This discussion is like a flooding river going in a thousand directions. One of them seems to be about subjectivity versus objectivity.

There are numerous ways out of this famous philosophical dilemma. One of them could be to extract a simple set of rules from a biological theory on the human mind. This could be possible for as well religious as non-religious people. Just a to have a neuropsychological model on the mind, and to simplify it. The simple rules you can extract from this could function as rules to determinate the validity of statements about many subjects that are said to be subjective.
This is not a way out of the cartesian dilemma ofcourse, but that's another dilemma then the problem that arises when you already acknowledge that there is a world around us, with us, human beings in it, etc.

The point is, that if you establish what the limitations of the mind are, based not upon statements of the mind itself (wich would be personal views, religion, metaphysics, etc.) but on something of wich we already agree that it's real and objective, we can from there on place all the theories of the mind itself in an objective perspective.

This perspective allows for greater subtlety then simply making yes/no statements about subjects of for instance free-will.
In the case of free-will, the inevitable conclusion would be that the mechanism of believing in a free-will is nessecery for a healthy functioning of the mind and for all that follows from it, like we humans functioning in our society; free-will exists and yet it doesn't. From our own personal view we have no choice to believe we are free and from an objective point of view we must acknowledge that we operate within limitations in wich we have no say, and both are true and nessecarfily true within the framework that determines the truth-value of their perspective, wich you can objectively verify.

I look at it like mathematics: consider mathematics to be purely a world of the mind, a fictional world that in itself is unbounded by physics. Mathematics states for instance that there is an infinite amount of numbers possible; you could start counting from one to...
Mathematics say you could count on forever, the amount of possible numbers is innummerable.
The real world, outside mathematics however, determines that there is a physical limit to what computations could be made and what not.
Mathematics itself is unaware of this limit, because it is the limit of what's physically possible; You could theoretically make statements that are mathematically correct, yet mathematically incorrect. Simply because the theory of mathematics would theoretically say they're true, yet the theory of mathematics cannot say they're true.

Burnt, science has become a religion for you. It is the dogma by which you double check all your experiences and in the grand scheme of things, not much different than the beliefs you are trying to discredit.

Just because you cannot hold something and disect it does not mean it does not exist. The universe is more mysterious and wonderous than anything you can come up with in your wildest imagination. That is the magic of free will, it is not required of you to believe in something in order for you to be a participant of that system.

What isn't real to you, is tangibly real to others. There is beauty and simplicity in that. What is real and what is not? It is all subjective, with objectivity that guides the way but cannot show you the beginning or destination of the journey. You have your own subjective experience of reality that is equally valid to everyone else's. If you can find love and compassion for people, empathize with others, then you are making progress spiritually even if you don't believe it exists. You have the right to believe what you want, as does everyone else. If those beliefs bring you closer to others, open your mind and heart to something greater than that collection of memories we call "I", then that is tangibly real, that has substance both in this world, and in that which you cannot see.

Consciousness came before the universe.
How old is modern science?
For me everything is conscious. Just on very different levels. Brain activity and consciousness are two different things. You don't need a brain for consciousness but you need consciousness for brain activity.
Mind over matter.

I think that "mind: is a form of consciousness. For "mind" to exist we do require a brain. Know the question is; is a brain necessary for consciousness? It is hard to say, it really depends on how we define consciousness. However I feel that consciousness is a universal force, or the universal force (The Tao) and that the brain utilizes this force and manipulates it to create the "mind". We do know that the state of the brain determines the state of the mind. Furthermore states of mind can influence the underlying state of the brain (this is how we control behavior).

But consciousness (if defined as something different and independent from mind) is not dependent on the brain for existence in fact the brain may be dependent on consciousness for existence (although this is all speculation). All existence may stem from consciousness, then the system can manipulate itself to create novel states of complexity building on its self... to create greater and greater states of complexity.

This is exactly my experience of/what I call God. It is the energy of the universe. Everywhere. Everywhen. Neither being created nor destroyed, just infinately chaninging forms.

It is quite simple really.



I would say that matter is a property of consciousness, not the other way around. Consciousness transcends dimensions, is able to exist in more than one at once. Science has offered proof that there are at least 8 dimensions, and upwards of 15. What exists in those other dimensions, is there life there, and if so, what form of consciousness would those beings have with the ability to see and understand all that exists in lower dimensions? We can experience and think in three dimensions, or only two if we so choose. What is consciousness like that can experience and think in 6-7-8 dimensions? Are you born into higher dimensional existences? Or does one have to evolove from lower to higher forms? If one evolves then that means there is a process beyond physical evolution, that there is a spiritual component that allows us to learn and grow over many lifetimes to learn the lessons needed to be learned in order to progress to higher states of being.

Evolution is the mechanism for change in the universe, and it is not only limited to evolution of the physical form.

This discussion is grid-locked.
There are those who want to use the personal (and possibly spiritual)perspective as a framework to fit and judge arguments about reality and those who want an objective perspective for that purpose, and they don't communicate well.

There are phenomena where the personal and objective perspective are interwoven in such a manner that especially at those points the confusion controls all of the discussion.

We have to acknowledge that both views cannot completely disqualify eachother and that both views have SOME value. Now the difficulty seems to be how those two different ways in wich something can have value relate....since we also have to see that they do relate somehow.

To solve the grid-lock we simply need to see how the subjective can be objectivied or vice versa, depending on where you start. How relativity can be absolute and absoluteness relative, how determinism can be indeterminate and the indeterminate, determinable.

Consider that all contributors to this discussion are smart enough to take the discussion to a level where we no longer discuss simple matters of fact, but the reality that contains matters of fact.

So to begin with: on what ground do we all agree, something can be said to be true?
(and i know everybody here is smart, so it probably needs no explanation that no completely finished worldview such as "science tells me" or "god tells me" can be the answer to that question, since if that would be so unquestionable, we would not have this discussion in the first place)

This type of question sounds easy but didn't some philosophers ask things like this and end up deciding that we can't know ANYTHING to be true?

Ignoring that, I would propose that both camps would say something to be true if it is observable.

(Things like hallucinations are still 'true', they still 'exist', but it is their nature which is contested, ie are they tricks of the mind or the ancestors etc, not to open that can of worms because its all over this site already! Whereas 'god' etc is not considered scientifically observable at present.)

But one side wants the true thing to be scientifically observable, and the other side is happy that it's existentially observable (I'm presuming that not many people here don't give any value whatsoever to the 'trueness' of scientific observation). Hmm am I just paraphrasing you Polytrip?

Regardless of evidence vs no evidence, i agree 100% with these few things you just said bufoman! Nice

Yeah. In such situations it's better to say that God does not exist. (Because the "god" they are talking about really does not. In fact, even the real God does not. :-) As the creator is not part of creation, the verb "exists" can not be used in relation with Him/Her/It.)

Could science integrate an experimental result which seemed to suggest that the "moral quality" of the researchers is correlated to the success of the experiments? Would it be scientific to say something like: "To successfully repeat this experiment, you must believe in God, otherwise the results won't appear." If science can integrate such things, then scientific study of the spiritual realms may be possible.

I had serious troubles with this question for a long time. I came to the conclusion that absolute Right/Wrong is an idea which we created as a weapon against our fear of losing control. I believe that we have a kind of sense - we may call it intuition - that shows us what is right and wrong in the current situation (buddhists call this "prajna". If this intuitive ability is working with 100% efficiency, then we don't need the idea of "right" or "wrong". But if it fades away (which may happen together with the formation of the ego), then we need a substitute, and thereby we create the ideas of "right" and "wrong" as absolutes, and then stick to them (perhaps also updating them as we learn that the world is not black and white). But this is altogether wrong, because right and wrong are not absolutes. Or we may say that they are absolutes, but only with relation to the present moment. The present moment is absolute, while the past and the future exist only in our imagination.

I think in debates like this the best way is for everyone to present their views as subjectively as possible.

In one form or another, the ancient paradoxes of existence are involved here. Trying to reconcile them into one Unified Theory (TM) will not succeed, at least not here on Earth. What we can do is express the fragments we had been given (what we are, actually) as clearly and honestly as possible, and then trust our ability to see the wholeness as it emerges when these different viewpoints are manifesting beside each other. To understand the whole, we need the capacity to hold the two antagonistic forces in our mind at the same time. But here on the Nexus this seems like a given.

Understanding reality is a form of art.

Well, guys, you made me trip with this thread. I got straight back to the core of my greatest psychedelic experience, so I feel a need to share what I'm seeing here.

First you are only the subjective, in your own world. Then you recognize there are others and the battle begins. Then you (after perhaps a looong time and a lot of suffering) get to the point where you overcome the dualities and you experience the One as constituted by the different fragments (at this point the love/hate relationship with the particular beliefs/sects/religions/political views disappear). Then you overcome the final duality of Ego/God. You learn to be yourself on Earth and God in Heaven, at once, without the one threatening the other (oh what a fear that is, a major stumbling block of enlightenment).

I remember that God explained this whole thing to me in a way which was (1) awesome (I just watched with my jaws dropped to the floor, with awe), (2) "logical". I remember that I laughed on that it was logical. God reconciled the mind/heart (science/religion) duality in the most generous manner. He knew what a mind-freak I am (lost in thoughts, analyzing everything in an anal-retentive way), and he loved me so much that he provided me with an explanation which was mind-boggling but as I followed it through with the mind it was flawless and this flawlessness was the cause of me being able to let go. I think I am at depth a scientific type, but in my case this comes not from wonder and curiosity but from fear: I do not want to believe anything until I am 100% convinced that it's true, so much I fear the possibility of accepting an invalid idea that then becomes a 99% ruler of my life (history seems like a constant reminder to the dangerous consequences of such a false persuasion). And alas, God delivered a sort of scientific proof, via direct experience, intuitive knowledge, the contents of which could be - in theory - extracted into the form of communicable words, but I couldn't care less then and the task seemed enormous anyway - direct knowledge is sooo much simpler.

Sorry for the ranting, it's just... I'm forced to do it.

Yeah juicy thread!

About the points on the definition of god confusing people because of its anthropomorphic connotations- this is exactly why I call myself an atheist, rather than an 'existence worshipper'. I sometimes referring to it as 'optimistic atheism' to differentiate myself from the sulking nihilists and smug humanists!

This thread started with an atheist scientist exposing the dogma of superstition, only then for science to be called out at its own game by existential and postmodern philosophy. That's the way it's gone for decades.

Once this happens, we reach a point where most of the members of both camps agree on one point: belief in existence (others may even doubt the material universe and only believe in their own experience, but I don't think there are any such people in this thread so let's ignore that view for now).

So the two opposing camps here both believe in existence.
You could call all of existence 'mere matter', or you could call all of existence 'god', but it's the same thing whatever you call it!

From hereon, the arguments are all outside the current knowledge boundaries of science (with conventional religion having only been discounted based on subjectively judged probabilities, subjectively judged naivity, and a loss of credibility when creation stories contradict established scientific theory). The only agreement on the subject of the unknown is that, like with the nature of consciousness, and all the stuff in the universe we don't yet know about like dark matter etc, there are things that science does not yet understand.

We are now in the realms of 'science-based spirituality'- spirituality based on science, not pseudoscience, nor religion. This kind of spirituality is fluid, more 'this could be possible' rather than 'this is the answer'. How can you argue that this form of spirituality is invalid, Burnt? You can't, you have to accept the possibility that your beliefs could be wrong in this case, because at this level even science is operating on beliefs, or theories if you prefer that term.

I would disagree. The Creator IS the creation. It is most certainly not outside/separate of it.

I like this point, very well said. The idea of fluidity has a special resonance as my beliefs are constantly changing, growing, morphing...dare I say evolving? My spirituality is based on science, and the clues it tantalizes us with about our possible multi-dimensional makeup.

Does everybody agree that from existence itself, you can deduce that every perception is based on/refers to substance of wich it's existence is as basic as the mere conclusion of existence itself?

Alright I guess I will start this response by starting my argument completely over as no one seems to have gotten it.


The wave particle duality is used by all kinds of people to say that the mind controls reality. That the conscious act of observing something by a human mind makes reality by causing quantum events to 'collapse'.

I am saying that no where in quantum theory does it require a conscious observer for quantum events to happen. This idea has been perpetuated for decades now by all kinds of people even physicists. The originators of quantum mechanics although they speculated about these kinds of things never meant that consciousness causes quantum events to happen. The observer was any separate macroscopic system doing the observing of the quantum system.

This debate is complicated and confusing. However there are physicists out there who have taken the time to deal with these issues and explain them and the misconceptions behind them. One of those physcists is Victor Stenger. I will provide a link to his website where his books are advertised and a series of articles and talks are available to explain not only the history of this debate but the physics behind it.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/


So far what we know about the world is that its made up of particles. String theory has no verified experimental evidence so stop using it as an explanation for these supernatural ideas and if you are going to use it the only way you can describe how it connects to your theory is to see if it fits in within the theory and stop just saying that it does. Even if it is true that doesn't discount that the world is made of matter. String theory requires one dimensional objects and curled up extra dimensions but it still requires something physical.

The standard model is so far the most complete picture we have as to what normal matter is made up of. It is by no means complete it requires the Higgs boson which may never be found meaning the theory needs revision but that doesn't mean all those particles just go away. Many have been directly observed. Many people would probably be excited if the higgs boson was not found because then it means science must go beyond the standard model. But so far the standard model agrees with all experimental evidence and observations to date.

The crux of my argument is that there so far need not be anything beyond matter to describe our universe and where it came from and why weird things happen in it. Dark matter is still matter we just don't know anything about it yet except that it exerts gravitational force and doesn't interact with light. To say that there is, is to imply the existence of a god or another world that somehow interferes with or creates our world. That is what I am saying most likely doesn't exist. I can never disprove a deist god. But there is certainly no evidence for a theist god.

Many here agree there is most likely no theist god and no one has mentioned the deist god but all that means is a god who made the universe and then left it alone with the laws of nature to take care of the rest.

But many here are also claiming that consciousness is the fundamental make up of reality. That consciousness is what creates all those particles we observe. Some even claim that our consciousness can will aspects of reality to come true and claim this is the explanation for supernatural phenomenon. My question is why?

Quantum mechanics is not an explanation. Particles do exhibit wave like character and it depends on the observation --> but the world is made up of particles! To say that the wave function is a real physical thing and particles exist everywhere at once then relativity is violated. In abstract mathematical space anything can exist anywhere it doesn't matter. If you think that consciousness is everywhere instantaneously in the universe then you have violated relativity. If you violate relativity you better be prepared to explain yourself. No commonly accepted quantum theory violates relativity. If you claim that there is something pervading the universe yet interacting with matter it MUST be detectable or observable somehow. If its not interacting with matter then you have never experienced it and it might as well not exist.

You don't even need to use the wavefunction to describe quantum states. You can use a vector in any abstract mathematical space. You can use Heisenburg's matrix mechanics. They all give the same results. All these formulisms give the same indeterministic non classical quantum world.

If anyone has any problems with the above I want specific arguments.


Now about the question I keep dodging. "Is scienctific knowledge the only valid knowledge". I tried answering this but maybe I glossed it over to simply. I am not saying that science is the only source of knowledge. There are plenty of things that humans and animals and all kinds of things have knowledge about without science. I don't see how I am dodging the question? Science however is the best possible way to get answers about things that we currently don't have answers for. Of course you can think of answers to questions about things and those may be correct. Science can also disprove certain kinds of knowledge. Or at least show that it is highly unlikely.

The criticism that science is a dogma is absurd. How is science a dogma? Is science dogma because it often has a reductionist approach? Science isn't always reductionist. Science also doesn't have a big book that sais "here are all the answers". Its up to humans and observations and experiments to figure out answers to things we do not understand.

Now science can't offer a moral solution to lets say the population crisis. Any scientist can argue its my evolutionary right to have children and any scientist can argue if we don't control population there will be mass human suffering. Well these decisions aren't science based decisions. We make them we can use science as a guide but science can't make these kinds of moral decisions. I also stated why I do not believe in an objective right and wrong. Who sets the right and wrong then? You can't use the word conscience. Some people don't have one nor is it the same for everybody.

And of course you can make some argument like well science is built on facts after fact after fact but how do you know those facts are correct "how do you know anything. This kind of argument goes no where. We know those facts are correct to the limit to which we can. Sure I'll accept there's a limit. How can I prove I am not living in some matrix like reality and my brain isn't just hooked up some some tube? I don't. But am I going to assume that because I don't know it that its true? No of course not. Science validates science all the time. When a theory is proven by experimental evidence its validated. If someone disproves it its invalidated. This happens and progresses all the time.

The more we know does not equal the less we know unless what we think know is wrong.



Now concerning mystical experiences. Most of us have had them whether psychedelic induced or not. Now according to current neuroscience this type of phenomenon can occur and should occur when weird things happen. Weird things are just things that don't normally happen. Like looking at a wall and seeing one pattern become the entire wall. We have also mostly experienced what is commonly known as ego death. All these earth shattering eye opening mind twisting experiences make sense if the brain and its networks and its connects to our bodies and sense organs make up our subjective experience of reality. There is no disconnect.

I can think of two areas where this would be wrong.

1- if the brain isn't what makes consciousness and you are all right that its the other way around.

2- if we do encounter some external intelligence who tells us something we could have never known and that is then shown to be true and it is shown that the individual could not have solved the problem any other way.


But now since there are many correlations between brain activity and subjective experience answer 1 becomes less likely. 2 is not likely until it happens. Of course there are anecdotal claims by everybody whose tripped that they learned something they couldn't have while tripped. Well of course because psychedelics allow you to think differently so you should be coming up with new ways of looking at things on them. If you didn't it would be strange. But no one has ever proven that there is no other way they could have solved a specific problem without external knowledge entering the mind from somewhere else.

But going back to correlations between brain activity and subjective experience. So far no one can explain why when you feel love it feels the way it does and I don't think anyone ever will unless you can transfer subjective experiences from brain to brain. If we were observing an animal we could say look it has this attachment to another animal because it has an instinct to mate and doesn't actually "feel" anything and is not conscious. The only reason we know in ourselves what anything feels like is because we feel it. This is subjective of course. I also think other animals have subjective experience many forms of life probably do.

But that doesn't mean that love is not caused by the activity of the brain. Just because we can't explain how it feels doesn't mean its not being caused by whats going on in your brain. The reason I take that stance because many aspects of conscious experience can be damaged and change and become weird things. Just a simple example is visual neglect or phantom limb syndrome. There are way more complicated examples like schizophrenia. Maybe I shouldn't call it conscious experience though? Maybe I should only refer to the overarching unity of mind as consciousness. But consciousness clearly is made up of many parts. Perhaps that base awareness is made up of very simple parts? Perhaps that base awareness is all there is and the rest is an illusion? Are we talking about the base awareness or are we talking about higher cognitive functions? I feel this is an important definitional standpoint and will now stop.

You know you are all wrong, right?

You are not listening to me at all.

I am not claiming the double split experiment is wrong. I am citing other physicists who explain the history and misconceptions of quantum mechanics throughout the last a century. I posted a link with a clear explanation of all this stuff and the history of this debate but you continue to ignore it.

Stop accusing me of misusing science when I am not. I am saying the world is made up of matter. Quantum mechanics doesn't say or imply otherwise. In fact its in complete agreement with a material matter world (I know its not newtonian so stop saying that!). I understand that its not classical and that you cannot define location until observation (measurement). I am not denying any of this so stop accusing me of doing it when I am not. What I am denying is that its an explanation for spiritual explanations about the universe.

MOST PHYSICISTS WOULD AGREE! I have discussed these issues with friends who were physicists and they explained it. But yet again see my links to Victor Stenger's website. He has spent a lot of time and a lot of effort dispelling the quantum spiritualists out there. I cannot even come close to doing as good of a job as he does. So read his literature if you care. He wrote a nice new book on the subject called Quantum Gods. He also wrote a book called the Unconscious Quantum. Until you do stop accusing me of lieing or making things up about science that aren't true because I am not!



Entanglement is real but it does not need imply superluminal communication. Infact entanglement obeys the rules conventional quantum mechanics and does not need any subquantum local variables as was proposed by Einstein and Bohm.

Einstein said quantum mechanics was wrong because if it was local meaning not non local it would require information to move faster then speed of light. This is called the EPR paradox. At the end of the day Einstein and Bohm did not succeed in describing anything with their idea of hidden variables or non locality.



Quantum mechanics doesn't imply that the world is not made of matter. What do you think the standard model is describing?!