cosmic consciousness

364 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture
@spudnik

@spudnik
What objective evidence do you have that anyone cosmic consciousness is real?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Spudnik - ...when there is a

Spudnik - ...when there is a observer in the room the atoms act in a uniformed manor when there is no observer the atoms act in a non uniformed manor...

That is the new age non-sense stuff. The experiment has lots of interesting maybe even startling results; but that ain't one of them.

LogicFTW's picture
You need to wrap your head

You need to wrap your head around this:

There is no "human" observer in the "room" when the experiment is conducted. A machine using sophisticated tech "observes" the results, and then crunches the observation results and translates into something humans can "observe" on a screen.

Think of it this way, these letters and sentences on you are reading. Obviously you're not looking at ink on a paper, you are looking at pixels being turned on or off formed in certain patterns that we recognize as letters, words and sentences. All recreated for you to read where you are, possibly thousands of miles away from where I wrote the letters words and sentences. You observing these letters has no impact on the reality of me writing them. You are seeing a recording of my letters, recreated at a different time for you to read.

Spudnik's picture
By looking at this i can tell

By looking at this i can tell you have no idea as to what i am talking about.

LogicFTW's picture
Sounds like a failure on your

Sounds like a failure on your part to describe accurately what you are talking about then.

Are you indeed talking about the "double split experiment?" (You still have not clarified this!) If so I never heard of it. Want to link an article on it that describes it? Even google search recommends the search of double slit experiment instead when typing "double split experiment" into search.

If you do mean the "double slit experiment", care to enlighten me with your profound insights of why you think consciousness can affect particle vs wave results? How does that work? Was any experimentation done to test/confirm how human consciousness interacts with the results?

Yes, the results of the double slit experiment and the inconsistency does startle scientist, but that does not mean the explanation is "cosmic consciousness."

The appearance of rainbows confounded a lot of people before they were explained, some people suggested that since you could not go to the "base" of the rainbow, that means there was a leprechaun with a pot of gold if you did find it, and the leprechaun keeps moving the pot of gold the "rainbow" comes from and that's why you can never "catch up" to a rainbow. Ofcourse we all, (hopefully!) know that is ridiculous today, just because an experiment had unexpected results does not mean it gives evidence and proof to a similarly wild idea that a human brain consciousness can affect atoms at this atomic level by simply observing with their eyes. That is a wild and crazy theory and needs a whole lot more evidence before we could even begin to remotely consider it to be possibly true.

Also the idea that "god" is observing every atom (observe, what a human trait!) is also ridiculous in every possible way. And why would "god" stop there? Why not the position of every electron on every atom every single planck length of time? Can "god" calculate knowing all these electron positions? If this supposed god idea was capable of such a feat, why would this "god" even remotely care about humans? It would be like if you were Jeff Bezos rich and worried that someone rounded up instead of down on the 1 cent in taxes for that 100 million dollar yacht he just bought. (except multiply that magnitude of difference by the largest possible number you could think of and realize you will still come short on the magnitude of difference.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Chicken's picture
Wouldn’t this be proof of no

Wouldn’t this be proof of no god entity “observing?” If there was a god entity observing everything at all times, why did the double slit experiment work? The electrons would always act as if they were being observed. Case closed, God’s not real.

arakish's picture
You sound like a dreamer.

You sound like a dreamer. You are living in a dream world, Spudnik. You need to unplug...

And you should have taken the red pill...

rmfr

Spudnik's picture
Ok none of you know what it

Ok none of you know what it is i am talking about because you clearly don't know what the experiment unearthed never mind.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I've done the experiment. It

I've done the experiment. It does not work the way you say it does. The state of a system does not change because you point your eyes at it, or because a consciousness is nearby. It changes when you observe it because to observe a system you must hit it with radiation. Newsflash: hitting a system with radiation changes the system.

Now how it changes the system, and what it tells you about how to construct a mathematical model to predict the outcome of future experiments is quite shocking, and that is what all the buzz is about. The idea that colliding particle A with particle B will change particle A, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

arakish's picture
Then please enlighten. What

Then please enlighten. What the fuck is the "double split experiment"? I ain't never heard of it. And I am always looking into what scientists are posting on the journal paper/article web sites. I have done a search and nothing on a "double split experiment." I find "double slit experiment" where they can use it to show how photons can act like both particle and wave and both.

Since we do not understand what you are speaking of, then it is your responsibility to explain it fully so we do understand. Why is that so hard for a Religious Absolutist to understand?

rmfr

David Killens's picture
Spudnik I know exactly what

Spudnik I know exactly what you are referring to. Unfortunately you are mixing together the observer effect in the double slit experiment with quantum mechanics and a truckload of woo woo.

The 1998 Weizmann experiment clarified things, they had a device that measured the test, and not a human observer. The results were that it did not matter if the observer was human or a machine.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Nyarlathotep's picture
Spudnik - ...when there is a

Spudnik - ...when there is a observer in the room the atoms act in a uniformed manor when there is no observer the atoms act in a non uniformed manor...

For some fun we could assume that is true (it isn't), and see where that leads us:

First off, you are going to need a mathematical definition of a room. That is not as simple as it might sound. Let's take a 20*20*10 room, with your experiment located at [0,0,0]. If all points are valid locations for an observer:(0 < x₁ < 20, 0 < x₂ < 20, 0 < x₃ < 10); how does the effect vary with distance between the observer and the equipment?

How about after a flimsy wall (like one of those accordion looking curtain things) has been inserted cutting the room into two regions? Does placing the observer in region A an the experiment in region B still generated the interesting effect?

What about short walls, like waist high?

What about really large rooms, like say aircraft hangers?

What if the observer is more or less 1/2 way in the room?

What about experiments conducted in open fields without a room?

Cognostic's picture
What is Michio Kaku's

What is Michio Kaku's definition of consciousness?
"Consciousness is the process of creating multiple feedback loops, to create a model of yourself in space, with regards to others, and in time, in order to satisfy certain goals."

I got a question: Why in the fk is a theoretical physicist talking about the brain in this video. He is way out of his depth of knowledge here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iONlo9WcKgQ

Still, lets compare his definition with the definition of someone who studies consciousness as a career.

"Consciousness is the fact that it is like something to be a system. Whatever that system is. So if a bat is conscious, it's conscious, whether or not we can understand what it is like to be a bat, if it is like something to be a bat, that is consciousness in the case of a bat. " (Sam Harris is quoting Thomas Nagel and agrees with him.)

Watch the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3QiFAcJnMg

In short the two definitions are similar but while KoKo boy has a goal in mind, Harris does not.

Back to Michio Kaku, Animals HAVE, level 1 consciousness: They understand their position in space. Monkeys have level 2 consciousness: They understand their relationship to other monkeys (just like lions, ants, bears.... Is there an animal on this planet that does not understand its relationship to others of its species? Relate to their own species in specific ways and to other species differently? I think not.) Only humans have level 3 consciousness.

Understanding tomorrow. Never mind all the animals that actually prepare for the winter and store food. Never mind animals that over eat and then hibernate. They can not possibly think they are planning for cold weather that is to come. "Or can they?"

What is the unit of consciousness for Machio? Well a thermometer has one feedback loop that allows you to monitor the temperature in a room. One daisy then might have 10 feedback loops. It will monitor humidity, water, sunlight, etc.....

NO PLACE DOES HE DISCUSS COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS IN HIS DISCUSSION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. CONSCIOUSNESS IS CREATED BY THE ORGANISM. This is his belief on consciousness. This is his THEORY. Whatever you are watching, you are not listening closely to.

Spudnik's picture
Not the video i am talking

Not the video i am talking about .

David Killens's picture
Kaku does have his PhD, but

Kaku does have his PhD, but he is a lot more a public figure who popularizes science, than a respected academic. For Pete's sake, he is not teaching at Cal Tech or Berkeley, he is teaching at a college.

Cognostic's picture
It does not matter. THAT IS

It does not matter. THAT IS HIS DEFINITION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. You think he runs about defining consciousness in different ways to different audiences. This is his baby. His theory. This is what he wants to be known for.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
FOR NYARLATHOTEP:

FOR NYARLATHOTEP:

I have a presentation due next week on a paper which covers the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.

The premise of the theory is very simple: the point is to start with consciousness, identify its essential properties, and finally identify what kinds of physical mechanisms account for them. In theory, it could allow us to not only infer consciousness in other people, but in other animals, in machines, computers, or even the "cosmos" if it meets the requirements.

The problem, is that its speaking a mathematical and mechanical language I am not familiar with.

The biggest issue I'm having is with the concept of "Φmax." The authors don't explain what it is, where it comes from, and in some cases assume its too difficult to get into.

I'm interested in two things: First, for the sake of the discussion, if this theory contains the types of "measurable differences" that you want in terms of (cosmic) consciousness. But more importantly, do you know anything about phi max, or if not, do u know where I can even begin to look?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Breezy - do you know anything

Breezy - do you know anything about phi max, or if not, do u know where I can even begin to look

Not really. Here is what I gleaned from reading it:

The document outlines a vague calculus for picking out one special subset of the elements in a system. The permutation with the SMALLEST value of Φ, which is called Φᴹᵃˣ. The calculus goes something like:

  1. Find all possible partitions.
  2. Select the partition with the least change, what that means exactly isn't clear. It describes it as cutting the "weakest link". It also describes it as changes to its "cause–effect". When you have done this, the system is referred to as "integrated". The partition in question is referred to as the "minimum-information partition" (MIP). It does not explicitly tell us how to calculate these changes.
  3. If however the change (after partition) is 0, it means the pieces you removed with the partition are unnecessary. The system is not "integrated", you have not found the MIP. (My words: the system could be represented with less pieces without making a meaningful difference). The system can be divided into 2 independent systems, discard the system you are not interested in and return to step 2 with the system you are interested in.
  4. Φᴹᵃˣ is ironically defined as the smaller of the two changes caused by the partition (changes to the cause subset, changes to the effect subset). It does not explicitly tell us how to calculate these changes. There are hints with the binary numbers assigned in figure 3, but it is not laid out explicitly. It seems it is considering all permutations of the binary values, but again, it is vague. Does this have something to do with my question below? I'm not sure.

Sorry that is all I got from it.
-------------------------------------------------------
My criticisms:

  1. There seems to be a major omission in the first postulate (figure 3, first row, column 2). It repeatedly references an element called "C", yet there is no element C. I think the unlabeled element was supposed to be labelled C.
  2. There is a minor typo in the fifth (figure 3, fifth row, column 2): "not lesss[sic] or more". While kind of silly, I did waste some time trying to figure out if "lesss" had a special meaning, it doesn't seem to appear anywhere else in the document.

-------------------------------------------------------
My questions:

  1. In the second postulate (figure 3, second row, column 2), it describes the logic gates as being in 1 of 3 states:
    • ON: this is simple enough to understand.
    • OFF: I suppose this could be a logic gate that is somehow disabled/disconnected.
    • ~: in logic the symbol "~" often means the inverse, but I really don't think that is the case here (simply for the fact you could have inverse ON, and inverse OFF). Yet several places in the document refer to gates as being either ON or OFF.

    What does it mean for a gate to be in the "~" state?

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Breezy - ...if this theory contains the types of "measurable differences" that you want in terms of (cosmic) consciousness.

Measurements take the form of a number and a dimension composed of the fundamental dimensions (length, mass, time, electric charge, coulomb, luminous intensity, temperature, angle, amount ), each to a power.

For this theory to made a prediction of a measurable difference between a cosmic consciousness and no cosmic consciousness it must predict a measurement that can be made that will be different between them. This measurement will have a dimension composed of some combination of the fundamental dimensions listed above. I see nothing like that in this document, but its rather vague so maybe a more formal version has that information.

For now, I would settle for just the dimensions of that hypothetical measurement. It is far from obvious (to me) what it should be. Presumably it would be obvious to someone who had some knowledge about the existence of a cosmic consciousness.

Cognostic's picture
RE: "I have a presentation

Okay..... Unfair post by "Cog" Self edited. As far as posts go, this one is not one of Breezy's worst. (Bad Cog! Be nice to the Breezy.)

Alain's picture
What is consciousness?

What is consciousness?

Consciousness is you, is me is everything.
Consciousness is like the driver of a vehicle.
There you have a vehicle but without a driver that decide to start the action of having his vehicle move nothing happen.
Our body is like a vehicle.
Unless there is a driver or in this case a consciousness the body is like a car without a driver.

Cosmic consciousness is mainly related to eastern philosophy and religions that believe in a supreme entity that pervade everything.
Everything that exist and this entity is also called God.

Grinseed's picture
I would agree that

I would agree that consciousness is a part of all living organisms, from you, me, blue whales down to bacteria (I am dubious about viruses, they exhibit simple chemical reflexes). Everything else, grains of sand, pebbles, rocks, stones, mountains, tectonic plates, planets, moons, solar systems, galaxies and the universe is insentient. No driver, just the irrepressible eternal forces of physics and chemistry.

Our bodies are not at all like cars but to accommodate your analogy, our bodies are more like modern smart cars, that independently negotiate traffic, then park themselves. That "intelligence", that "consciousness" is an inseparable part of the electronics of the car as is our consciousness an inseparable part of the nervous system of our bodies. When the body dies, the consciousness ceases.
We are not immortal.

The rest of the insentient universe remains an undeniable, fundamentally important part of our experience of this reality. It is challenging and awe inspiring and humbling to ponder our relative insignificance in the midst of its immeasurable and frightening vastness and mysteries.
In view of our mortality, I understand why many desire to embrace it all in some comforting illusion of a vain cosmic fraternity, desiring to claim the importance of our perception of it all, going so far as to identifying it as a god. Sadly perhaps, it remains an eternal physical universe indifferent to the hopes and imaginings of intelligent lifeforms on this tiniest of planets.

As I have mentioned to others, who have insisted on feel good, enchanting suppositions, if you missed the 60s, Alain, my commiserations, you would have loved it.

arakish's picture
I remember the 60s. Loved

I remember the 60s. Loved the times.

rmfr

Algebe's picture
@arakish: I remember the 60s.

@arakish: I remember the 60s. Loved the times.

Oh yeah. I remember the 50s, too, but the 60s were much better. Especially the second half of the decade.

Alain's picture
Sorry but I totally disagree.

Sorry but I totally disagree.

1) Consciousness is not the same for everybody.
Evolution dictate what kind of consciousness we got.
Here it is important to understand the difference between an evolution before humanity and once this consciousness enter the human dimension.
Animals, plants and matter are driven by mother nature so to speak and instinct play his part so these lower form of life have no choice but go along these lines.
For human beings the instinct only play a minimum part and free will take over.
That means that if a human wish he-she can either go up or down as far as the consciousness factor is concern.

2) It is very strange that most atheists always talk in positive terms about evolution but for them a stone stay stone for ever, a plants stay plant for ever and so animals and humans.
No reincarnation, no nothing so all evolution in consciousness suppose to end up into nothingness once our body die.
So where evolution suppose to be if there is not steps climbing by allowing that matter turn into plants, plants into animals and animals in humans to perhaps end up in the ocean of cosmic consciousness once the cycle is completed?

3) You seem to be certain that once we die also our consciousness die but your statement is not followed up by solid evidence that this is the case.
Why?

(Referring to Grinseed post)

Grinseed's picture
Alain, I will respond to your

Alain, I will respond to your three questions. However I have only just read them and its time for me to sleep. Tomorrow I have a full day at work and I don't expect to get home until late. I will try my best to get back to you by then, if not then later.
Thanks.

Grinseed's picture
OK thanks for your patience

OK thanks for your patience Alain.

(This response got pretty long, sorry bout that, couldn't make it any shorter and anyway its late again, another long day at work and I got to sleep. Thanks for your indulgence.)

Firstly, from your very first post here in AR, you have shown great deal of interest in consciousness, which intrigued me. Today at lunch, re-reading your three statement/questions, trying to understand your meaning (your English is pretty good but you do create some curious phrases) the form and specific wording of your questions made me realise that you, intentionally or not, adhere to the philosophies of Pierre Teilhard deChardin, the mystic catholic scientist who is best remembered for his cosmic synthesis of religion, sprituality and science.

I will assume you know who I am talking about, if not you can research him yourself. He devised a radical belief that applied some of the attributes of evolution to matter that somehow becomes living material, that develops into organisms, culminating in mankind and his supposedly 'superior' brand of consciousness, which mankind is destined to spiritually improve to such a degree that we will meld with the cosmic consciousness of the universe at a focus point deChardin called Omega. We are to become one with the universe after which we become the immortal universal god.
Life is the spirtual evolutionary journey of inert matter to universal omniscience.

This is a very short and clumsy description of his belief but it mirrors aspects of what you wrote.

OK to respond to your first statement.

1. I would partly agree that evolution dictates the types of conciousness we have, but my appreciation probably goes a lot deeper than yours and I dont accept any of the spirituality that you and deChardin might refer to.

I contend that ALL life is "driven by mother nature", including humans, because we are not specially created by any god. We are animals, we are evolved animals with enlarged frontal lobes, but like other animals we are still greatly affected by instinct and you need to review your understanding of pyschology if you think we still actually have "free will", which is largely an illusion.

I would only agree that we have a greater intellectual capacity than other animals that allows us to contemplate profound realities like our own mortality and abstract notions such as an afterlife. The idea that our awareness is our spirituality or expressions of our souls is mere wish fullfilment.

The reason I dont accept matter having any sort of consciousness at all is because in order for anything to have consciousness it requires a nervous system at the very least and these are only found in living organisms.

One of the crowning achievements derived from the study of evolution is the the fairly recent discovery of the Hox genes (google it if you are not familiar). This is a relatively short strand of dna that is found in all animals, plants and bacteria. It is the part of all genomes that specifies what the animal plant or bacteria looks like, its size and physical features. It is found in ALL living genes, but never in rocks pebbles or mountains.
What you attribute to evolution is some detached spiritual quality extended to inert matter that was never part of the original and workable scientific idea of evolution.

2. Firstly, not all atheists talk in positive terms about evolution. Some atheist friends of mine staunchly reject it and have provided me with the hardest fought discussions and arguments on the topic. Atheists have only one thing in common, they reject the theist claim that there is a god, they share nothing else.

Stones may eventually erode over eons of time and become sand. Or they might be swallowed by a lava flow and melt and become part of some other larger geological feature, but changes like this usually require lots of time.

Humans are responsible for some of the greatest changes to life. In nature, change and speciation are acheived through natural selection. We have copied nature through the artificial selection we have achieved through agriculture.
Plants have undergone the greatest amount of change since man evolve from his ape like ancestors. We have probably forced greater changes than 'mother nature' herself. We have dramatically increased the yield and nutrional value of all seeds, fruits, vegetables. We have bred new forms of plants and we have done the same with animals, we have bred different types of horses, cattle and fish. We created every breed of dog in the world from the early wolf and we did this as mere farmers, long before we became scientists.

Yes, there is no reincarnation and no evolution of the conciousness to a godhead.

Physical evolution, the propagation of the species, through gradual change across populations over time does not create radical change in the individual, that's why cats dont suddenly give birth to dogs. Small almost unobservable gradual changes in the individual allow for greater physical changes across a population over time.

So what would you suggest are the means by which evolution could work on improving spiritual conciousness?
Even deChardin was unable to adequately explain that in all his works.

Sadly, yes, I believe there is no life or conciousness after death, but then I am an atheist. Evolution, the physical one we deal with in this reality, is a driving force that has only one objective, survival.
It is a cruel and beautiful force and it is irrespessible and unstoppable. It moves forward through time and the physical realm in total disregard for cherished hopes of sentient beings for immortality which it does not recognise for the individual but only tentatively for all the species.

The hopes you share with deChardin are just that, hopes.
The Battle of Verdun was one of the bloodiest battles of WW1.
The aim of the Germans was to kill as many French as possible.
Both sides lost over half a million men to that industrial artillery butchery.

DeChardin volunteered to be a stretcher bearer, going out into nomansland guided by the screaming and whimpering, and criying of men torn by shrapnel and bullets. He was a brave guy, decorated many times for valour, but there is no telling what horrors he suffered in the months of that awful engagement. I expect his later studies as an anthropologist in China helped him deal with terrible memories and inspired him to seek a better grander future for mankind to look forwar to than just war.

3. I am certain that there is no afterlife and that this life is the only one we will get. It follows from my rational and reasonable assesment of life as I have seen it and have experienced. I value this life like nothing else and I love all those who share it with me.

Yes, my statements are not backed up by solid evidence and you know perfectly well why.

There is no evidence.

And neither do you have any solid evidence that consciousness exists in everything, everywhere or that we are destined to become immortal or even godlike, its mere wishful hoping.

I have never seen the dead resurrected, despite desperately wishing to be with deceased loved ones.
I have never seen a miracle despite fervently and desperately needing one.
I have never had nor seen a single prayer answered.
I have never seen a spirit, or ghost, or had a vision from god.

But I know how immensely fortunate I am to live in relative peace and comfort in this dangerous and beautiful world with those I respect and love. I am so attentive to the wonders around me I have no time to waste worrying about imagined dooms supposedly awaiting me after death.
I am an atheist.

Alain's picture
1) No, I never heard about

1) No, I never heard about this DeChardin however he seems to be an interesting chap.
I rather follow a different master (now dead) that through his teachers initiated me to yoga practices.
Here I rather would stop giving names as I would hate to be told that I come here to proselytizing.
I am here because I love the exchange of ideas and that's it.

2) My mother language is not English so please bear with me for my strange English.

3) You clearly say ...........we are not specially created by any god...............

Considering that you got no evidence that this is the case wouldn't be better to say...........My belief is that we are not specially created by any god.
Can you see the difference between expressing a personal idea and state something that is void of evidence?
Would you go to court and tell the judge something that can not be supported by any evidence?

4) How can you say that free will is an illusion?
To get my money to live I work hard while some people make money by selling drugs.
If this is not free will what on earth it is?

5) You say............The idea that our awareness is our spirituality or expressions of our souls is mere wish fullfilment.

How do you know this?
The awareness of what we are and our relationship with the whole doesn't pop up in everybody mind at the same time especially when our agenda or desires are towards the materialistic world.
There is an interesting saying that goes......when the student is ready the teacher appear.

6) You say............The reason I dont accept matter having any sort of consciousness at all is because in order for anything to have consciousness it requires a nervous system at the very least and these are only found in living organisms........

Consciousness doesn't have to be aware in all cases.
Consciousness goes in degrees so a primitive form of consciousness which awareness is next to zero such as the one in matter doesn't have to have a nervous system.
A nervous system doesn't even apply to plants but we know that plants do have feelings and that means that awareness is there and where there is awareness there is consciousness.
A nervous system start in most animal life and get more and more complex as animals turn into humans.

7) You say..............What you attribute to evolution is some detached spiritual quality extended to inert matter that was never part of the original and workable scientific idea of evolution..........

Why you think that is the case?
Science is still in the kindergarten of understanding what consciousness is all about.
By the way we called physical science for a reason and that is because this science study the physical aspect.
Consciousness is not something physical.
Consciousness is an abstract entity which is outside physicality so I wouldn't expect that this science understand what is outside her study.
To understand consciousness we need different type of science but that is a notion related to spirituality.

8) You say...........Stones may eventually erode over eons of time and become sand. Or they might be swallowed by a lava flow and melt and become part of some other larger geological feature, but changes like this usually require lots of time.

They surely require eons of time but sooner or later the hidden consciousness will want to come out as we see in some mineral like uranium.

9) You say..................Plants have undergone the greatest amount of change since man evolve from his ape like ancestors. We have probably forced greater changes than 'mother nature' herself......................

There is evolution and evolution.
What these day science label as evolution is but a change in the physical aspect but that is not real evolution.
Real evolution come into existence when a change for the better manifest in the consciousness so the awareness of who we are
and our relationship with the whole is more and more clear.

10) You say...........Yes, there is no reincarnation and no evolution of the conciousness to a godhead.

Once again you state something that is void of any evidence.

(To continue)

Alain's picture
11) You say.................

11) You say..................So what would you suggest are the means by which evolution could work on improving spiritual conciousness?
Even deChardin was unable to adequately explain that in all his works.

You got to be more observant brother.
Have you ever asked yourself why creepers move and move in search of better condition, so animals and so humans?
Nobody seems to be happy with what they got.
Why?
Because everybody is not happy with the finite.
Everybody can only be happy when the infinite pervade their lives and this is the reason why at the end spirituality will be accepted even by the most recalcitrant people that for eons have rejected this reality.

12) You say........Sadly, yes, I believe there is no life or conciousness after death, but then I am an atheist.

Good.
You finally talk in the correct way by saying.......I believe .........rather that state something that is void of any evidence.
This is very very important because it leave your mind open, open to a possible truth.
If you instead say........there is no life or conciousness (consciousness) after death........this prevent you from accepting any possible truth.

13) You say............. Evolution, the physical one we deal with in this reality, is a driving force that has only one objective, survival....

Survival is like floating in the water rather than drown but that is not as getting out of trouble once and for all so this survival mean little. Until the thirst for the infinity is not extinguish we will still deal with survival which is not really the very best.

14) You say...........I am certain that there is no afterlife and that this life is the only one we will get. It follows from my rational and reasonable assesment of life as I have seen it and have experienced. I value this life like nothing else and I love all those who share it with me.

I am glad you enjoy the life and are happy with your beliefs however I am sure that sooner or later you will want to go further and understand what life is all about.
Who are we, why are we here, will death will be the real end of us.
Don't be so sure of everything.
Keep your mind open to all possibility and you will be ok.

15) You say.............Yes, my statements are not backed up by solid evidence and you know perfectly well why.
There is no evidence.

Most atheists say that NDEs are not evidence but at the same time they can NOT contradict the facts.
Give a look at this site when you have time.

https://www.nderf.org/Archives/exceptional.html

However remember that evidence in spirituality come as a gift once you show any interest.
It is like a relationship between two lovers.
You show no interest and nothing will ever happen.

17) You say.............And neither do you have any solid evidence that consciousness exists in everything, everywhere or that we are destined to become immortal or even godlike, its mere wishful hoping.

People do not have to become like God.
Their free will will want them to live in the physical-material reality for ever and ever if they like it but why asking for the crumbs when you can have all the cake?
This is the real dilemma that at the end everybody will have to deal with it.
The evidence that there is something much more superior to this physical material reality is as already mention that nobody is happy with the finite.
They all will want the infinity and that only means God.

Cheers.

arakish's picture
@ Alain

@ Alain

Your English is good enough. I have seen some Americans who ain't as good as you are.

rmfr

Grinseed's picture
I am enjoying this exchange

I am enjoying this exchange Alain. I will continue it but I need time...I will not be able to even sit at my home computer for at least another day and I work inside a 'Faraday cage' that seriously limits my cell phone...took 15 minutes just to navigste to AR. So please bear with me. I will respond.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.