Not really. Possibly for the more megalomaniacal scientist? — I like sushi

Precisely. And exactly these are the "heros" that are put forth by science. As if they know some profound truth only accessible to the "gifted" few.

The ultimate goal for us physicists seems to be to know the basic workings of the universe. Lots of ado bout that. There are zillions of other domains to explore but Democritus already thought to have found one and Einstein kept on dreaming till his death. Currently all the blazing's about the eternal reward of a quantum gravity. Of which its the question if it even exists in the usual context of QFT (coupling to virtual graviton condensate). But what if that goal is reached? I think I have a pretty good look at that fundamentals. So what? I think that knowledge, the closed gap, so to speak, leaves only one thing to conclude. And maybe knowledge of the universe implies knowledge of heaven.

[quote="I like sushi;674163"]About brain function and that physiology is not somehow separate from brain function[/quote]

Physiology not separate from brain function? How can it be separate from brain function? The brain, the body, and he universe are tightly bound. Inseparably even. The physiology of the brain and its connections to body and universre determines your thoughts and feelings.

This is one of your long-playing repeats — universeness

Ive asked it twice! Without an answer, I might add. Chance from intuition is BS.

He and I arrive at this value based on intuition and the evidence available on gods existence — universeness

Goooooodmorning universeness! Howbout that! Nice song! You're from 1964?

Dawkins arrived at that value on intuition? How scientific! It's Dawkins making meaningless claims. It means nothing to say you're 99.9% sure gods don't exist. I can say I'm 100% sure the do. That's higher than his meaningless value!

I cannot cure our ignorance. That is your job. Bye bye — I like sushi

Our ignorance? About what?

Just to be clear … ‘depression’ is actually an ‘illness’ of sorts. People are not depressed for a reason if they are clinically depressed. — I like sushi

That's what they make you think. Lost paradise is the cause. I've had my part. All stuff tried. To no avail. I have very highs luckily too. Let me tell you, already in locked up in the school system when a small kid I longed to something that wasnt there. Despite being the best in class and girls walking behind my ass.

He applies it to all god(s) from EL, BAAL, Zeus and Odin through to Gaia, Jehovah and Allah! — universeness

The universe has joined the atheist troops! Goooooodmorning Universe(ness)!!!
How can he apply it to non-existing gods? How does he arrive at 99.9%? What's the statistical calculation made? Does he involve the gods of all cultures? Of all native tribes (insofar not wiped out by science and Christianity)? What would the calculation look like? What samples does he use?

I'm gonna start a thread on the guy. He'll be delighted!

Sorry René Descartes! — Agent Smith

Non cogito ergo sum

Jannat->Fardaus->Pardis->Paradise->Paradise lost (current situation)

Melancholy appears. Longing back to paradise. Every sane person has to be depressed. Let's not fool ourselves.

The dualist spirit. If my toe is in pain, it's the toe of which I'm conscious. A part of self consciousness, like the dog is conscious of pain in the toe or tail. Consciousness about that pain (like me talking about it now), is awareness. Awareness of the awareness is self awareness. Which isn't to say that the self is awareness.

To be honest, I think it's really very obvious that they can't, and it fascinates me that other people find it so hard to see that. — Daemon

:100:

It's a modern-day day fairytale. People looove fairytales.

But can we create new life, an a priori for consciousness? We (our ancestors) were involved in the evolution of our own lifes, but from within life itself. Our hands evolved from that inner evolution. The hands are not capable of creating life.

Yes, now there is a God.” — Agent Smith

I recently, how coincidentally, saw scientists claiming that we are creations of the alien superdooperdeluxe intelligent race. They have established links between all planets and all life on Earth is a giant simulation created by these new gods.
These scientists were probably frustrated about their scientific status. Yearning for gods while trying to stick to their limited science. Where has the world come to?

We're atheists with respect to Tyche/Fortuna. — Agent Smith

"The West has perfected the art of planning"? Far from.
Planes crash. But let's close our eyes to that. A statistical nuisance. No more, no less...

Ideas are objects of minds. They only exist as perception:
— Count Timothy von Icarus

So you are saying that you perceive your ideas? — Banno

Read my dear. He/she says they are perceptions. How can you perceive a perception? That would be a perception. Logically conclusion: ideas are no perceptions.

The forum is presently dominated by fools with little to no grasp of basic philosophical or logical notions and yet with thoroughgoing confidence in their opinions; by those who have failed to learn how to learn. — Banno

You refer to that guy in the mirror?

Neither can come first, hence neither does; the problem can only be an error in conceptualisation — Banno

RUBBISH

It's the chicken that comes first. The proto chickens looked eeagerlyfor new ways. Then they invented the proto egg and the proto rooster. Voila!

I don't think most ontological claims are possible to vet empircally, so they can't be scientific — Count Timothy von Icarus

This presupposes that what cannot be empirically verified is non-scientific. Still theòlogy, the science of the gods, is taught at our universities. Which could mean they are to vet empirically, like virtual particles are.

Good question. To the extent that I'm aware, the total energy in a system (here the brain) must be explained in physical terms. If dualism were true, this would be false (there would be energy that can't be explained materialistically) and we could/should then hypothesize another source (immaterial) for the extra energy. That's how I understoosd it, could be wrong. — Agent Smith

The only thing for a dualist to conclude is that qualia (thoughts, sensory impressions, emotions) don't have mass. Does electric charge have mass?

Aint there more then?

If so, then heaven is as full of disturbing occurrences as the natural world, so why would I prefer one over the other? Why would there be copies anyway? — Mww

The only difference is that the gods have power of creation. They have the collective intelligence to create the universe. The heaven is eternal and all life in it is an eternal edition of all life in the universe. They had good reason for creating it. All creatures in the universe act out the life of the gods. Their eternal making love and hate is observe as us and all other life playing what they used to play. They watch the universe on the heavenly heavens. Big bang after big bang. Eternally. Existential boredom got a grip on heaven. Let's hope they don't get bored watching us. Untill then, they give meaning to and a reason and an explanation of life. Science merely describes. Though some think were a product of quantum fluctuations. Which are involved though.

Still, if we are not even able to create a virus, which seems to possess a very limited conscious life, the dream to create a conscious AI will stay what it is: a dream, an SF fairytale.

People can read about cosmology or theology. There is a pretty good scientific general picture of the universe. All people know a local piece of it. The animals, the trees in their neighborhood, other people, etc. The natural world is a carbon copy of heaven. Sadly enough the natural world is further away than ever. Destroyed or rearranged by human activity. The gods hadnt taken the homonid gods into consideration in the prequel to creation.

All this does is presuppose the reality of gods, for which proven empirical justification is lacking — Mww

The very existence of the universe is good enough proof for me. Know the universe and you know the gods.

What’s the firmest possible base of knowledge? — Mww

Theology, seems to me. Know the gods and you know the universe.

Well, the gods lay at the foundation of all there is. Understanding them gives better knowledge of the cosmos than the phenomena in it. But if we consider the universe by itself, phenomena are all we've got to study and gain knowledge about.

Are you more interested in the technology than the cosmology?

Materialism is very scientific. It's the base of all of the sciences. Science investigates matter. Matter is science's subject matter. Ask the cell and molecular biologist, the neurologist, the nuclear specialist, the physician, the particle physicist, the astrophysicist, the meteorologist, the cosmologist, or the chemist. It are the philosophers making a fuzz about it.

Self perception is a tiny part of to be. Removing a splinter from your toe requires more self perceiving than contemplating cosmic evolution. Writing a story on cosmic evolution requires perception of the writing hand and maybe your back that hurts on the chair you sit on. A dog perceives itself too. But to say that for the dog to be is to perceive itself is just as silly as to say that for our own bring.

I can't help feeling that many, if not most, scientist because they in fact are lousy, prejudiced, contemptuous creatures. They are wannabe geniuses actually knowing nothing at all and only by ventilating their atheist talk they can at least appear to be on a level where the real science geniuses, which they so worship and adore, are probing the world. The so-called geniuses though are mostly conformists, trying to keep up the image of being one the chosen few in possession of some sacred god-given knowledge, while posing with mathematical equations and jargon to impress the unknowing laymen in an attempt to keep their position safe and secure.

If there were no others perceiving you, and only the mirror would be left, in other words, if you were alone in the world, it's questionable if we could speak of real being. To be is to be perceived by others.

After the opinion is established, if the egg is laid, it is said that the reality the opinion is about has functioned like the chicken that was there first.

Did they expect it to go wrong?

They want to make sure they go to people who will benefit from them. — T Clark

Aren't that all people who need a new kidney?

As a physicalist, I do happen to believe that appearances do reveal the approximate nature of things-as-they-are, but that's my peccadillo — Real Gone Cat

English language has some nice words. Peccadillo? Ha! :wink:
Why only the approximate nature can be revealed? The exact nature can be known it seems to me.

If you doubt the transcendent, then all is what's in your mind. — Real Gone Cat

I don't doubt the transcendence, I doubt that we can't know what we have no knowledge about, paradoxically as that may sound.

You might ask then: is it transcendental still? I think yes.

What is beyond experience is unknowable — Real Gone Cat

That's exactly the question. Why would that be?

I dunno but dualism is incompatible with materialism as it (dualism) would break the 1st law of thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy — Agent Smith

Not sure I follow, my love. You know I would follow you everywhere normally but here it's very hard for me. Please understand. Why would dualism break energy conservation?

Agent Smith! What great contribution my dear! Don't worry love. Webb will oscillate happily along during her looking at the baby universe, in the safe shadow Earth offers her. What will she show us? The observations can reveal the expansion speed of the universe shortly after the bang. Shall we come to understand the nature of dark energy. Or even dark matter?