Sorry. I'm already breaking my vow of silence. I'm doing so because this is an honest question, and I think it deserves an answer. However, if you wish to actually debate any of this, please start a new topic. I'm not coming back to this one, as it seems to have been reduced to, "My conception of atheistic materialism is dead!," which of course it is, and has been for almost a hundred years.

There are two things that would work as evidence of some sort of intentional, conscious power. One would prove the existence of God. The other would prove the existence of some sort of higher power that may or may not meet our definition of God.

The first is a good old-school impress-the-heathens miracle at the end of which God gets on his Divine Megaphone and tells us deluded atheists, "Hope you naughty little fucks like the smell of brimstone. Suckas." It better be good, too. Hollywood has raised my expectations pretty high.  I don't want some pussy-assed Armageddon with angels and demons that look like something from that horrible Constantine move. I want something impressive, that makes me think, "How did they do that? The CGI is amazing!" I want something that I'll go to again, just to watch the incredible visuals. I want blood porn even pornier than the movie 300. I want an Armegeddon that'll sweep all the technical Oscars.

I ain't holding my breath. Sounds like you aren't, either.

The other is much less definable, and this is where our differences come in, and why I believe there will be no fruitful discussion here.

We may one day have a way to think about and study consciousness in a truly scientific way. I personally believe that there is a hard science concerning intelligent thought and self-awareness waiting to be discovered, of which are only now beginning to see the slightest glimmerings. At the moment, though, our understanding is amazingly lacking, considering self-awareness has been with us at least as long as our conceptions of God.

However, so far our study has been limited to studies in the evolution of intelligence, the study of the mechanics of the brain and neural interaction, attempts to model thought via electronic circuits and computer programs, and other half-assed activities. Early in the study of consciousness, introspection (such as you describe using yourself in your quest for union with God) was used extensively, attempting to acquire objective data for subjective experience. This ultimately proved fruitless, though it did broaden the study of psychology quite a bit, which was good.

We have no definable structure with which to study consciousness. I believe we will, within the next hundred years or so. (Perhaps much sooner. Application of information theory to physics and biology is still a new area, and I believe will represent a revolution similar to that of quantum mechanics. I further suspect that quantum mechanics is perhaps a specific instance of information theory, but that's a non-debate as so far there's no evidence, nor even a working hypothesis yet.)

Once we understand consciousness, and only then, will we have a framework and set of metrics by which to judge whether a particular event is the result of intention, or merely a result of the structure of the universe. Until then, any talk of external intention, or even pantheistic intention, is just like my suspicion that quantum mechanics is a specific instance of information theory. Pure speculation, and not a rational conclusion, as there's not even a working hypothesis.

I hope that answered your question sufficiently. Perhaps it also explains more clearly why I believe not only that there is no evidence for God, but there cannot be any evidence for God. In the future, we may have the acumen and subtlety to detect His presence. But for now, He is beyond our empirical perception. Speculation of His existence is natural but not rational. Speculation of his nature is even less rational.

But for now, it's a matter of faith, and self- (soul-?)searching. It's your own conclusion that matters in your conception and subsequent relationship with God. But it matters only to you, and those who reached a conception closely resembling your own. (Here, Eloise is a well-educated, well-thought, and eloquent speaker for a belief similar to your own, as I'm sure you've discovered.)

As I said, I'd be happy to continue this particular discussion in a new thread, assuming you are willing to actually discuss with an open mind. Not open to changing, necessarily, just open to understanding. Leave behind argument for the sake of argument, and I'd be extremely pleased to carry on discussion with you.

But is does he describe this "self-programming quantum computer" as having consciousness?

Thank you.

... and what that means is that the state of something does not equal all its measureable values. How is that evidence for anything? It's part of a theory. Once again, gaps do not equal gods.

What is it with people saying "quantum theory" and figuring nobody's smart enough to read, so they'll be dazzled with my "quantum indeterminancy" [it'a actually "indeterminacy" - no "n"]? 

And on a positivist website! We love science here. Love it. It works better than anything else to find the the nature of everything. Check it out.

There's no way to take someone out of their comfortable, willful ignorance. They have to walk away from that themselves. So to answer your original question, there's nothing to fix. You just get to continue to live a complicated and heavily rationalized lie.

This is a typical "materialism of the gaps" response. Remember, it cuts both ways. 

Saying that it doesn't have a physical cause is tantamount to saying that it has a nonphysical one.

Science works under the assumption of metaphysical materialism. However, it does not make the claim that the physical constitutes ultimatereality.

This is irrelevant. The point is that you are taking a metaphysical position - namely, materialism (a.k.a physicalism).

This simply displays a materialistic bias. You accuse me making a "God of the gaps" argument while allowing yourself the luxury of making a "materialism of the gaps" one.

The relational hypothesis of quantum mechanics (RQM) is simply one of many interpretations. I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it. However,  you should note that RQM has the philosophical implication of being an "anti-reality" view - the view there is no real objective world.

And what this means is the evidence indicates the world is fundamentally indeterminate.

What are you...the grammar police? Stop nit-picking about typos.

I thought this was an atheist site, not a logical positivist one.

The bottomline is that you are forced by your own philosophical inclinations to take an agnostic position in regards to the absolute truth. And, unless I am missing something, to admit to agnosticism is to admit that one is "without knowledge." If you are without knowledge of the absolute truth, then you are ignorant by definition. So I fail to see why you are making all this hoopla.  

So you figure 100% knowledge or 100% ignorance? No middle ground? You're right that the positivist position is not 100% knowledge, just constantly working towards more knowledge. You got that one right. Where there is mystery, I'm ignorant. I admit that unreservedly. But I don't pretend to know what I don't know.

Because the truth matters.

No. I'm flat out saying "I don't know". Even if I was waiting for a physical explanation, wouldn't that be more reasonable than waiting for one of an infinite number of non-physical possible explanations? There are literally an infinite number of possible non-physical explanations for everything, including gods, leprechans, and mystic crystals. What's more probable?

Wait, were you contending before that the physical universe must be completely deterministic in order to align with a materialist view? Like, without a margin of error? Because of course it isn't. The physical universe is probabilistic, as is stated in the quote.

This is about 100% certainty again, isn't it? Why not just say that you're uncomfortable with uncertainty? You keep coming back to this, and I would never say that 100% certainty is possible, so I'm not sure why this is important.

I'm not sure how you strike out materialism with indeterminacy. Quantum events funamentally have no cause (as I believe you've stated). What's more, they have no cause PERIOD. No physical OR non-physical cause. No cause.

Sure, but as an explanation for phenomena, it will always suck.

Yikes. That's a heavy simplification of a probabilistic system. You're going black-and-white again. It's also a massive misunderstanding of materialism within a postive context. There really isn't a conflict here: physical systems interact with a high degree of consistency. That's a probabilistic statement. The physical world is measured with a margin of error every time. That doesn't mean it's not consistent, and it certainly doesn't mean that the indeterminacy at the subatomic level tears reality asunder. You seem to be attacking the idea of some absolute matter, which I wouldn't hold as possibly observable, even by empirical evidence at a visible scale.

I think you may have been attacking a different materialism than the one I was defending, although I'm not sure what that would be.

Yeah. Modern positivist materialism trumps 17th century speculative philosophy. There's a big surprise.

Being in "violation" of a 300-year-old toothless statement isn't exactly grounds for being charged with irrationality. Leibniz. Seriously.

Ummm another daring fun Paisley post, and question. "What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality? Short answer is anti matter is a measurement of matter .....

Anyway, just another rant. I don't much do "god" debating, I am god. ..... God interpretations are intuitive science and philosophy. Religion is bunk.   

Lots of science philosophy debating here. Interesting. Yin Yang, matter, anti matter, time arrow, minus <--- zero ---> plus,   -1, 0, +1 . I AM all for learning how to communicate, but seriously wise folks, "what does this have to do with "god", as I AM GOD, AS YOU, obviously. More important is how does this help heal the absurdities going on in our world???

AM I wrong in assuming that most everyone here, the A's and the T's can agree by some "agreeable definition" that we and this is "god", as all is connected? Or is that agreement  still impossible, or even somehow untrue?  

This is most frustrating for me. I AM sure you have noticed ..... Geezzz, Buddha the philosopher said, to argue and worry about god is silly religion, but to understand god as meaning "all reality including us" is self awaking, and is ridding oneself of all superstition as found in mythical religion and properly using our deepest inner intuition, as is revealed in both the evolving sciences and 'caring' philosophies. Yes ???  

I realize my simple cut to the chase questions, and out bursts are often annoying; but holy fuck; I AM metaphysically, by my Epistemology and
Empiricism, and innate Existentialism and honest Phenomenology to include my Pragmatism and Positivism, as I weigh the Relativism, while also being aware of the Sophists, FUCKING ANNOYED, .... because my main aim is Stoicism, as all is some how natural and connected, as all is simply GOD, where no dogma is helpful, except to study our error in human thinking.  

Can we maybe then all agree that we are all crazy ? I doubt it ...Damn ... I AM getting happy drunk for relief again ... So much philosophy is worthless B.S.
Thanks and keep trying friends ..... Outlaw war NOW, why not ?  Worry about god another day ..... 

FIX my messages .... beer gulps .... ahhh, I feel much better now .... I love all you devils  ....     

The Buddhists call this "mind chatter."

Whether the true nature of reality is that we're made of matter, energy, waves, etc. That doesn't change the fact that is all empirically and/or mathematically derivative. It doesn't require faith, introspection, or the supernatural to be explained and in no way does it support the idea of the existence of a god, deity, universe/god, etc.

If ultimate reality is made of mathematical abstractions (e.g. probability waves), then clearly materialism is wrong. To begin with, mathematical abstractions are not reified objects. Secondly, mathematical abstractions do not exist independently from a mind that abstracts. Finally, mathematical abstractions (e.g probability waves) are not causally efficacious. To argue otherwise is absurd. 

A cool Space Cowboy,  Bob Spence1 , Scientist. Thanks .... Science says ??????   "Religion is all bunk".  Scientist, Thomas Edison

Steve Miller Band- The Joker/Space Cowboy  --- cool Steve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urw9e3qgooE

That's not really what Quantum Theory is about.

Let's have some Quantum 101 on this thread.

1. The solution to Black Body radiation-

Max Planck when solving probably the last big problem of Optics - why the light emissions of a heated object did not accord with the solution of the continuous function given by the 'light is a wave' theory which was considered undeniable - happened across the strangest answer. The answer was that light didn't travel in waves, but in chunks, particles. 

The solution is this - If the light emitted from a heated object is described by the continuous function of Newtonian Optics. Then all heated objects will emit more white and blue light. But they don't. They emit mostly red light. If on the other hand matter binds energy in levels corresponding to the spectrum of light and releases it is chunks (quanta) according to the level of energisation of the molecules of the state, it will emit lots of red light until it gets very hot and the whole object jumps to a higher energisation level whereupon it will gradually turn white hot through similar stages. And this is what happens.

Upon reading Planck's work Einstein quantised light and deduced what we now know as photons.  Yet the double slit experiment was still undeniable evidence that light travelled in waves.  And so was born the literal light wave-particle duality.

2. The Standard Model:

I said matter binds energy in levels, but that is not essentially true, it is just apparent. Since matter is made of energy the above statement is circular and we need a more accurate explanation for what binds energy into matter - enter the fundamental forces.

The fundamental forces are how we describe the interaction principles that underlie energy grouping up in certain states to form matter.  I'll ignore the nuclear forces for now and apply the discussion at hand which is the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force binds electrons to probable points relative to the nucleus of the atom. This is a combined explanation of wave and particle duality in one theoretical framework. Here we have atomic structure in classical form as close as can be represented. The electromagnetic force is strong and is a function of distance, thus the closer an electron is to the nucleus the tighter it is bound, this is referred to as a ground state, the wave of probability that the electron exists as also gives us interference patterns around the nucleus, these need to exist or the model predicts the electron and the nucleus must collide due to the strength of the electromagnetic force.

Sounds good enough... afraid it's not. The next problem we have is that the fundamental forces are themselves produced by the energy/matter being in certain states. How do these states come about? working on it.

So lets recap -

Energy breaks from its continuous smooth sameness. A fundamental force is produced. Fundamental forces influence the energy around them to take material forms, more material forms are produced. --- and matter ensues, with many consequences.

So far the basic principle of materialism is not changed by any of this, we are still dealing with matter, we have only modelled it with different abstractions. These abstractions tell us something about what we should be looking for next to describe matter. They also tell us a little about what we should not be looking for. They even imply that some of our material world assumptions are wrong.

However, they do not tell us that we are no longer describing the material world.

I hope that helps to clear up some of this issue.

Yeah Eloise! You is my fun teacher .... ohhh, "hot for teacher"      "Presuppositions!"

   Hey , "Material Girl" , she's so quantum .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tYLo9FkqNc

   How's this  ? .... all math/language is a description/perception related to the material, or energy/matter/time universe.   ??? 

You're a moron, without a clue about what quantum physics encompasses:

The behavior of small particles, where Newtonian physics no longer come into play because gravity becomes an insignificant factor. Read A Brief History of Time.

Peace / War ? ..... "the middle",  suggested a buddha wise one .... "fighting for peace is an oxy  moron  ..... "  so stop it , CHILL OUT .... go meditate, fuck prayers .... there is no caring master but YOU  .....

I doubt you've actually read Destartes' work at all, Eloise.

First, Solopsism is largely a new age religion, and the fact that people have decided to mix it with the work of Destartes pisses me off. Cogito Ergo Sum is not a literal worldview - it's a philosophical excercize, and one that Destartes used to demonstrate the folley of a metaphysical worldview.

Religious ignorants (like Paisley) who insist that the physical world may not constitute actual reality and therefore studying it cannot be used to produce 'actual' evidence of anything, and therefore God may exist, have their ridiculous assertion torn apart by Cogito on a of fundamental level:

Since the only thing I can be absolutely assured of is my own existence (in whatever form), no information taken from outside sources are guaranteed to have merit - including the very concepts of 'God', 'Creation', 'Divinity', 'Ultimate', 'Love', etc.

My guess is that Paisley is going to come marching in and piss me off again by essentially slapping me with a Solopsist label and then ignore any claim I make to the contrary (which caused me to leave her initial post), but I digress.

Lets get this misconception out of the way:

Indeterminacy of a physical event does not contradict materialism.

Non-linear feedback systems can display chaotic behaviour, where the state they adopt is truly unpredictable, dependent at some point on the exact value of at least one variable being either side of boundary of zero width. This is assuming classical physics, ie no quantum indeterminacy required. Fluid turbulence was one of the first physical systems which demonstrated this behaviour.

So our failure to identify a 'cause' for a system adopting a particular state out of a range of possible alternatives in no way demonstrates any conflict with naturalism, only with out-of-date metaphysics and/or philosophy which has not got up to speed with modern science and math.

The idea of postulating a 'mind' which 'decides' when or where to initiate some probabilistic event such as quantum wave-function collapse is completely out of proportion to the 'problem' - such a mind is one whose 'choices' have the properties of perfect coin tosses,  whose cumulative effect is precisely predictable, like the half-life of radio-active decay. Seems more likely to imagine some ultimate random background of fundamental Planck-scale energy twitchiness is all that's required.

Quantum theory and other aspects of modern science have certainly required us to extend our ideas of the nature of physical phenomena well beyond the crude ideas of simplistic 'materialism' which imagines the world made up of just fundamental particles bouncing off each other.

To thereby assume that any world-view that doesn't incorporate a supernatural mind is therefore invalid is just such an enormous and unjustified leap...

Translation: "We had do redefine materialism because QM simply revealed that it was no longer tenable."

Sorry, but this is not going to fly. If you cannot explain natural phenomena  in terms of of other physical phenomena, then materialism or physicalism simply is not true.

A worldview (e.g. atheistic materialism) that does not incorporate the mental as fundamental or at least on equal-footing with the physical is simply no longer tenable.

Yeah, what are some of "our material world assumptions that are wrong?"

Theism is not under fire in this thread, atheistic materialism is. You have to explain to me how uncaused physical events (this is the implication of probabilistic events) support the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism.

  Science: the study of G awe d .... 

   I don't know how you science buffs would rate this simple video series, but I really enjoyed it. Got any other related fav vid  links for beginners ?

  "The Elegant Universe" 

  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

The Einstein quote advocates CCC. The moon doesn't exist unless something (in this case, a mouse, observes it..)

Bohr snapped back that he wasn't thinking.

I didn't say all. Otherwise, argument from authority. Some Intelligent Design advocates have degrees in Biology, doesn't mean Intelligent Design is right.

Large objects can be described under Newtonian/Classical laws.

 Just when the particle is small does QM come into play

They are. They collapse to a single point.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is a measurement collapse the wave function. A measurement is information exchange.

 Information is stored in many things. If, for example, an electron shoots off energy, then it can be determined what level it jumped to in the atom.