psychology
the neurophysiological processes, including memory, by which an organism becomes aware of and interprets external stimuli.
Without external stimulus the brain can only engage in making “best guesses” without any possibility of confirmation.
Any “illusion” of transcendental cognitive abilities is just that, an Illusion or uncontrolled hallucination.
This is not necessarily bad. It can be a perfectly logical mental process, but it would be imaginary nevertheless.
This is why I like the concept of the Universe as a mathematical object.
There is abundant confirmation of natural mathematical functions.
Most cosmologist admit that they are “discovering” the prevailing (a priori) universal mathematics rather than inventing them.
They just codify them into human language.
Sometimes a totally unrelated equation fits perfectly with a completely different set of extant values.
But this is my interpretation, my brain’s best guess" from the available and codified “external” information. My mind and a host of other minds could be wrong.
But for me the concept works just fine.
The context I continually try to keep on the table is the absolute context of infinitude from which your mathematical object is emergent.
Simply put, external and internal are emergent characteristics of Entirety’s singularity. And as I write this, I realize that the term “emergent” doesn’t fit and is misleading. Entirety’s singularity remaining unchanged.
I don’t know about “transcendental cognitive abilities”, other than the implied seamlessness of all existence expressing from/in unlimited infinitude.
The dichotomy of “controlled and uncontrolled” has to be evaluated in the context of relativity. All sentience being no more or less the expression of self referencing existence than the space/time continuum.
I think your perception of how often you repeat things is exaggerated. As I just pointed out, you have used “apriori” in conjunction with a few different words. As for “God”, it could mean a lot of different things that you prefer to substitute those other terms. Would you say you are in line with Spinoza, who never renounced God?
And quit insulting us with comments like “no original thought”. Pretty soon I will shift to moderator mode and just keep an eye out like I do with everyone else. We have some here who have been around for years, constantly contradicting others and spouting theories with no basis in fact. Maybe you’ll be another one of those.
For a little bit, I thought this might go somewhere, then that last post. Oh boy.
Unless there is a difference between imaginary concepts, and approximate ones, yes my brain has been involved.
That brain of course parsing space/time like a prism does light. Its existence traceable to the quantum level. ॐ मणि पद्मे हूँ
Right?
The sense of self aspect of the brain’s “illusions” being a pattern derived via that mathematical object effect of the Entirety you speak of. All phenomena co-arising in interdependent synchronicity.
How else can it be other than approximate? But then it isn’t actually.
Sorry write4u I’m going to have to move on (or at least hope I do). I appreciate the effort you eventually made. Be sure to Google David Bohm sometime and read through some of his quotes.
Thanks for the heads up, but actually I just said good by to write4u and will say goodby to you as well.
I’m really sorry that it went south to such a degree. Though we should get an independent witness in to tally up the insults, over the last couple of days. Three on one I will point out.
Since you are a moderator and I would be on a short leash, I will forgo following some of the other forums I had hope to eventually get to. Oh well.
From the FAQ/Rules, describing emotive rhetoric:
To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.
What you seem to be perceiving as insults are a commentary on your patterns and quality of speech, i.e. repetitiveness, phrases that aren’t meaningful, saying you have covered something when you haven’t, claiming to know something about nature without providing any evidence, and more. All of those can be commented on under the rules. “Atheists get triggered” and “don’t have original thoughts” are schoolyard level insults.
I really think we should get back to the original topic of this thread and drop the diversion. I’d be very frustrated if my thread was derailed as badly as this one.
I agree with you. There is no need to define it, whatever it is. The thing is, so many religious people who don’t ascribe to institutionalize religion, mistakenly attribute the title of God to the universe. So many make that mistake. The universe is just that- the universe.
Agreed. Why have the additional term? The definition of “universe” has changed significantly in the past few hundred years, especially when telescopes showed us that in a dark area of the sky where there didn’t seem to be much at all, there are entire galaxies. The story of how big it is, how it formed, how we got here, and how we figured it all out, is one that has inspired me, more than any sermon.
Somehow, that amazing story has bypassed the pulpits. Gods went from air, to mountains, to sky, to somewhere way out there, and when we still couldn’t find them, the idea that all of it was God, somehow stuck around. I’m okay with being in awe and wonder of mystery, but when whatever that is, is prayed to, appealled to, and assumed to have some answers or agency, it just gets in the way of us dealing with our problems using the faculties that all of this gave us.
FYI, I recognized that little scribble by brmc as something in an ancient script, and lo and behold, it googled. Om mani padme hum - Wikipedia
Well, maybe. Scholars spend years working on short pieces like that and their context. In the end, I’m not sure they are all that more meaningful than Deepak Chopra
An interesting tidbit. Deepak Chopra is good friends with Stuart Hameroff and his research into microtubules.
It is a little outside my area of interest but along with Roger Penrose and a few other leading scientist, they are seiously investigating the possibility that microtubules may be active at quantum level and that would have some interesting implications.
Basically the same happened to me, except I wasn’t on the View. I went to some movie about spirituality and quantum physics, then I read some Stephen Hawking. They didn’t exactly overlap.
I’m getting near the end of the book I’m writing. It might never get published because I make a bunch of copyrighted references, anyway, one of my inspirations was a conversation with a guy named “Genus” something. It was on this forum a few years ago. In that middle of that, @citizenschallengev4 said,
“We create our religions to please our personal desires- not to comprehend the universe.”
This includes all the people who piece together their own spirituality with words pulled from ancient scripture and modern philosophy. Genus would almost get it, but then he’d slip back into saying science proved the afterlife or something. But here’s a paragraph from him, where he’s talking about using science to explore “God”.
“The side benefit of trying to empirically consider the question of God’s existence by the only true and reliable means of determining this or any truth, is that it makes more aware of the subtlety, and breathtaking complexity of the universe we live in. This question is actually more of a riddle and riddles make us think in unaccustomed ways. If we try to solve this riddle with language and answers framed in archaic traditions of the past we’ll encounter contradictions that we are asked to simply accept on faith. In our modern age that’s not enough to answer the skepticism held by those millions who are asking serious questions. Religion must and will continue to evolve. Science owns the future of all theological questions on the existence or non-existence of God.”
