold the same uncertainty with regard to other Gods, like Zeus or Venus for instance?

[caspian]

I will never claim that there is not a God, to do so is arogant and impossible to justify. How can you possibly argue against the existence of a supreme being that doesn't want to be seen ? You can't.

Do you hold the same uncertainty with regard to other Gods, like Zeus or Venus for instance?

Or, indeed a magic teapot orbiting the Earth, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since there is no evidence for any of these things, does it make sense to sit on the fence and profess to be agnostic about all of them? From a purely philosophical perspective, yes, but from a pragmatic perspective, no.

[Catweazle]

I think some of you are missing the point, if there is a supreme being and if he has at points in the past revealed himself to the chosen few in different forms it could be argued that he revealed himself in forms appropriate to the developement or sophistication of the people who existed at the time. Maybe the people needed Zeus and Athena etc etc at the time. The whole point of "Supreme Being" is that we are incapable of understanding the plan.

I didn't vote agnostic because agnostic isn't a belief - it's a statement that you don't have a belief either way. I am an atheist who is prepared to admit that I might be wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

I will never claim that there is not a God, to do so is arogant and impossible to justify. How can you possibly argue against the existence of a supreme being that doesn't want to be seen ? You can't.

Do you hold the same uncertainty with regard to other Gods, like Zeus or Venus for instance?

Or, indeed a magic teapot orbiting the Earth, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since there is no evidence for any of these things, does it make sense to sit on the fence and profess to be agnostic about all of them? From a purely philosophical perspective, yes, but from a pragmatic perspective, no.

I'm not sure that pragmatism would lead you to atheism if philosophy leads to agnosticism. How is it any more pragmatic to be atheist than agnostic? Agnosticism doesn't compel anyone to do anything.

[goslow]

I'm interested in this because I think there is a big ideological change coming, and big ideological changes inevitably get mixed up with religion.

all this metaphysics goes over my head a bit (and I voted "practicing Christian!). So, UE, what is the idealogical change you're expecting, and how do you expect religion to relate to that?