Hi guys what do you lot think of the argument for cosmic consciousness being proof of god .
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I don’t think about it. It does not merit it.
I don't even know what it means, hell I don't even know if it has any meaning.
A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind
RICHARD MAURICE BUCKE, M.D.
FORMERLY MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ASYLUM FOR THE INSANE,
Thanks for the info SeniorCitizen007.
So for original post, I have no opinion, as I have not read the book and have no idea what is you are talking about. If you return Spudnik you might need to write a bit more then a single sentence to open up conversation and debate about "cosmic consciousness."
I can say if I take the term: "cosmic consciousness" literally for the known shared definitions of those 2 words together, no I do not believe in: cosmic consciousness, it sounds like a silly idea to me.
▮ 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. ▮
You cannot meaningfully say there is some supernatural entity.
How would you even know if there is "cosmic consciousness"?
I mean what are the measurable differences between a universe with a "cosmic consciousness" and one without?
What are the measurable differences between a reality in which we exist and a reality in which we don't? What units would you use, and with what tool would you carry out such measurements?
I don't understand why you are always trying to measure the most random things.
To paraphrase a professor of mine: if you don't know how to measure what you are talking about, you are full of shit.
So can you put that into practice, namely, by showing the measurable difference between a reality in which we exist and one in which we don't?
Well people have mass. Delete a person and you have missing mass. That is measurable.
Lots of things have mass; knowing that some went missing wouldn't tell you if it came from a person or a table. Any more specific than that and you become circular: measuring the existence of people, by the existence of people.
Secondly, things such as reality or the universe are supposed to be singular entities. You can't compare the contents of reality as if there were two of them, the way you can compare the water content between two cups. Reality either has the things in question or it doesn't; it doesn't make sense to measure it against a nonexistent version of itself.
You asked for a measurable difference, not for information required to reconstruct what is missing. Removing a person, removes mass, making a measurable difference. Perhaps not the "best" measurable difference, but you didn't ask for that.
What if I said the same about cosmic consciousness? That mass would also go missing in a universe without it.
Then that would mean "cosmic consciousness" has mass; that is useful information. That is exactly the kind of information I was asking for.
Next question: how much mass does it have, and how did you arrive at that value?
I can only arrive at such a value by measuring the amount of mass that goes missing when we switch from a universe with it to one without it; or by what is gained when we jump from a universe without it to one with it.
Since we are currently living in one with it, the exact amount will have to wait until we experience such a universal switch.
But you have not told us how you will measure this mass when the time comes. I omitted telling you how I was going to measure the mass of a human, I'm hoping it is obvious how to measure that, but I can cover that if we need to.
Sure, you can cover that. Although I'm more interested in how you would test the hypothesis that such mass would go missing in a universe in which people don't exist. It is the measurable difference between universes that's of interest, not how you measure it within a universe.
(Basically, prove that mass doesn't remain constant across the two universes in the absence of persons, to justify that mass is a valid measurement).
Unperformed experiments, have no results - Asher Peres. You are appealing to a measurement that presumably can't be made (if it can be done, please give us the details).
Easy, measure the mass of a box full of people, remove them, then measure the mass of the box again; that will give you the mass difference when the humans are not in the system. That is going to be tricky with this "cosmic consciousness".
Wait, so you agree that finding the measurable difference between universes, can't be done?
I guess it went over your head, I'm sorry.
So, in response to your question: "what are the measurable differences between a universe with a 'cosmic consciousness' and one without?" the answer is, you are appealing to a measurement that presumably can't be made.
Your box analogy doesn't transfer across universes, unless you know something about that non-existent universe that we do not. The mass of such an imagery universe could potentially remain constant in the absence of people, and merely be transformed into tables, making mass an invalid measurement.
Your getting too hung up on universe (and not using it the way I am); let me rephrase it:
The key question in these types of arguments is if someone changes a state when you aren't looking: can you detect the change of state with a measurement later? When a human being is removed, it changes the system in a ways a measurement can detect. When you remove the "cosmic consciousness" (somehow) does it change the system in a way that can be measured? If so, what result of a measurement would it, and how much does it change? If you can answer that, then tell us how you came up with those values, and how you'd go about removing this "cosmic consciousness"?
Well, there's a difference between simply asking if something is measurable, and asking if you can measure it's dissapearence. A box is measurable along its length and width, but you can't use those measurements to detect it's disappearance.
The precise nature of what you want measured is what I'm criticizing. I think last time you asked this question, you wanted the measurable difference between a universe that's a simulation and one that isn't. You can't possibly measure that; you can however, possibly measure the things within the simulation.
Nothing changes. Mass and energy are conserved. If I exist or do not exist in the reality of this universe, nothing changes. If you are asserting your universe where I do not exist is not this universe, you are off in Na Na Land again and you have a burden of proof.
"Nothing changes. Mass and energy are conserved. If I exist or do not exist in the reality of this universe, nothing changes."
Is there a point at which the available energy becomes incapable of producing more mass?
I don't know how energy would not create more mass. E=MC^2 And if mass is pulled in upon itself to create a black hole, how is it energy is emitted in the form of microwave radiation? In short, I have no idea. You may want to ask a physicist. I know that energy creates mass and mass creates energy. That's what the scientists are telling us.
"What are the measurable differences between a reality in which we exist and a reality in which we don't?"
According to Bucke, (who wrote this is 1901)
This consciousness shows the cosmos to consist not of dead matter governed by unconscious, rigid, and unintending law; it shows it on the contrary as entirely immaterial, entirely spiritual and entirely alive; it shows that death is an absurdity, that everyone and everything has eternal life; it shows that the universe is God and that God is the universe, and that no evil ever did or ever will enter into it; a great deal of this is, of course, from the point of view of self consciousness, absurd; it is nevertheless undoubtedly true.
Yep, utter unevidenced bollocks...and now followed by Deepak Chopra which proves it is an absurd idea.
This is a good site to realise how Deepak actually works his guff: http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
(edited to add link)