Future Hi: Dangerous Ideas?

January 11, 2006

Dangerous Ideas?

Edge asks the Annual Question to a bunch of smart people. Last year they asked "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" Here is what I wrote about that. A great question. But, in short, it was a bit surprising how narrow-minded a lot of the answers were. This year the question is "What is your dangerous idea?" An equally great question, trying to inspire people to give their outside-the-box thinking, their most potent ideas that might change everything. At least that's how I would like to define "dangerous" in this context. Something that can upset the status quo catastrophically, but in a good and interesting way. Not all of them use it like that.

A lot of the answers are interesting in various ways. But most of them are not very dangerous. They stay within very safe territory for scientists. And, actually, the underlying subtext is the same as last year for a lot of them. It is obvious that for a lot of these guys THE most dangerous ideas in the world are Religion, God and Consciousness. Meaning, they bend over backwards to insist that it is insane to believe in a God, and that it is a hopeless fantasy to imagine that you actually exist, as anything other than some chemical processes in a brain. And that what we really ought to accept, if we thought it through properly, is that everything is the result of unconscious evolutionary processes, we have no free will, and life is without meaning. Great!

There's a certain kind of circular reasoning that many materialist scientists suffer from, which is similar to religious reasoning like "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because God wrote it." But here you find it in versions like John Horgan mentions in connection with his idea "We Have No Souls":

"In his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, the late, great Francis Crick argued that the soul is an illusion perpetuated, like Tinkerbell, only by our belief in it."

You know, like, "You don't really exist, you just think you do!". To some people that sounds really clever, and there's no Logic 101 that will make apparent the craziness of such argumentation. Who's the "we" who thinks? In particular, who's is it who thinks that it thinks? Who's the agency that wonders whether it exists or not? What is it that is unsure whether it has free will or not? It is just an illusion? Just a chemical reaction in a brain? Who's concluding that? Is it just turtles all the way down?

There are, however, some nice entries from people who don't just fall into the same circular reasoning trap. Like, Rudy Rucker, with the idea "Mind is a universally distributed quality"

Panpsychism. Each object has a mind. Stars, hills, chairs, rocks, scraps of paper, flakes of skin, molecules — each of them possesses the same inner glow as a human, each of them has singular inner experiences and sensations.

I'm quite comfortable with the notion that everything is a computation. But what to do about my sense that there's something numinous about my inner experience? Panpsychism represents a non-anthropocentric way out: mind is a universally distributed quality.

Yes, the workings of a human brain are a deterministic computation that could be emulated by any universal computer. And, yes, I sense more to my mental phenomena than the rule-bound exfoliation of reactions to inputs: this residue is the inner light, the raw sensation of existence. But, no, that inner glow is not the exclusive birthright of humans, nor is it solely limited to biological organisms.

Note that panpsychism needn't say that universe is just one mind. We can also say that each object has an individual mind. One way to visualize the distinction between the many minds and the one mind is to think of the world as a stained glass window with light shining through each pane. The world's physical structures break the undivided cosmic mind into a myriad of small minds, one in each object.

There are some folks who actually can engage in a bit of self-criticism as scientists, and think about where scientific beliefs really come from. Like Marcelo Gleiser in "Can Science Explain Itself?":

What if this is all bogus? What if we look at science as a narrative, a description of the world that has limitations based on its structure? The constants of Nature are the letters of the alphabet, the laws are the grammar rules and we build these descriptions through the guiding hand of the so-called scientific method. Period. To say things are this way because otherwise we wouldn't be here to ask the question is to miss the point altogether: things are this way because this is the story we humans tell based on the way we see the world and explain it.

Or, Thomas Metzinger, in "The Forbidden Fruit Intuition":

Is there a set of questions which are dangerous not on grounds of ideology or political correctness, but because the most obvious answers to them could ultimately make our conscious self-models disintegrate? Can one really believe in determinism without going insane?

Some present the revolutionary idea that scientists might just need to actually catch up to what science already has established, like "Carlo Rovelli" in "What the physics of the 20th century says about the world might in fact be true". You know, if quantum mechanics actually were how we experienced the world to work, rather than just some bizarre math equations.

Stephen Kosslyn goes the furthest in "A Science of the Divine", to present a way to reconcile science and religion:

Here's an idea that many academics may find unsettling and dangerous: God exists. And here's another idea that many religious people may find unsettling and dangerous: God is not supernatural, but rather part of the natural order. Simply stating these ideas in the same breath invites them to scrape against each other, and sparks begin to fly. To avoid such conflict, Stephen Jay Gould famously argued that we should separate religion and science, treating them as distinct "magisteria." But science leads many of us to try to understand all that we encounter with a single, grand and glorious overarching framework. In this spirit, let me try to suggest one way in which the idea of a "supreme being" can fit into a scientific worldview.

There's a surprising entry from Michael Nesmith, you know, from "The Monkees", who eloquently argues that "Existence is Non-Time, Non-Sequential, and Non-Objective", and I think I agree.

Several people talk along the lines of Andy Clark's "The quick-thinking zombies inside us" about how most of our decision making, our "free will", really happens at a sub-conscious level, in ways we don't at all understand, so we fool ourselves concerning how much in control we are.

Several people argue for free market economies. Get governments out of the way, and let the invisible hand of the free market sort things out.

Which is an underlying theme here. Humans having figured out that there are complex mechanisms that make things happen. Complex mechanisms that make our decisions. Complex mechanisms that carry on the evolution of life. Complex mechanisms that make economies work. More complex than we simple humans easily can understand. More smart and efficient than any of us consciously can be.

But at the same time we here have a number of well-respected big names in science who claim that they've understood all of that well enough to conclude decisively that these complex mechanisms that are smarter than us aren't intelligent at all. They're just simple random processes with no meaning or purpose or intelligence, that came together completely randomly for no good reason. Confused? Well, you should be. You need to become good at circular reasoning to explain that away.

The real dangerous idea, which most people with scientific credentials apparently are afraid of thinking, is, in my words:

Life the universe and everything is all one system, which is self-organizing, intelligent and eternal. There's no outside to it. Nothing is separate from it. Whatever happens inside of it happens because it is in its nature to happen. It has no outside meaning, but it can create meaning. Its latent qualities might or might not get expressed, but when they do, it is because they're there. So, if something finds itself having self-reflective consciousness, it is because the whole system possesses the potential quality of self-reflective consciousness. Duh. If oxygen and hydrogen mix and become water, that's because they already had the property of being able to do so. If something evolves, it is because the system knows how to evolve. If something is alive, it is because the system is alive. If somewhere in the system time and space exists, and at some "time" a scientist evolves and he decides that he has understood it all and it is all really dumb and random and meaningless and consciousness only exists in brains, except for that it doesn't really exist, well, he's right, makes no difference. It is all natural. Luckily it isn't that scientist, or some guy with a grey beard on a mountain, who's responsible for keeping the whole system working, or it really wouldn't last long. The whole system is much smarter than any brain that comes along at some point and has a short-lived fit of self-importance. Doesn't matter what you call it. You can call it God, or Universe, or Physics, or Nature, Evolution or Mind or Consciousness. It is you, buddy! If you think not, you've become a bit confused by derivatives of your own abstract thoughts. Take a step back and touch Reality. Be conscious. Be very conscious! But don't get cocky. That little point of self-reflective awareness that you identify with, and which is enough to spin yourself into circles, is way, way, way smaller and more ephemeral than the big you who is all of existence, all of evolving spacetime, any dimension, any physical phenomenon, any potential phenomenon, all simultaneously, all forever. It is a lot smarter at running things than your little localized conscious focal point. You're not in control. But if you catch a ride on natural law, and go with the flows, you can go far, very quickly. Because the system works really well. It is self-regenerating. It is open source.

Well, that was my rant. But that maybe doesn't give you anything very practical to do with it. A truly dangerous worldchanging idea would be a meme you let loose, and it just breaks down the old fixed structures, and it guides the self-organization of something new and better. They don't come along all that often, but when they do, it doesn't really matter much what you think about it, as it pretty much happens by itself. It might be time for some ideas that actually change how we perceive ourselves and the world, where nothing will be the same again.

Lots of people have commented on the Edge dangerous ideas thing. Like, I just noticed Dave Pollard's Blinded by Science. He wasn't very impressed either with the dangerousness of those ideas, and he has some alternative suggestions. Posted by Flemming at January 11, 2006 01:48 PM

Comments

Excellent post, Flemming! Cogent and inspiring. Sadly, my brain is already running too hot processing work overload and relationship stress so I've little to add. But thanks!

Posted by: lvx23 at January 11, 2006 05:45 PM

Good post.

You have to remember though that the 'cool radical minds with far reaching and deep implications' have probably spent the last decade attending social events and giving lectures.

People seem to forget Einstein was pushing paper in some patent office, and that the celebrity super minds are either years behind even base contemplation, or riding a wave of popularity based upon the culmination of a lifes work or the unlocking of a fundamental new way of understanding reality.

Either way it doesnt matter. As this site itself shows there are sources out there for the minds trully pushing out the boat, imo.

I wouldnt pay too much attention to a list of 'the most radical ideas out there', instead I would be eager to fan the flames of what is going on at places like this, indeed turn it into an inferno.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 11, 2006 07:14 PM

The denial of god, religion and consciousness is clearly a dangerous idea. If it was safe then it wouldn't upset people and you wouldn't have written so much in an attempt to refute it. Is an idea only dangerous when other people don't like it? I don't claim to know either way. I'm highly suspicious of the critical thinking abilities of anyone who does. It might be appropriate to think one way or another in different situations. It isn't reasonable to criticise scientists for thinking in a way appropriate to the study of the physical or priests for thinking in a way appropriate to the study of the spirit.

Posted by: Dan at January 12, 2006 03:59 AM

If you ask me what is my dangerous idea, it is certainly going to be EVOLUTION. I have specially written it in capital case because I'm screaming that this idea is the grandest of all. In my opinion, evolution is just a miracle. This theory is still not well understood and I believe that many of the details are still unexplored. Evolution can explain anything! Anything. I even sometimes think that this theory is even more basic than laws of physics. Evolution made humans possible and humans discovered evolution. And now, we are manipulating evolution without knowing the full details of evolution. But the elegance of evolution still shocks me when I realise that the consiousness/awareness which I experience was not there on earth and all we had were atoms!

This is part of my post at my blog on Biohacking: http://paraschopra.com/blog/biohacking.php

Posted by: Paras Chopra at January 12, 2006 06:37 AM

Dan,
How can anyone deny God, religion or consciousness. There is not a human being alive that can irrefutably claim one way or the other.

Ofcourse there are many arguements and reasons as to why God might not exist, or as to why he certainly must exist, but anyone seeking to know the truth must keep both these outcomes in their mind.

Ofcourse if you can refute God absolutely in a detailed work of philosophy, then your idea is not dangerous, but highly inspiring.
However most, if not almost all, people seem to refute God simply by mocking the idea.

That, is religious bigotry, that is fundamentalism, that is the suppression and destruction of ideas.
That is dangerous.

Ideas should fuel beliefs, beliefs should not prevent ideas.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 12, 2006 08:16 AM

eventhorizon,

I said that I don't know. I'm saying that if it upsets you but you can't refute it then it's a dangerous idea. If the heart tells you something then that's fine. If the head tells you another thing that's fine too. If you can't find a way of unifying them then you shouldn't criticise either.

Observation of the physical has not produced anything which we can label as god or consciousness. It's your privilege to believe in them without evidence but I wouldn't criticise those who don't.

I don't believe in anything at all. Some things I trust, other things I'm suspicious of. That's my choice, you make your own.

Posted by: Dan at January 12, 2006 09:28 AM

I find deep discussions about existence, the universe, God, consciousness, etc, very interesting. Even with people who champion the "opposite" views of the ones I like. If the participants in the discussion really want to understand and expand the limits of knowledge, it is very stimulating. What pisses me off is when somebody just mocks the alternate views, while providing a very half-baked foundation for their own.

Materialist scientists accomplish great things when we stay within what's obviously material stuff. But sometimes make fools of themselves when the need arises to examine the frame they themselves exist within.

You know, science requires somebody to observe, and somebody to think, to make a hypothesis, to make choices on how to test it, and to make conclusions as to the result. I'd say that science builds on the fundamental tacit assumption that there's somebody there who can do those things.

So, if there's then a scientist who concludes, in one form or another, that there's nobody there who thinks, there's no free will to make choices, and there's no consciousness of results - then I'd say that either they've gotten a few wires crossed, or they've just proven that science is self-contradictory and meaningless.

There's a little self-referential logic thing that usually gets in the way, and that means that even the most well-intentioned people will cheat in the last part of their logic.

Like, evolution is a fantastic, amazing, wonderful phenomenon. That better and better complexity can grow out of random experimentation is fantastic. And that it can do it by itself in an unbroken chain for billions of years is mind-blowing. You can explain just about anything we can observe as part of evolution. Except for evolution itself. You can't explain how evolution evolved without tying your mind in a knot. Or without cheating, by declaring with great authority that "it just did!"

Same with all natural phenomena. One can do a great job in explaining how they seem to work "all by themselves". And one can go back to the Big Bang, or whatever one thinks it "started" with, and show that it is all just natural laws. But one is always left with a lacking explanation for how come it is that way in the first place. Which is really the biggest question. One has to cheat oneself and one's listeners to overlook that one didn't answer it at all.

Consciousness is one of the few phenomena that can be proven conclusively. I'm aware, I observe, I think. That, by definition, proves that consciousness exists. What exactly it is, is a different matter, and much harder to answer. All other phenomena that I might observe and think about are less certain than the fact that I'm able to consciously observe and think. But, nevertheless, we can develop many practical and workable truths if we methodically use those basic abilities. Which, I'd like to believe, is science.

Posted by: Flemming Funch at January 12, 2006 10:18 AM

Flemming,
If you like deep discussions about consciousness there are a lot of them online:

http://consc.net/online1.html

Supporting your view I'd recommend reading David Chalmers, against it I'd recommend reading Daniel Dennett.

Myself I'd say that there is an experience but that anything with a sufficiently complex internal map of reality and the strongly held delusion of it's individuality and importance would say that.

Then again maybe the body isn't conscious and that proves the existence of something interacting with it.

Like I say, I don't know or believe.

Posted by: Dan at January 12, 2006 11:21 AM

"One has to cheat oneself and one's listeners to overlook that one didn't answer it at all."

Haha, welcome to the 'answers' as written by those 'who know' ;)
The unfortunate point is that BOTH God and Natural Eternal Existance as the fundemental fall into exactly this 'non-answer' trap.

I dont ridicule other views, I ridicule people that keep telling me 'believe in my answer, because its how I lie to myself'

You have a highly thought out and well developed idea, by all means share it with others, with me.
But you have the same old conundrums and non answers wrapped up in some kind of semi mystical belief that 'human kind cant understand' then go far far away from me.

I already have ideas and a philosophy, a mental movie constatly replayed ad infinitum that gets past the unanswerable, cul-de-sac, religious views of God and Reality as the Ultimate.

I by no means dismiss these as artifacts that exist, but I reject them as being able to be the core answer, because it is OBVIOUS they cannot. Instead I search elsewhere, search deeper, create new values on new tablets and write in blood.

If you wish to criticise me for belief without proof, or for being intolerant of others people views then you do yourself a grave injustice in your conclusions.

"If you can't find a way of unifying them then you shouldn't criticise either."

It is RIGHT to criticise when a person becomes lost, loses touch with the truth, starts believing in the impossible because otherwise they cannot understand.

When a person loses the path of quest for knowledge, because they are finding no answers, and turn to magical concepts that can answer their questions and give no answers at the same time, then they COMMIT GRAVE CRIMES against the persuit of knowledge.

One must remember that we are not here to find comfort in ideas. We are here to unlock the truth.
If that is not true, then you seek religion, not truth.

Therefore I will ridicule the person within who the desire for religious comfort masquerades as contemplative TRUTH.

For they are dangerous.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 12, 2006 12:36 PM

eventhorizon,

I don't have anything against people believing whatever they wan't to. I choose not to accept anything 100% because I trust in flexibility of thought. I may be wrong about that, it might be more useful to have firm convictions about things and allow no doubts. I'm not planning to do that though, however dangerous you think I am.

Posted by: Dan at January 12, 2006 01:15 PM

I think it is very healthy to reserve judgment on most things. Our mental faculties appear prone to errors and self-delusion. That we're very sure about something certainly doesn't prove anything.

Practically speaking, we'll have to choose some things to believe in, in order to function in life. Some principles of how the world works, so we might make better predictions and better choices. But it is probably worthwhile to always remember that what we believe is just our best guesses based on incomplete information. And what we truly know isn't all that much.

Posted by: Flemming Funch at January 12, 2006 03:24 PM

And just how much of the world is poisoned by the quagmire of 'freedom to believe in whatever the hell you like'?

Look at Palestine and Israel. For sure undoubtedly some Judiac and Muslim theologans will have incredible insight to offer us, but those people blowing themselves up and those guys driving the tanks that level streets, how many lives are ruined due to blind belief? How many of them actually give a damn about the ultimate truth at the heart of being itself?

Giving the freedom to allow others their own beliefs is an excercise in humanity. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the persuit of absolute truth. If it did, then the human race would be united behind a single unarguable truth, or united behind the quest for it.

Those of us persuing the truth either accept there is no definate answers yet, or are comfortable within themselves with an answer they themselves have come to realise, and have a mixture of pity and hope for humanity.

No doubt I will be crucified for my own views :)
but then I have little time for the obsessions of the material life, and horrors commited in the name of 'flexibility of thought', when the quest for truth and the wonder of existance electrifies my veins.

I'm all for freedom to find the truth however you wish, but very few people are motivated by that desire. Then the ideas and concepts are tainted, almost beyond hope of repair, entire groups of people are shunned because 1000 years ago people with those same beliefs looted a rich city.

Show me an indisputable, unarguable truth, then perhaps, just perhaps, just maybe you have an excuse for contaminating the spirit of human existance with horrific actions.
I would disagree however.

If flexibility of veiws/beliefs/thought is to be excerised, then all that matters is the search for that truth, or the sanctity of the entirety of existance itself.

The sad fact is that people who have lived this way are few, and are worshipped as heros.
The vast majority of human beings care for themselves. Not the truth.

And it is then that those views are dangerous.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 12, 2006 06:13 PM

Event Horizon,

What is this truth you speak of? Is there even such a thing? What if the 'truth' is something we create? What if the truth is that we are all co-creators? Quite frankly, like flemming, I'm tired of the search for the so-called 'objective' truth is the only true path to knowledge. As I have gone on and on and on about ad nauseum over the last two years on this site, we (meaning modern science/culture) have so far lost our way that I see little hope for its recovery. We have lost the necessary balance between objective scientific methodology and the internal gnostic quest for knoweldge. We have lost the path of the heart in a vain search for the truth of reason. Its now horribly out of balance.

A dangerous idea is that reclaim that which we lost - consciousness, god, the validity of subjective knowledge.

Posted by: Paul at January 13, 2006 01:04 AM

This truth is rather simple.

Whatever is, is. Why?

So you find comfort in vague spiritual ideas, that offer no answers as to the ability for mind, space, or actual presence to exist, merely claiming that this is how it is and we should all rejoice in the rebirth of the denial of the ability to know the mind of God.

If you are God, existing as one with your brothers and self, fueling the evolution of all that is, and have given up the search, then I shall be your ultimate God and know your secrets you are afraid too, or cannot, look for, whilst you do not, and cannot know/share mine.

You did not create yourself, regardless of how profound and personally fulfilling such a concept may well seem to you.
I may not grasp the sheer immensity of the ideas put forward, the complexity and depth of the realisations going on here, but I believe, as I slowly come to ever increasingly more understand the core of what is fueling ideas like these, that the magic and immensity of strange new dawnings, new knowings, knew ways of seeing and being, has become a light you are transfixed to, not a new facet to be embraced.

Objective? Subjective? What IS truth? Truth is truth. Truth is my wall, is the concrete, is the actual presence of the mysteries of its being. That is truth, whether it has to be conceptualised and perceived or not. The truth is not, my mind and world are a lie, that is an irrelivancy, that is an overobsession with self, which, when new mysteries delight and amaze and shock, is easilly something someone can become sidetracked by, or obsessed with.

But is it truth? Is it?

There is one truth, one truth only. Something, somewhere, is.

Untill there are no more why's, then there are questions. As long as there are questions, we do not have all the answers.

This is another truth. Regardless of an individuals abilities to brawl with vocabulary.

Answer my questions Paul, show me you are indeed God.

Why?

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 13, 2006 09:19 AM

Well, I'd offer this: The idea that there is no God is hardly a dangerous idea, at least as I would conceive the meaning of dangerous. Its perhaps not widely accepted but it is widely understood. It may have been a dangerous idea in the Middle Ages but its now fairly mundane, at least since the 19th century. The same would go for evuolution (the uncapitalized version).

The position that we have no soul (or self or consciuosness or free will) is less well known but similarly care worn, having been debated by Hindus and Buddhists for some 2500 years. To believe it dangerous strikes me as a bit egocentric, as if the fact that such and idea has the imprimatur of neurology suddenly gives it credence and weight.

Here's my Dangerous Idea. The must fundamental existential issues that confront us, the foundation of the universe (or the fundamental ground of being) and our own consciousness, identity, subjectivity, are irreducibly mysterious. These questions, problems, issues, are fundamentally intractable and insoluble. Yet, they must be solved - they haunt us, shadow us, compel our attention. But they ultimately are not susceptible to any answer. They are answered only by giving up entirely on the question.

Posted by: Mr Neutron at January 13, 2006 10:28 AM

I totally agree with every single word of your statement, up untill the very last sentance.

"They are answered only by giving up entirely on the question."

This is the only answer offered anywhere by anyone I have ever raised this discussion with in my life.

Why must the difficult be branded impossible? Is to soothe our own feelings of inadequecie and not quiet perhaps being the asbolute epitome of mind?

"We have not found yet, I cannot find, therefore it is both impossible and never find-able."

And this is a much more logical and reasonable view to hold compared to the ones I have put forward?

Excuse me for holding the view that to claim this is to commit the gravest crime against the very fabric of being alive.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 13, 2006 11:46 AM

Dear Event Horizon,

I have to be honest and say I have no clear idea where you are coming from. And from where I’m sitting you have no clear idea what I am talking about either. Where to begin then? I have no idea. The semantic differences alone seem unbridgeable here. What do you mean by 'god'. We could talk about that for weeks and maybe, assuming we clearly understand each other, have some small inkling of what each of us means by the word 'god'. You ask if I am god? Depends on the definition now doesn't? In the fundamentalist Christian sense, no. In the Gnostic sense, possibly. In the Buddhist sense, no. In the Hindu sense, probably yes, depending on your interpretation of Hindu philosophy, etc.

As for absolute truth, I have yet to see a single example of it - ANYWHERE. You talk of searching for absolute truth, and I share this desire to know the true nature of things. All I can say is that I have my suspicions based on compelling personal experience. One possible contender for me is that consciousness is a fundamental, perhaps the only fundamental of Universe. Another possible truth, certainly a very practical one for me personally, is that existence itself is fundamentally ecstatic.

The moment you slip into talking about ‘quarks’, ‘gluons’, ‘leptons’, ‘gauge symmetry’, ‘string variance’, the slippery slope into muddled maps, models and metaphors becomes such that truth becomes ever more elusive. The so-called search for a 'Final Theory' is so preposterous; I don't know even where to begin. It is the ultimate arrogance of our time that scientists even use such phraseology. As a scientist, I highly value the scientific methodology to discovery and make use of knowledge gained from it. Who can argue with the wonders of the modern world, the awe inspiring images of the Hubble Space Telescope, the discovery of extrasolar planets, or the latest high speed computers? I love all of these things, and we have the scientific method to thank for it. But we are talking apples and oranges here.

All I can recommend for you at this point to understand where Future Hi is coming from is to read ALL of the archives of every post, including comments, up to this point.. Future Hi is not some platform, so much as an ONGOING conversation, which you seemed to have just jumped into after more than two years of discussion. Because of that, I have a real hard time responding to people like you who come in and start throwing around strong opinions and criticism. In a normal social setting it’s rude, here it just smacks of ignorance. I'm not trying to offend you, only point out the truth (pun intended) of the situation.

Respectfully,
Paul Hughes
Editor, Future Hi

Posted by: Paul at January 13, 2006 12:10 PM

Yeah; in fact just the other day I was watching Richard Dawkins's video expose "The Root of All Evil? - Episode 01 - The God Delusion," brought to light by Gpod

In his arguments, he constantly brings up "rational" rhetoric as illogical to believe in the possibility of god. He does mention later on in episode 1 that he cannot disprove of god's existence... But then goes on to say that it's still absurd to believe in the possibility of god's existence... Such a statement is actually based in belief of god's impossible existense, and it seems as though the dogmatic ones in which he was talking to, when they called Dawkins arrogant, had some element of truth in it; but his arrogance/call-it-what-you-like blinded him from this realization. Indeed, he was missing critical time to actually discuss the important issue of us vs them mentality in-depth, but instead bafooningly raised a ruckus over im right, god is illogical... no im right, you got prostitutes & don't care... BLEGH!

I wonder if this epidemic disbelief in god's possibility of existence is a form of dogmatic belief that much of the so-called scientific community have supposedly taken in without question. Indeed, how would they respond to such allegations? With more hatred against the other... the people of faith? It'd be interesting to find out...

If he really wanted to bridge the gap between philosophies and current events, then I think he could have dropped his arrogance and opened up to heart-to-heart communication. Indeed, the subject which he was talking about was highly relevant; but, given today's complex reality of global climate change, peak-oil, toxification, food issues and species extinction, science hardly has a clean slate either. However, science and belief could be possible to equally share a possible force of change for the better. To deny this would be dogmatic, and may in fact raise duality moreso than what may have been intended.

Posted by: Francis Scully at January 13, 2006 02:10 PM

Paul, I apologise if I come on here, ranting aggressivly, pressing opinions on topics I am ignorant of, and generally being offensive and rude.

If it is the case I have overstepped the mark, gone too far and said too much then so be it.
I can understand entirally how it must seem to have some young, opinionated voice appear from nowhere and proceed to attack and argue every point of every case that doesnt correspond to his own views.

But tell me, how badly will my quest, and your quest, and everyone elses quest suffer from it? Indeed the moment someones words from this site makes me sit up and change my views, makes me realise something new, makes me think about something else, I will have succeeded.

Same with you, and everyone else, should my words, however unlikely, raise a shadow of doubt, of different idealism, of different thought, raise other possibilities, relight the desire to continue the quest to find out just exactly what it is that makes all of this tick, why it is we are trully here, trully dawn into a new level of absolute realisation about the fundamental mechanisations and workings of God knows what is the absolute, then we both shall have won.

I apologise for offending your readers, I apologise for appearing on this site in the manner in which I did. I apologise to anyone I have offended, but I will not apologise for being me, I shall not apologise for commiting my life to forcing dead ends and final resolutions to be be dismissed when there is still the slightest hint of further thought, further understanding, deeper truth, and real knowledge.

Now you ask me about ultimate, absolute truth, you tell me that no time in your life have across one single example.

I shall give you an example of absolute, irrefutable truth.

I think, therefore something IS.

That, I hope you will agree, is truth. Undeniable truth, and evidence that truth can be pulled from this existance, somehow.

I have jumped midway into an ongoing conversation, my only desire was to take part in it, add to it, maybe excite it.

Maybe I will fail to achieve what I hope, maybe its impossible, maybe the next few people to contribute to this site can come back and enlighten us.

Maybe not. It is not a desire to insult, or argue that brings me here

Maybe my voice is not something you wish to hear, but rest assured wherever my voice exists, it shall pull at every single loose thread there is.

And surely, surely, you must also feel that regardless of the closeness you feel to understanding all things, the knowledge, the view of so many loose threads surrounding it cries out that there is so much, so much more to it all.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 13, 2006 06:19 PM

Excuse me for holding the view that to claim this is to commit the gravest crime against the very fabric of being alive.

Thats more like it, thats precisely what I was getting at regarding dangerous ideas.

Seriously, though, its not really as nihilistic as it seems at first blush. In Zen Buddhism the point of the koan is to create an intractible problem, precipitating an existential crisis at which point the small self abandons all hope of resoluton and in the act of giving up the state of satori is acheived. Reality is a koan.

Posted by: Mr Neutron at January 13, 2006 08:16 PM

let me jump in now that i actually read some of the previous posts...

"Observation of the physical has not produced anything which we can label as god or consciousness."

According to your observation. For all we know, theoretically, god and evolution could be manifesting as the same thing... nature, at least on this planet anyway; heheh, and we may even be observing it...

That's one part of the debate I don't fully understand; evolution vs creationism. It's such a simplistic idea, if god supposedly started this reality, isn't it possible that it was a big bang? especially in only "6 days? - as ludicrous as that sounds in a new born universe where supposedly no sun or moon to call day existed before..." and then continued expanding.

However, if this plane of existence of the universe is finite and expanding, then what would you physically see if you traveled to the edge of the finite reality? Would it be a wall of colorless physical non-existence, a continuous mobius loop, or a bizarre merge into some other rules & regulations for an entirely different layer of reality.

I believe god to be too broad of a term to define as any single solitary pinpointed consciousness. To say that we scientists have looked for god, or something called an observer, and can't find any evidence for it, doesn't mean that whatever it is, isn't real... It just means that our definition that we are using to find the meaning of the word god might be flawed, therefore might not be producing quality scientific results. Of course, all this talk of god is really just words anyway, broken down into letters, broken down into little colored dots, which are then broken down into, ...well, nothing that has to do with the word GOD in the first place; LOL. and further, even farther from the colored dots, we are only metaphorically representing it in our minds with neurons and/or conscious current/old "activated" memories.

Further, as this is far from any proof of anything really, i've experienced some bizarr synchronicities that'd freak many people out if they experienced the same thing from the perspective of the same observer as me... Synchronicities that astronomically blow out of proportion all "scientifically logical" probability. Of course, false memory is always a possibility. But then again we have electrons that when split into two halves and sent in opposite directions and change the spin on one of the halves, the other halve instantly changes. reality is most likely much different than many of us think it is. This is far from over

Posted by: Francis Scully at January 13, 2006 09:37 PM

God is all. All is God. It's really very clear. We humans are another way for God to bear witness on Creation and a way for God to extend that Creation. (Forgive the Xtian-sounding terms... they co-opted the words - I speak of the universal essence of being, not some judgemental father perched on a cloud begging for hand-outs from a frightened flock). God is the subatomic plenum and the emergent unfolding of the universe. As above so below. Macrocosmos and microcosmos flowing through each other. There was no beginning and there will be no end, just cycles, endlessly repeating and reiterating into novel combinations. There is no Creator just Creation. Microscopes peer into God daily. Mathemeticians calculate God's topology and dimensionality. If you laugh, smile, bleed, cry, weep, mourn, fart, shit, puke, shiver, think, feel, touch, fuck, construct, see, hear, and smell, then your are witness to God.

Don't kid yourself that there's no evidence of God or Spirit. Listen to your favorite song, hike in a misty forest, make love, eat a handful of mushrooms at sunset, look into your child's eyes and then tell me there's no evidence for God.

Posted by: lvx23 at January 13, 2006 10:51 PM

You combine God as the life giver of reality, with the ability for anything to exist.

If God exists, God must be able to exist, where does this ability for God to exist come from? God?

This pathway has been worn down, ground into the dirt.

God, however you define it, may well be able to turn around and say
'I am eternal, I am infinate, I am the Seed of All that is, I am everything, and everything is me'

But God cannot turn around and say he willed himself into existing.

It is time to look God in the eye, it is time to find God in every part of life, in every mundanity, but it is time to challange God, it is time to make him give up his secrets.

And do not be afraid that You will anger God, or that God will not give up his secrets, for he will. He is the same miracle of the same existance as we are. He is our father and our mother and our brother, we are family.

But it is time to look him in the eye. If we owe God our very existance, then He owes us answers.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 14, 2006 10:09 AM

"Listen to your favorite song, hike in a misty forest, make love, eat a handful of mushrooms at sunset, look into your child's eyes and then tell me there's no evidence for God."

--LVX23, that was the most beautiful and true thing I have heard in a very long time ... I bow before your wisdom and offer you my humblest respects. Namaste.

....

Eventhorizen -- Question and answer, why and wherefore are all prisons of the mind. Get out of your head and look into your heart instead. It is not that one must give up the search for answers -- its that the ultimate answer is INCOMMUNICABLE. It cannot be told in words; it can only be experienced. I've been saying this for months now. That is my advice to you, as a fellow seeker. I know where you're coming from, because I've been there. Then the flash of Gnosis burned so brightly that it freed me from those mind-games. I can tell you are an honest, ardent seeker, and so I know that you will eventually be freed as well. Namaste.

...

The most DANGEROUS idea, eh? (I wouldve jumped on this sooner, but I've been ill, and am still recovering.) ... Well, if I gave myself more time to think about that, I might change my mind, but here goes my knee-jerk response:

The problem with most exchatological models of Utopia is that they are dependent upon an outside source for their initiation. New Jerusalem, 4-D Cyberspace, the Alchemical Sensorium, Paradise, New Eden, etc -- these are not unrealizable goals. But they remain unacheivable so long as the majority of the species awaits a magical intervention from an outside player -- be it Allah, Jehoveh, Jesus, the Elohim, or the Pleiadian Mothership.

The will-power has long been in our hearts; the tools, long the stuff of dreams, are now becoming reality; the need for an equitable and ecumenical Universal Nation is greater than ever. What we need is a global initiative to take the reconstruction of the Golden Age into our own hands; to make it our top priority; to exalt that ideal above every other, be it religious, cultural, or political. -- And that is a dangerous idea because it is so simple! Most of us homo sapiens just love to complicate things! And besides, it would mean some *real* work, no more lazy shirking around waiting for the bombs to fall, or the Space Brothers to beam down, or God to tip His hand. ...

And yet, it is inevitable, one way or another. The archetype has long been slumbering in our dreams. The real question is, will ours be the generation that alchemizes the dross of history into a new age of gold? Or will ours be yet another generation to be buried alive in its own rubble, too lazy to allow ourselves the joy our dreams have promised us?

How dangerous indeed.

Posted by: Upwinger at January 14, 2006 10:52 AM

Eventhorizon wrote:

If God exists, God must be able to exist, where does this ability for God to exist come from? God?

Yes. Human logic should not presume to contain the domain of the infinite. We only make maps and then project those maps onto a much grander territory. Our shortcoming is our insistence that the maps are identical with the territory.

But God cannot turn around and say he willed himself into existing.

And yet here it all is. You or I will never know the beginning nor the end, no matter how much we push our tender little monkey brains. Some secrets will always remain so - the brain will never be able to fully model itself, nor will we ever be able to fully model reality. And I'd suggest you drop the gender-specific "he" in reference to God unless you want people to assume your worldview is easily conditioned by Romans and Republicans.

Upwinger, thanks for the props.

Posted by: lvx23 at January 14, 2006 02:59 PM

Romans and Republicans, oh my!

THE EMPIRE NEVER ENDED

Posted by: Upwinger at January 14, 2006 04:33 PM

Let me comment on a few fragmented statements from all the good stuff here.

"Observation of the physical has not produced anything which we can label as god or consciousness."

"God is all. All is God. It's really very clear."

"I think, therefore something IS."

"If God exists, God must be able to exist, where does this ability for God to exist come from? God?"

I'm partial to the stuff I directly can experience and preferably prove to myself. I'm not much into belief. I might adopt a working theory about how things work, which I or somebody else has guessed, but I'd want to pick the one that fits best with my actual experience, the one that checks out best when I test it. Whether we're talking about something called God, or we're talking about gravity, it really works the same for me. Which theory will make the most sense out of my own personal experience, and which will provide the best predictions for future events.

OK, I'd say first that observation of the physical, or the observation of anything else, should prove the existence of consciousness pretty much instantly. Duh, you're observing! Observing. We can as well call that consciousness. Someone or something is conscious of something. That's observation. That's thinking. That's perception. You can't start observing and then tell me that you've observed that there's no such thing as observation. If you can't prove that to yourself in about 5 minutes, including thinking time, you probably shouldn't go around trying to make conclusions about anything else of importance.

Yes, that you think is in itself proof that something exists and that there's something that has awareness. Simple, but very profound, and irrefutable.

As to what we might call God, I'd also be leaning in the direction that the best candidate is... all of it. All that is. You could as well call it Universe, doesn't really matter.

But again, observation can't really tell you anything other than that there's something there - a universe - whatever you perceive it as.

We'll get into more an argument about whether it is a unified All or not. That's not so obvious to observe. OK, you can see it everywhere, in abundance, but it is not a given that this is what you see.

So, to me that is a guess, a working theory. Everything, All that Is, is basically in one piece, and it has all the qualities you can observe, and all possible qualities that you might or might not observe later. That's worthy of being called God or the Omniverse or Life or Existence, or whatever. But it is the only model I've run into that happens to explain so much. There's nothing in science or religion or philsophy that wouldn't fit into it. There's nothing you can observe that conflicts with the concept that there is Everything there, and that you're part of it.

For that matter, there's nothing you can observe that would indicate that it isn't conscious. On the contrary. You can observe consciousness, thinking, observation, attention, awareness, perception. Obviously they're part of Everything. Unless one comes up with a much more complex theory that splits consciousness from material stuff. Which some religions do. But, in my experience, they don't explain my experience nearly as well.

For that matter, the Everything, All-that-is model of existence is the only one that doesn't have a logical problem with having to explain where it came from. A Big Bang so and so many billions of years ago will necessarily raise the question of what came before that. A separate God who goes around creating things will necessarily raise the question of where he came from, and why he thinks he's better than me.

If there's no separation, there's no separation that is in need of explanation. Infinite wholeness doesn't have an outside or other side that has to be examined. Whereas any particular separate entity you come up with probably does. If Joe is a God and Bill is not, we'd need to know why. If the universe is 10 billion years old, we'd want to know what happened before that, and what will happen after. But if all of that is just facets of unbroken infinite wholeness, there's no problem. Lots of things to explore, but no fundamental impossibility.

Posted by: Flemming Funch at January 14, 2006 06:01 PM

You don't have consciousness - consciousness has you!

Within dimensionless consciousness a person appears, this person frantically shouts out:
"I am! I have consciousness!"

But how is this possible without consciousness being primary..before space and time...!?!

Posted by: Consciousness has you?! at January 14, 2006 07:07 PM

Event Horizon,
I would never want you not to be you. You are welcome here. I'm just asking you to relax and really listen before responding so critically. You apologized for this and I thank you. Yes, I agree with you that we can be certain that we minimally exists as *something* because we are aware that we do. I think therefore I am – yes!
Upwinger is right, your quest for true knowledge is noble, but if you don’t take your heart with you, you will go mad. I have been there too, and it was a VERY PAINFUL bypass to recover from. The real answers you are looking for lie within you. The outer reality can only reflect what is inside you. Change yourself and you change the universe. LVX23 is right in telling you there is no way your 3lb brain can possibly comprehend it all. The logical-rational brain circuits we all possess are infinitely limited compared to infinite all that is. In searching for true knowledge the rational (3rd circuit of the brain) will fail you. The sooner you recognize when* it is failing the better off you will be and the less grief you will incur upon yourself later on.. This is not to say that we cannot become 'knowledgeable' about much, much more. Yes, we can but not in the form our logical minds are capable of.. Listen to your heart, follow your bliss, and the truth your soul so desperately seeks will not be disappointed, it will rejoice beyond your wildest imaginings.

Posted by: Paul at January 14, 2006 08:00 PM

Perhaps my brain does fail me.

It seems to me, based upon the truth 'I think therefore something is' that the fact there is something rather than nothing is profound.

Upwinger, you have just written the absolute, purest words that can be written about human beings, now, forever, always. I am sure if my heart and mind had an adequate voice, could I spill my own true feelings about Earth, Life, Mankind, future, hope, possibility, fear, that I would still not do justice, infact I fail now.
Be sure though, I do and forever shall, share those views, share that path, regardless of how we may conflict.
"then the flash of Gnosis burned so brightly that it freed me from those mind-games."
My friend, Upwinger, those words burn.

It seems to me, as it has always done for me, that there is as yet a mystery unanswered.

I have offered forward the current epitome of my own thinking. Limited, and arrogant, and rediculous, and childish as it may be.
I do so for simple reasons. That the work of my life may be spread. That others may pick holes and find flaws I have not. That it encourages others to offer forward their own contemplations, so that I, yes selfish, may find new paths, new ways, new thinking, new ideas.

But for all that I must admit, I have recieved comforting words to continue, inspirational words that the truth may be possible, views on how the truth cannot be achieved, words regarding the impotence and weakness of the human ability to know.

I have read of the singularity and oneness of all existance. I have read noble and deeply thought and believed notions of consciousness creating all that is, evolving into all that is, being all that is, being God.

But there is a fear, and a rejection of, the contemplation of the differences between something, and nothing, and the questioning this thinking leads to.

Consciousness, at the very least, as an aspect of the fundamentals of existance is something I am being pulled to through my own, short, limited, experiances. In this universe, absolutely, think about time! In others, certainly, there is a common seed throughout all things.
Yes, my own views and understanding on the entire topic are admittedly little, yet there.

I have said as much, and even in open arguement to my own views, others have reciprocated, that there can NOT be any other way except the existance of that we are a part of.
This is in my heart. It is proven to me, limited as I am, by the very fact I (something) am (is) here.

I know nothing about cars / automobiles. That does not stop me, every time I see one, being amazed, awe struck, at its very presence. I know a little/moderate/perhaps nothing, about the inner workings of this universe. I have learned, been taught, and taught myself, about the mysteries of the fundamental forces gluing this apparant reality together.
Yet I wonder why a discription of an atomic nucleus in the highest degree of accuracy written on a page is NOT an atomic nucleus of physicality.

Maybe those people who write those equations and describe those 'things' simply are not accurate enough, but perhaps there is a difference between the concepts, the laws, the knowledge, and the actuality of BEING.

Is this difference between 'real' and 'other' consciousness?
Haha, what makes consciousness 'real'?

Is it me? What makes me 'real'? To enable consciousness to 'be'?

What is the difference between the description of my computer screen, and this plascticy, square looking thing I am prodding with my finger?

It is simple, or perhaps not, my computer screen is there, the description exists only within my head.
But again both do exist in their own ways. The description may never be what is described, but both are what they are.

All of this is what it is. The gaze upon the sun and stars, and the experiance within the mind. The laws of nature as they continually are discovered, and the secrets and mysteries as they are continually delved into and unlocked.

But it is all here.

Even the deepest most fundamental truth you keep close to you in the pit of your furnace in your chest, the thing that continually teases you at the base of your skull, it is here too.

Consciousness allows an existance of absolute immensity and beauty to exist, who am I to argue?

How are you? Oh Magnificent Goddess of all that is, that is therefore most holy. Tell me my mistress, my mother, my lover, please tell me.
Tell me how it is you are able to be?
Tell me why you exist. Tell me how you exist.
Tell me of the secret that allows you to give birth to me, and everything I see.
Tell me.

Perhaps the visitors to thise site will be able to spare me my madness, and tell my why my thinking is irrelevant, beyond semantics. Perhaps they will be able to tell me the answers to these, this question.
Perhaps they can give me new questions.
Perhaps they can explain to me, in a way that soothes my fire, that my thinking is wrong, that the truth is different to the truth I am seeking.

I know she is here, you do not need to convince me. I do not know her name (existance I call her), I do not know how she weaves her magic, though I try to keep upto date as much as possible with ideas.
I do not doubt that her beauty, her magnificence, is beyond the comprehension and description of anything, anyone.

Life is her shrine.

Oh sweet unknowable, unspeakable, worshipable magnificence, how is it that thou are?

Tell me why.
Tell me why my thinking is wrong.
Do not tell me I am wrong, not if you wont tell me why.

Posted by: eventhorizen at January 14, 2006 09:46 PM

There is always a mystery as yet unraveled. There is no end to the search for God. Or else the wheels of the Cosmos would stop turning, amd the very stars wink out into nothingness.
For in everything we seek, be it money, fame, love, friendship, mysticsm, or even the simple sight of the rising sun, we are seeking and stalking the Mystery. In everything we desire, we are working at unraveling the mystery of our own divinity.
In all these things we find clues, hints, keys. We use these to gather small caches of treasure, ingest a salvific dose of knowledge, and open new doors. What would you do, after the final door had been opened, when your knowledge was complete? What would you do the next day, and the day after that? Life on this Earth would have been robbed of its meaning -- which is, to seek and to find. But never stop from seeking.

Namaste.

Posted by: Upwinger at January 15, 2006 06:45 AM

"But God cannot turn around and say he willed himself into existing."

...But the universe cannot turn around and say it willed itself into existence?

You understand these are just words right?

I said this before, but I'll bring it up again to sharply contrast the opposite potential... If there was never a beginning of the universe, and it has existed for an eternity already, then we have all been dead for an eternity.

What can will something into existence that has never existed for an eternity? A universe that somehow non-willed itself into existence through a hypothetical big bang in a vaccume that mysteriously existed in nothingness. Was it the nothingness that caused the big bang to bang, closing the gap of the vaccume and what little matter there was? Given that theory, what was a vaccume and ball of energy doing there in the first place. That sounds like a grand experiment, like someone put a baked potatoe in a microwave oven without poking holes in it and pushed START, waiting for it to explode; like the dense matter was just teleported there at some point and it went boomb. Indeed, who did the teleporting, and where did it exist before it existed here? Though, again, if you believed that the universe has existed forever, you once again have to struggle and reckon with the idea that you have already been dead for an eternity.

Of course, to be fair, the same exact philosophical idea could be applied to god. Who teleported god here in a vaccuume of nothingness. Indeed, more importantly than the question of who created god before god, but what is a vaccuume of nothingness doing there in the first place? Which brings me to the startling conclusion that we probably have already been dead for an eternity under god or the big bang, because a vaccume of timelessness would have had to existed outside either of them if they didnt already exist for an eternity already, lol. That was a mouthful.

Though, according to certain scientific analysis claiming the universe was created in a big bang, what the bleep would we find if we reversed the entire mechanised play of matter and energy to the very instant just before it banged? what would exist outside of the bang? Dark matter? Dark matter is just a word to describe the supposed 73% mass of the universe that supposedly cannot be seen or studied, but supposedly played a huge force in allowing gravity to work the way it does. I don't know if we can grasp what that means, but it means most of our hypothesis that we use as truth are gaping wide open to criticism and judgement because we have no controlled experiments to perform to test it because we cannot grab this stuff that we cant see and pin it down to study it's uniqueness, characteristics and potential in how it interacts with everything else.

These questions are just too bizarre to give any patt answers to. All of these are weird questions, and according to philosophical logic, would be impossible to scientifically prove or disprove anything based on how sheer wierd these concepts are. Ill say this again, whoever at edge that claims a godless universe is the most dangerous idea is quite ignorant and philosophically beligerant and deserves to be marked as crank until they force themselves to reckon with some of these philosophical ideas to integrate with their gaping uncontrolled reality testing theories that are constantly trying to test reality, pin it down, and say this is the way things are.

I'll end with a paragraph I wrote a long long time ago at the beginning stage of my philosophical quests, you are welcome to interchange computer with whatever you like:

Imagine a computer floating in space. A computer which is so extraordinarily powerful and never seen before. If we have never seen this computer before then we cannot know it's limits. If we cannot know it's limits then it could be powerful enough to create an imaginary world with billions of individual people on it, each with their own consciousness. If we cannot know it's limits then it could possibly make people believe in what it wants us to believe in and make us think something makes sense when in all actuality makes little if not any sense at all. Or maybe it is just powerful enough to hold you; the only one who can think, and everything is like one big map and everywhere you go, that part of the map is lighted up (becomes active) with fake people just to play a sick game on you. Why not? Or maybe we are one. One mind from a world we escaped by becoming insane with split personalities to come here and live as two individual people on this imaginary world.... "Earth."

Posted by: Francis Scully at January 15, 2006 07:15 AM

Believe me it makes perfect sense casino Bic Its a Bic pen.

Posted by: casino at January 17, 2006 07:18 PM

Gentlemen!

I have published an excerpt of this essay on my online-mag:
www.ultrafeel.tv/advaita.htm

Of course, I put a link on this fantastic blog!

Is this ok for you guys?

thanks and best regards from Switzerland
fox

Posted by: The non-dual universe and more at January 19, 2006 03:29 AM

Twenty six gallons checking the readouts Thatll be $375 online gambling site play that Monday for that record company cat from New York!.

Posted by: Casey Jovani at January 29, 2006 01:07 AM