Is this not what the Hindus mean when they say the Atman is the Brahman?Originally Posted by anunitu
Is this not what the Hindus mean when they say the Atman is the Brahman?
Evolution was not accepted as a theory for quite some time and was debated quite stridently for many years.
And yes, an observational study is an alternative to an experiment, however, I didn't say my suggestion was the *only* way to prove god does not exist...
<---is an actual scientist, IRL
“You have never answered but you did not need to. If I stand at the ocean I can hear you with your thousand voices. Sometimes you shout, hilarious laughter that taunts all questions. Other nights you are silent as death, a mirror in which the stars show themselves. Then I think you want to tell me something, but you never do. Of course I know I have written letters to no-one. But what if I find a trident tomorrow?" ~~Letters to Poseidon, Cees Nooteboom
“We still carry this primal relationship to the Earth within our consciousness, even if we have long forgotten it. It is a primal recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the Earth. It is a felt reverence for all that exists. Once we bring this foundational quality into our consciousness, we will be able to respond to our present man-made crisis from a place of balance, in which our actions will be grounded in an attitude of respect for all of life. This is the nature of real sustainability.”
~~Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee
"We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
~~Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History
"Humans are not rational creatures. Now, logic and rationality are very helpful tools, but there’s also a place for embracing our subjectivity and thinking symbolically. Sometimes what our so-called higher thinking can’t or won’t see, our older, more primitive intuition will." John Beckett
Pagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
Cool, so am I. Or training at least, doing my PhD. in Raman Spectroscopy, focusing on stochastic modelling to try to get useful biomedical info from it. More machine learning than i'd have liked, but that seems to be the direction of science.
You are the first pagan scientist i have met; i'd be very interested to hear how you balance what could be considered by others as two very different world views. I'd love to pick your brain about it, but maybe bot here as it might be off-topic. Or maybe i can ask you some god(s) related questions here?
http://www.paganforum.com/showthread...sm-and-Science
“You have never answered but you did not need to. If I stand at the ocean I can hear you with your thousand voices. Sometimes you shout, hilarious laughter that taunts all questions. Other nights you are silent as death, a mirror in which the stars show themselves. Then I think you want to tell me something, but you never do. Of course I know I have written letters to no-one. But what if I find a trident tomorrow?" ~~Letters to Poseidon, Cees Nooteboom
“We still carry this primal relationship to the Earth within our consciousness, even if we have long forgotten it. It is a primal recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the Earth. It is a felt reverence for all that exists. Once we bring this foundational quality into our consciousness, we will be able to respond to our present man-made crisis from a place of balance, in which our actions will be grounded in an attitude of respect for all of life. This is the nature of real sustainability.”
~~Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee
"We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
~~Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History
"Humans are not rational creatures. Now, logic and rationality are very helpful tools, but there’s also a place for embracing our subjectivity and thinking symbolically. Sometimes what our so-called higher thinking can’t or won’t see, our older, more primitive intuition will." John Beckett
Pagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
"Here is a summary of the new argument (this summary closely follows that given in Chalmers (1995: 3.2), as this is the clearest and most succinct formulation of the argument I know of): (1) suppose that “my reasoning powers are captured by some formal system F,” and, given this assumption, “consider the class of statements I can know to be true.” (2) Since I know that I am sound, F is sound, and so is F’, which is simply F plus the assumption (made in (1)) that I am F (incidentally, a sound formal system is one in which only valid arguments can be proven). But then (3) “I know that G(F’) is true, where this is the Gödel sentence of the system F’” (ibid). However, (4) Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem shows that F’ could not see that the Gödel sentence is true. Further, we can infer that (5) I am F’ (since F’ is merely F plus the assumption made in (1) that I am F), and we can also infer that I can see the truth of the Gödel sentence (and therefore given that we are F’, F’ can see the truth of the Gödel sentence). That is, (6) we have reached a contradiction (F’ can both see the truth of the Gödel sentence and cannot see the truth of the Gödel sentence). Therefore, (7) our initial assumption must be false, that is, F, or any formal system whatsoever, cannot capture my reasoning powers."
- The Lucas-Penrose Argument
Human understanding, especially mathematical understanding is something which can never ever be simulated on a Turing machine. Human beings have access to Plato's ideal world of numbers and mathematics is not an invention but just a mere discovery of what the creator has already invented.
There are counter arguments and rebuttals but Sir Roger Penrose has addressed all those criticisms in his various books and his ideas has to be taken seriously because he is quite a good mathematical physicist. The conclusion is Strong AI is impossible because a machine can never ever surpass the intuitive ability of human mathematicians to see the truth by going beyond a formal system.Have they been reviewed by a credible institution?
- - - Updated - - -
The whole Indian philosophy and their gods will collapse if brain and mind are not two different substances.
Differential hypotheses between Indian and Western psychology
The most important difference between the Indian and the Western approach seems to be about the existence of pure consciousness as postulated by the former. However, as far as “normal life” is concerned, ancient Indian psychology, especially as expressed in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika have astonishingly parallel views with modern Western psychology (e.g., Raju, 1983; Sharma, 2003). But there are also some striking differences. For instance, in contemporary Western cognitive psychology, the relationship between brain and mind is seldom explicitly spelled out, but if one would press researchers to make a statement, most would probably resort to the view that cognitive processes co-vary with brain processes, and if pressed still harder, some might say that essentially brain processes produce cognitions and emotions (e.g., Damasio, 1999). The Indian view is just the opposite: the brain is used as an instrument by the mind (e.g., Raju, 1983).
Does the mind use the brain or is the reverse true? This is a very interesting question, which cannot easily be tested. One might, however, try to find evidence for whether mind exists independently from brain. If the brain is the basis for the mind, there should be no mind if the brain is dead. So a good starting point to examine the hypothesis might be to look for evidence on near-death experiences or on reincarnation (for some attempts do to so see Cook, Greyson & Stevenson, 1998; Stevenson, 1987).
http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/others/p...eier-ip-sm.php
I have provided a proof in this post. See above. Penrose too is very sound.I too look forward to seeing these proofs. I wonder whether they will be logical proofs; just how Aristotle concluded that the moon must be perfectly spherical and heavy objects fall faster than light objects. His logic was sound.
- - - Updated - - -
Gods are always anthropomorphic to me. Gods are beings just like us with whom we can converse with.
While souls are ineffable. See Anima Mundi or world soul.
Last edited by saura; 11 Sep 2018 at 23:53.
Godel's theorem tells us about formal axiomatic systems, not about consciousness. We need only assume that consciousness is not a formal system (which is another conclusion you could reach). So there is no the conclusion, unless you hold pre-existing biases.
In essence Penrose is using roughly the same reasoning to 'prove' AI cannot be conscious that Aristotle used to 'prove' heavier objects fall faster than light ones. Except Penrose is actually a scientist so i would be very surprised if it is offered as a 'proof', but rather as a conjecture: one which gets often gets misconstrued by people desperate for science to support their pre-existing beliefs (similar to Lovelock's Gaia theory).
That's not to say that Penrose is wrong: but on this topic there is not nearly enough evidence to even come to tentative conclusions. Nothing is proven, we are no where need a scientific consensus. Why do you claim it as the conclusion?
I also get a little suspicious when Godel's theorem gets bandied around in religious contexts because few people actually understand it: i've studied enough maths to know i don't understand it. If you really do understand, i wouldn't mind a simple introduction (but using maths). Or we could take this discussion to a science forum - some people there are well versed in formal logic and maths and I would trust their insights.
I guess technically anything not Abrahamic is labelled Pagan, but i would not have thought Hinduism and Buddhism would come under the term in a modern context. I think there is a thread about the word Pagan so i guess that would be the place to discuss this.
But since we're talking Indian; i haven't looked into your claim yet (time constraints), but frankly it seems extremely unlikely that the whole of Indian philosophy is homogeneous. Rather it seems you have cherry picked a few references that support your claim, and come to a grandiose conclusions - no less than The whole Indian philosophy.
Indeed, being a Buddhist, i know the Buddha spoke of the 10 indeterminate questions which the Buddha refused to answer as they were not important to his teachings. Two of these questions specifically referred to whether the souls (or life, or essence) is the same as the body. Hence we have one data point that disproves that the 'whole of Indian philosophy will collapse if brain and mind are two different substances'. Unless you consider Buddhism not to be an Indian philosophy?
Either way, i will need much better supporting arguments if you are to convince me to spend time investigating these claims.
Last edited by prometheus; 13 Sep 2018 at 00:40.
Since I am of an age that I will see said "GOD" before most of you,if such a thing exists I will if able send the answer to confirm or deny said existence( I am age 72,if you wondered?) but if I can send an answer,that in itself may seem the answer,YES?
- - - Updated - - -
Stay "FROSTY" Everyone,and cool your jets when you can.
MAGIC is MAGIC,black OR white or even blood RED
all i ever wanted was a normal life and love.
NO TERF EVER WE belong Too.
don't stop the tears.let them flood your soul.
my new page here,let me know what you think.
nothing but the shadow of what was
witchvox
http://www.witchvox.com/vu/vxposts.html
We do not have the means to grasp something called "God".
Ken Wilber has a good quote, which I can´t translate into english....
Science generally does not even attempt to prove that something doesn't exist, that would be quite tall order, to say the least... I mean, it's as if one required science to prove that, say, pink elephants, Santa Claus, or forest fairies do not exist (to name just a few examples). How can anyone do that?It's funny how this idea ("science can't prove God doesn't exist") is often repeated by believers in an Abrahamic religion, as if it would somehow make their religion seem scientifically plausible.
Last edited by Florenna; 14 Feb 2019 at 05:59.
Can science prove God doesn't exist?
Only on Thursdays...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks