All Religions Are False.

we can probably assume that most people experience roughly the same qualia for green tho there is no way to prove that, exceptions would be those with neurological disorders. in the case of not recognizing the objects, I would assume they still experience a qualia, just an ambiguous one. the unique object is not mapped to a unique qualia to represent the object as unique compared to other objects.

 

Most agnosias occur after brain damage, so people usually have had a representation of the object they cannot recognize anymore, at one time.

It's difficult to isolate one sense from the others, so there very well still may be a sense of qualia in an object which one cannot visually represent. A likely bad comparison I'm juggling is does the average person still experience qualia in their visual blindspot? I'm leaning towards no, at least not on any conscious level.

 

the way I understand. qualia is a integrated construct of information provided by all senses involved, so yes, it would be difficult to isolate one sense from the others .

your brain is always trying to determine "what is this most like", by comparing what you are experiencing to what is already stored in memory.

I don't think anyone would experience anything in their visual blind spot, as qualia is integrated at a lower level, in the case of visual blu d spots the brain receives no information directly from that region. however, the brain will use the information available from both eyes, as well as making some assumptions to reconstruct that region.

 

At what point do the other senses elucidate the qualia then? I mean surely a blind person has an experience of qualia.


I noted that when the linguistic phrase blind spot is mentioned, that there was a slight shift in my consciousness. I didn't attempt to move my visual gaze, however I concentrated more on my olfactory and auditory senses and I recreated a vague, staggered, yet accurate mental image of the area outside my immediate sense of vision.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo8eFZe5UCU




PRIEST ADMITS GOD AND JESUS DO NOT EXIST

 

While it is true that all religions have been proven false, it still would be a good idea to treat others how you would want to be treated and all of that good stuff.

 

where is the logical basis for the assumption that the cause of anything has to be a who?
i'm sorry but i completely fail to see one.

where is the slightest evidence, other then our ego, and not everyone's ego at that, wanting it to be one,
that we live in a universe that is sapience centric in any way.

rather the evidence that it is not, is far more abundant and convincing.
for example, that the vast majority of things we can observe, exhibit no indication of requiring a self aware cause of initiation.

or do you believe there are little men inside of electrical wires pushing electrical charges around?

 

Who, what, how, whatever.

How did it get here?

And I don't think anyone on this forum is going to know the answer.

 

while i disagree just as completely with those who say there can't be a god as with those who say there has to be, yes, i agree there are non-physical things, at least one, and if one, why not many, who are big, friendly, invisible and give great hugs. yes i believe the origin of every religious belief is well intended, in principle, while, if not so in its beginning, certainly what each all to quickly devolve into, wrong headed, and thereby false, in detail. more to the point, such detail, greater then our non-physical sense that something exists, has its origin, only in the words of authors, none of whom, are gods, nor at the time their worlds are written, themselves nonphysical. false in detail, true perhaps in intent, but intent that has been and is, almost, if not entirely, lost and forgotten.

yes i have a love for the good intentions of such believers as posses them, while at the same time, can only shake my head at the illogic of their adamance. and weap at the horrors that adamence and illogic give rise to.
as i'm sure, any well meaning god, must as well.

so, PERSONAL beliefs, NOT based too heavily on any ONE 'name brand' belief, are capable of not being false. i just don't believe any of the name brand beliefs have any kind of convincing likelihood of accuracy.

also baha'i is new enough to not yet have been completely corrupted, but i don't buy claims of infallibility.

 

In a sense EVERYTHING we know is false. We all live in a delusional reality, interpolated from limited sensory information. We all live in varying degrees of ignorance. Even our greatest minds can be completely wrong about certain things. Best we can do is use our reasoning and decide for ourselves what makes the sense, what things are more probable than others.

 

It's not a lecture, it's a debate, and you can watch it 10 times over and you'll never find PROOF of nothing. All the arguments for nothing are really concepts of nothingness, the lack of the perception of something. We have perceptions of nothing in deep space and even between particles but when we examine further we find that emptiness to be filled with stuff.

My favorite answer was Eva Silverstein's best nothing - "the ground state of a gapped quantum system", but again this is a perception of nothingness within a field that we know exists.

Whether or not there really is nothing is irrelevant because nothing can not create anything. If space exists in a bubble of endless nothing, then space was always there. We have to accept that there has always been something. That something I think is the fabric of space itself, it is the only real substance in the universe, you can even feel it while playing with magnets. I think it is most likely also to be infinite and eternal.

Theist believe there just always was a God. We exist so I agree there always was something. That said, intrinsic spatial fabric is trillions of times more likely to be your base field than intrinsic supreme consciousness. Simply the most logical, I think, especially when we can logically explain energy from spatial nothingness.

 

Apparently these guys have a PROOF for nothing.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/proof-that-the-universe-could-have-come-from-nothing

Paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

I understand that the term empty space is a misnomer but that's not what I was objecting to in Gott's demonstration. It's the finite boundaries of the universe or multiverse.

I kind of throw in the towel trying to actually figure stuff out when we discuss the multiverse perhaps besides as philosophical musings.

And Why are you resistant to the notion of the universe arising from nothing? Like What are the implications of that?

 

Think about it, something from absolutely NOTHING is logically impossible.
the very EXISTENCE of NOTHING is an impossible paradox.
Again, not to be confused with nothingness.

 

I provided a proof, so apparently unless there is flaws in the math, it's not impossible.

If we cannot dissect what the math tells us (I know I sure can't) then we got to operate with logical arguements, which is why when you posted this below, I made a deal out of your logic being flawed.

Otherwise all we are doing is discussing concepts, which make intuitive sense to us, rather than being grounded by logical arguments.

 

In my opinion you are both right/wrong about the everything/nothing debate. Sub-atomically speaking, matter is composed of 99.9999999% nothing. And all matter is the same. It's just energy fields.

Everything is energy fields.

 

Yes there are flaws in math. Math may hold some universal truths but it is nowhere near perfect for modeling the universe. It is just another interpolative human concept. The universe does not care that Pi is an irrational number. Just because math works for imaginary dimensions does not make them real. There is a mathematical proof that can calculate infinity to -0.08333... which is clearly incorrect.

 

The point of contention regarding nothing for me in conceptual terms is not regarding the composition of matter or anything contained within the universe. The point of contention is what, if anything, is beyond the composition of the universe/multiverse... In regards to the logical argument relaxxx was presenting, I was pointing out that he provided a conclusion which had an initial statement which contradicted it's premises, only salvaged by the conjunction but. I believe he was trying to use 'nothing' in the conclusion in a different sense than how he used it in the premise, it's just a shaky foundation. As I demonstrated, the statement "Matter is nothing" can easily be extracted from the given context and proved valid in another argument.

I believe the conclusion that relaxxx was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is something along the lines of: "Matter is literally empty space with energy over time"

Although he also suggests Movement is energy as well... so they should be interchangeable: "Matter is literally empty space with movement over time"

I agree, although it seems difficult to discern good math from bad (flawed) math when it's applied to such topics.

 

Oh I understand what you mean now. You can't switch your theory around just to fit your argument haha

 

Energy and movement ARE interchangeable. Atoms would not exist without any electrons orbiting their shell.

What is electromagnetic but a magnetic filed MOVING through space.

 

is it ethical to allow the highly improbable to equal the impossible ?