From chaos to complexity or always having been complexity?

[William]

The history of our world in 18 minutes | David Christian
[yt]yqc9zX04DXs[/yt]

Lots of use of the word 'magical' in this theory. What this narration shows is that the universe appears to be getting more complex and this allows for one to speak of the beginnings as 'mush' as 'non complex' and 'magical' which I think is not the actual case.

It is more like a seed germinating. The seed may appear to be less complex than the eventually fully grown tree, but the complexity always existed in the the seed, as information which amounts to the tree - and this information is the potential of the tree - all wonderful stored within the seed.

So the seed is as complex as the tree and thus even that the beginning of this universe might appear or otherwise be interpreted as the mush of chaos, it is entirely not the case.

The seed of course in this case is that which is oft referred to as the 'Infinite Density' which existed prior to the Big Bang happening - the germination event which unfolded as it did then and continues to do, now.

The interpretation of 'chaos' presumes the accident of life, which allows for the theory that there is no creative mind involved in the making of the process.

The creative mind was simply an accident, rather than an ingredient mindfully encoded into the seed which was bound to happen as a certainty, as the seed germinated and the tree began to form from that.

It has always been a case of mindful intentional complexity and never a case of a mindless accident of chaos.

Do you agree with me or not? If so or if not, I am interested in your reasons.

Cheers

William

[Divine Insight]

Do you agree with me or not? If so or if not, I am interested in your reasons.

I disagree with your following speculation:

It is more like a seed germinating. The seed may appear to be less complex than the eventually fully grown tree, but the complexity always existed in the the seed, as information which amounts to the tree - and this information is the potential of the tree - all wonderful stored within the seed.

In the case of a see this is true because the seed contains DNA.

However, this doesn't transfer over to the conditions of the early universe. The complexity of stars, planets, and humans was not contained as information in the early universe.

So your proposal that the early universe should be thought of as a seed similar to a biological seed that contains information for a specific offspring does not work.

Ironically, our complexity is possible precisely because of entropy, not in spite of entropy.

Our planet earth not a "closed system", it's a system that is obtaining energy from the sun. According to entropy, under these conditions complexity is not only possible but it's actually drive by this law of thermodynamics.

So our actual structure is indeed an accident. Especially the existence of humans specifically. Had the dinosaurs not accidentally been destroyed by a meteor, we wouldn't even be here. So yes, humans are indeed an accident of nature. And definitely not planned by any 'seed' in the early universe.

At least not planned specifically. If you want to say that the universe was bound to give rise to life in general, and in that sense whatever life evolves was "planned" that's fine. But humans in particular would just be one of infinite possibilities.

In other words, you would need to change your original speculative analogy from being a seed of a tree, to just being a seed that could potentially grow into any random thing depending on the conditions it finds itself in. That's not really containing an specific information. That's just a seed that has ill-defined potential (i.e. a seed that makes random accidents possible)

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

In the case of a see this is true because the seed contains DNA.

However, this doesn't transfer over to the conditions of the early universe. The complexity of stars, planets, and humans was not contained as information in the early universe.

So your proposal that the early universe should be thought of as a seed similar to a biological seed that contains information for a specific offspring does not work.

The theory claims that everything which exists in this universe was contained within the 'Infinite Density' which exploded as the 'Big Bang'.

Thus everything in the universe was contained in that ID just as everything which makes the tree is contained in the seed, therefore my use of the seed metaphor is appropriate. Very appropriate.

So our actual structure is indeed an accident. Especially the existence of humans specifically. Had the dinosaurs not accidentally been destroyed by a meteor, we wouldn't even be here.

Is this speculation or proven fact? Are you saying that the existence of dino's would have prevented humans evolving?

So yes, humans are indeed an accident of nature. And definitely not planned by any 'seed' in the early universe.

How do you know this is the fact of the matter? Are you simply interpreting apparent random incidence as evidence that consciousness and intelligence is not and has never been an integral part of the universe?

At least not planned specifically. If you want to say that the universe was bound to give rise to life in general, and in that sense whatever life evolves was "planned" that's fine. But humans in particular would just be one of infinite possibilities.

Infinite? How can there be infinite possibilities in a finite reality? Even so, given the absurdly huge timespace we are involved with and discussing here, the gist of your statement can be used to show that given the fact of that matter, practically everything we could possibly imagine - from unicorns to leprechauns, from faeries to flying 'spaghetti' monsters could actually exist within this universe, such as are the potential possibilities allowable within timespace, due to its actual size.

And every one of them all existing within that metaphorical seed - the ID - not as 'possibilities' but as eventual certainties.

As a Panentheist the idea is quite naturally developed as acceptable, and your arguments only allow for me the opportunity to attempt show non-Panentheists the fundamental errors in their interpretations.

In other words, you would need to change your original speculative analogy from being a seed of a tree, to just being a seed that could potentially grow into any random thing depending on the conditions it finds itself in. That's not really containing an specific information. That's just a seed that has ill-defined potential (i.e. a seed that makes random accidents possible)

As a Panenthist I do not 'have to do that' at all. Quite the opposite really. If one understands that randomness doesn't actual exist as a reality - simply by observing the same universe and interpreting it's unfolding as intelligent and orderly - and doing such, not so much through the eyes of human experience alone, but also by projecting thought into the position of overall observer and interpreting what is being observed as orderly right from the go-get - one sees the same thing differently, as is the case between you and I.

The question is, why are you unable (or is it unwilling) to do the same as I? What is it about the idea of impeccable orderly intelligent purposeful process of the universe 'tree' unfolding from the initial 'seed' that you find so...'not nice'?

[Kenisaw]

The history of our world in 18 minutes | David Christian
[yt]yqc9zX04DXs[/yt]

Lots of use of the word 'magical' in this theory. What this narration shows is that the universe appears to be getting more complex and this allows for one to speak of the beginnings as 'mush' as 'non complex' and 'magical' which I think is not the actual case.

It is more like a seed germinating. The seed may appear to be less complex than the eventually fully grown tree, but the complexity always existed in the the seed, as information which amounts to the tree - and this information is the potential of the tree - all wonderful stored within the seed.

So the seed is as complex as the tree and thus even that the beginning of this universe might appear or otherwise be interpreted as the mush of chaos, it is entirely not the case.

The seed of course in this case is that which is oft referred to as the 'Infinite Density' which existed prior to the Big Bang happening - the germination event which unfolded as it did then and continues to do, now.

The interpretation of 'chaos' presumes the accident of life, which allows for the theory that there is no creative mind involved in the making of the process.

The creative mind was simply an accident, rather than an ingredient mindfully encoded into the seed which was bound to happen as a certainty, as the seed germinated and the tree began to form from that.

It has always been a case of mindful intentional complexity and never a case of a mindless accident of chaos.

Do you agree with me or not? If so or if not, I am interested in your reasons.

Cheers

William

I completely agree on the complexity thing, in that the universe is basically at the same "complexity" that it has always been at, and I mean at a basic level. Granted, one could argue that the appearance of more elements over time thanks to stellar shock waves from supernovae as well as fusion within stars can be considered more complex than at the beginning, but those iterations of materials still boil down to the same fundamental particles (neutrino, photon, electron, and quark) working under the same fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear, gravity, electromagnetism) as was present in the beginning. In this the same simple framework for everything in the universe has remained unchanged for 14.6 billion years.

What has changed over time is that more of the total iterations of what is possible under the simple framework have emerged (such as the elements I mentioned earlier). But the framework, that basic scaffolding of the universe, is still simple and unchanged.

I do find it interesting that the different iterations lead to different properties that emerge from each combination. You can take the same neutrons, protons, and electrons from hydrogen atoms and combine them into an oxygen atom, and they stop having hydrogen properties and start having oxygen properties. Combine two hydrogen and one oxygen together and another set of properties emerge. All within the basic framework.

It would seem that consciousness is just such a property, brought on by a combination of materials that allows for it to emerge. Why such a property can and does exist is still unknown, but it obviously exists as long as that iteration exists using the same basic particles under the same basic forces that have been around for 14.6 billion years.

Where I don't agree with you William is the claim that a "mindful intentional complexity" has to exist in order for your or my consciousness to exist. That would make it a fundamental part of the universe then, something that has always been around just like gravity or the electron. Where is the evidence for such a thing? Simply put, there is none. There is zero empirical data that supports such an assertion.

It's really no different than saying that "oxygen" must be fundamentally in existence for the properties of an oxygen atom to exist once enough smaller elemental atoms were fused together to make oxygen atoms. Unless I am mistaken here, you don't think that and have never claimed (or would want to claim) that the emergent properties of oxygen had to exist before actual oxygen existed. So why you think consciousness would be different than any other emergent property of matter is beyond me.

There's no data for your claim, and even stepping outside the empirical realm and relying on pure philosophical musings still doesn't support any justification for thinking a fundamental consciousness must exist in order for you and I to be conscious at this point in time...

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by Kenisaw]

Where I don't agree with you William is the claim that a "mindful intentional complexity" has to exist in order for your or my consciousness to exist.

Be that as it may Kenisaw, the fact that we do exist, one can interpret that we would not exist if a mindful intentional complexity wasn't involved with the process.

That would make it a fundamental part of the universe then, something that has always been around just like gravity or the electron.

Unfortunately one cannot claim that gravity or the electron have 'always been around' Like everything else which consists of the universe, such came from the 'seed' which I referred to in analogy re the ID. [infinite density]

Where is the evidence for such a thing? Simply put, there is none. There is zero empirical data that supports such an assertion.

The evidence that everything which altogether makes up the universe includes consciousness. Therefore consciousness must have existed in the 'seed' along with everything else. Like gravity and the electron, consciousness was released with the Big Bang.

We (conscious entities) can easily measure consciousness from our current perspective billions of years after the BB, but observing how it reacts with matter and generate empirical data regarding that, but this in itself does not mean that consciousness isn't something a planet, galaxy or the universe itself, isn't occupied by. We don't know and so far have no known way in which we can gather empirical data regarding that.

As you are aware, I think that the Earth is a conscious self knowing creative entity which explains why biological evolution is an intelligent process.

Indeed, the thread OP regards the whole process from go to whoa as an intelligent process.
It might even be that such a notion becomes more empirically obvious the more it unfolds, but since - relatively speaking - we are effectively at the very beginning of said process we have to work with the evidence available now and in that, my interpretations are not wrong because one cannot deduce how to empirically test them.

It's really no different than saying that "oxygen" must be fundamentally in existence for the properties of an oxygen atom to exist once enough smaller elemental atoms were fused together to make oxygen atoms.

Just as surely as the tree-seed fundamentally holds the codes which will become the tree once the seed germinates. That is the analogy. That is what 'it looks like chaos but is actually orderly' and 'it looks accidental but is actually purposeful' means.

While oxygen may have some analogy with consciousness, it is something which has some type of physical structure which can be measured in detail. Consciousness continues to be ever obscure and far harder to pin down.

The Ghost in the Machine.

Unless I am mistaken here, you don't think that and have never claimed (or would want to claim) that the emergent properties of oxygen had to exist before actual oxygen existed.

I am working with a theory that states everything which comprises the universe existed in an object smaller than the smallest object presently known to humankind.
The assumption which is tagged to this theory is that the universe manifested from that point to this current one, as a chaotic disorganized event.

I am simply observing the event without that assumption, hence the analogy of the seed.

There's no data for your claim, and even stepping outside the empirical realm and relying on pure philosophical musings still doesn't support any justification for thinking a fundamental consciousness must exist in order for you and I to be conscious at this point in time...

Obviously we differ as to how we choose to interpret our reality, but the assumption which allows for the claim that consciousness derives from the chemical reactions in the brain and then makes the claim that consciousness is emergent of the brain, is still speculation and does not take into account other evidence which brings such interpretation into question.

As I have said to you in past interactions, for those who take the position you do, the jury has deliberated and reached a verdict. Whereas for those who take my position, the jury isn't even required at this point of the process, so close as we are in relation to the beginning game.

I will add that my own OOB experiences have allowed for me to study the fields of possibilities these open ones awareness up to. The thread "Finding evidence through experiment/experience
Looking into the science of Astral Projection" delves into this subject with more (ongoing) detail.

I have posted a YT video in that thread which provides a more scientific rendering of the phenomena, for those interested. Therein there is mention of how the belief that the brain is the sole source of consciousness, is questionable due to thousands of case studies of individuals experiences with NDEs - well worth the watch.

[William]

Emergence Theory is an interesting development which supports much of what I say in this thread as well as throughout my Members Notes.

Emergence Theory: A Layperson's Guide

[yt]Qa4JkgKDaR0[/yt]

[William]

The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist

[yt]pLbSlC0Pucw[/yt]

[font=Comic Sans MS]Alan Wallace, a world-renowned author and Buddhist scholar trained by the Dalai Lama, and Sean Carroll, a world-renowned theoretical physicist and best-selling author, discuss the nature of reality from spiritual and scientific viewpoints. Their dialogue is mediated by theoretical physicist and author Marcelo Gleiser, director of Dartmouth’s Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement.

Recorded February 9, 2017
Nourse Theater - San Francisco, CA[/font]

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 4 by Kenisaw]

Where I don't agree with you William is the claim that a "mindful intentional complexity" has to exist in order for your or my consciousness to exist.

Be that as it may Kenisaw, the fact that we do exist, one can interpret that we would not exist if a mindful intentional complexity wasn't involved with the process.

One can certainly posit any number of things. Coming up with an explanation that is supported by empirical data and facts rather narrows down the possibility list by a great deal.

That would make it a fundamental part of the universe then, something that has always been around just like gravity or the electron.

Unfortunately one cannot claim that gravity or the electron have 'always been around' Like everything else which consists of the universe, such came from the 'seed' which I referred to in analogy re the ID. [infinite density]

We've been through this on other threads before, but we can in fact make such a statement regarding gravity and electrons being around for the last 14.6 billion years. There'd be no conservation laws in the universe if there weren't.

Where is the evidence for such a thing? Simply put, there is none. There is zero empirical data that supports such an assertion.

The evidence that everything which altogether makes up the universe includes consciousness. Therefore consciousness must have existed in the 'seed' along with everything else. Like gravity and the electron, consciousness was released with the Big Bang.

No, there is no evidence that consciousness did or could exist until the right physical structures existed. I'd ask you for some evidence but we've been down that unfulfilled request of a road so many times I could drive it with my eyes closed. There is zero empirical data that consciousness exists outside of certain things that have certain structured formations (I'm talking about brains here). You can claim all you want that consciousness exists outside of physical brains and permeates the entire universe, but it's all just baseless conjecture on your part.

We (conscious entities) can easily measure consciousness from our current perspective billions of years after the BB, but observing how it reacts with matter and generate empirical data regarding that, but this in itself does not mean that consciousness isn't something a planet, galaxy or the universe itself, isn't occupied by. We don't know and so far have no known way in which we can gather empirical data regarding that.

Stunningly unscientific. There's no evidence for this thing you claim exists, so your conclusion is that we just haven't figured out yet how to gather the evidence that you think must exist. That's utter nonsense I'm afraid.

Indeed, the thread OP regards the whole process from go to whoa as an intelligent process.
It might even be that such a notion becomes more empirically obvious the more it unfolds, but since - relatively speaking - we are effectively at the very beginning of said process we have to work with the evidence available now and in that, my interpretations are not wrong because one cannot deduce how to empirically test them.

The point is that your interpretation is not based on any evidence at all. Like, as in none, nil, zilch, nada. You are taking the fact that conscious animals exist (humans included), and then speculatively claiming that their consciousness is really from a universal consciousness. There's no evidence or empirical data for this universal consciousness, or that any entity's consciousness is connected in any way to any other entity's consciousness. You are doing nothing more than baselessly speculating via leaps of unsupported logic as to a presumed source of consciousness. It's patently irrational. You are interpreting unrelated data and rationalizing it to fit your factless claim.

It's really no different than saying that "oxygen" must be fundamentally in existence for the properties of an oxygen atom to exist once enough smaller elemental atoms were fused together to make oxygen atoms.

Just as surely as the tree-seed fundamentally holds the codes which will become the tree once the seed germinates. That is the analogy. That is what 'it looks like chaos but is actually orderly' and 'it looks accidental but is actually purposeful' means.

While oxygen may have some analogy with consciousness, it is something which has some type of physical structure which can be measured in detail. Consciousness continues to be ever obscure and far harder to pin down.

The brain also has a physical structure which can be measured in detail. Without that structure there is no evidence of consciousness. Alter that structure and you alter the consciousness of that particular entity. Consciousness may be largely a mystery still, but it's obviously sourced from the physical structure and chemical and electrical interactions inside brains.

The Ghost in the Machine.

That machine is the brain, and that's where your consciousness comes from.

Unless I am mistaken here, you don't think that and have never claimed (or would want to claim) that the emergent properties of oxygen had to exist before actual oxygen existed.

I am working with a theory that states everything which comprises the universe existed in an object smaller than the smallest object presently known to humankind.
The assumption which is tagged to this theory is that the universe manifested from that point to this current one, as a chaotic disorganized event.

I am simply observing the event without that assumption, hence the analogy of the seed.

While I appreciate your attempt to morph Christianity into a natural theology, and want to incorporate science like the Big Bang into that same natural theology, all you've ended up doing is making the same unsubstantiated claims under a different title. There's no proof for gods, or for universal consciousness.

There's no data for your claim, and even stepping outside the empirical realm and relying on pure philosophical musings still doesn't support any justification for thinking a fundamental consciousness must exist in order for you and I to be conscious at this point in time...

Obviously we differ as to how we choose to interpret our reality, but the assumption which allows for the claim that consciousness derives from the chemical reactions in the brain and then makes the claim that consciousness is emergent of the brain, is still speculation and does not take into account other evidence which brings such interpretation into question.

Right, other evidences, which are never provided by you. Or is this where we make the unconnected leap from the fact of conscious beings to the claim that consciousness exists separate from conscious beings, which isn't evidence but a false leap in logic?

As I have said to you in past interactions, for those who take the position you do, the jury has deliberated and reached a verdict. Whereas for those who take my position, the jury isn't even required at this point of the process, so close as we are in relation to the beginning game.

There is no verdict, only ongoing learning. Science is a path, not a destination. I follow the data and empirical evidence. You do not. That is the difference between you and I.

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by Kenisaw]

Where I don't agree with you William is the claim that a "mindful intentional complexity" has to exist in order for your or my consciousness to exist.

Be that as it may Kenisaw, the fact that we do exist, one can interpret that we would not exist if a mindful intentional complexity wasn't involved with the process

One can certainly posit any number of things.

What I said. How one interprets the same data differently.

Coming up with an explanation that is supported by empirical data and facts rather narrows down the possibility list by a great deal.

So I have heard claimed many times before. I have yet to be shown anything from that 'list' which supports the claim. Indeed, I have yet to be shown that list. You yourself have now made mention of a list, but have provided no examples.

Unfortunately one cannot claim that gravity or the electron have 'always been around' Like everything else which consists of the universe, such came from the 'seed' which I referred to in analogy re the ID. [infinite density]

We've been through this on other threads before, but we can in fact make such a statement regarding gravity and electrons being around for the last 14.6 billion years. There'd be no conservation laws in the universe if there weren't.

That of course is not what I am arguing Kenisaw. The ID is a theory put forward by scientists. I am merely taking that theory and suggesting that everything from that seed existed as potential within that seed, before becoming the manifestation we refer to as 'The Universe' - including consciousness, which I interpret as being an evident creative proponent in the unfolding process of that manifestation.

The evidence that everything which altogether makes up the universe includes consciousness. Therefore consciousness must have existed in the 'seed' along with everything else. Like gravity and the electron, consciousness was released with the Big Bang.

No, there is no evidence that consciousness did or could exist until the right physical structures existed.

Nor is there any evidence that consciousness didn't or couldn't exist until the right physical structures existed. Present day scientific processes simply are not advanced enough to be in any way certain.

There is zero empirical data that consciousness exists outside of certain things that have certain structured formations (I'm talking about brains here). You can claim all you want that consciousness exists outside of physical brains and permeates the entire universe, but it's all just baseless conjecture on your part.

The difference between your position and my own is that I can agree that present day science can indeed be interpreted as correct re your interpretation of the data Kenisaw, but also that it might not be and thus, metaphysics remains a viable option - another way of interpreting the same data.
You on the other hand, categorically claim that it cannot. In your mind ALL the evidence is in, the jury has deliberated and the verdict returned in favor of your position. In my mind, ALL the evidence is not in, and won't be any time soon...thus - as I said - "metaphysics remains a viable option - another way of interpreting the same data."

Certainly I am not discounting the fact that biological forms do indeed offer an opportunity for consciousness to examine itself by, being that these are readily measurable in terms of signs of consciousness and accompanying intelligence, and not all of those even have brains. It is fascinating stuff.

It is harder to determine if forms such as our own Sun, are conscious, although the idea of the Earth being the form of a conscious creative intelligent entity is not so hard to accept as possible.

[yt]SFhsObpja8A[/yt]

Alas though, present day science in it's relative infancy has yet to develop any device which could test that hypothesis, and doesn't look to be currently too interested in doing so - but to be fair, the investors which could make that possible seem more interested in things which will secure good returns on said investments. Scientists have to go where the funding is, and so the terms of their research are dictated to them whether they like that or not.

Stunningly unscientific. There's no evidence for this thing you claim exists, so your conclusion is that we just haven't figured out yet how to gather the evidence that you think must exist. That's utter nonsense I'm afraid

There is no need for you to be afraid Kenisaw. Nor is there any need for you to infer that scientists have figured out how to gather the evidence that I think might exist. If I am correct, then the evidence WILL exist. It cannot be shown as yet that I am incorrect, because scientist have yet to figure out how to gather such evidence. As I said above, they have to be funded for such, but also they have to be willing to at least take the idea seriously enough to be interested in proving or disproving it.

There's no evidence or empirical data for this universal consciousness, or that any entity's consciousness is connected in any way to any other entity's consciousness. You are doing nothing more than baselessly speculating via leaps of unsupported logic as to a presumed source of consciousness. It's patently irrational. You are interpreting unrelated data and rationalizing it to fit your factless claim.

The fault I see in your complaint above Kenisaw, it the idea that data is unrelated. All data in this universe is related. Until you can accept that as a matter of fact, your position remains encased within a prefabricated misunderstanding of the universe.

Like I said above;

The difference between your position and my own is that I can agree that present day science can indeed be interpreted as correct re your interpretation of the data Kenisaw, but also that it might not be and thus, metaphysics remains a viable option - another way of interpreting the same data.
You on the other hand, categorically claim that it cannot. In your mind ALL the evidence is in, the jury has deliberated and the verdict returned in favor of your position. In my mind, ALL the evidence is not in, and won't be any time soon...thus - as I said - "metaphysics remains a viable option - another way of interpreting the same data."

The brain also has a physical structure which can be measured in detail. Without that structure there is no evidence of consciousness. Alter that structure and you alter the consciousness of that particular entity. Consciousness may be largely a mystery still, but it's obviously sourced from the physical structure and chemical and electrical interactions inside brains.

It is not obvious at all Kenisaw. It is your personal interpretation of what might be occurring which you are conflating to be what is actually occurring, and in that you err.

Also, altering the structure of the brain does not alter consciousness. It simply alters what consciousness is able to to in relation to that brain. That is just as likely the true interpretation as the one you are in support of. All the evidence is simply NOT in, and that is the fact which your position has to overlook by claiming that all the evidence is indeed in.

I am working with a theory that states everything which comprises the universe existed in an object smaller than the smallest object presently known to humankind.
The assumption which is tagged to this theory is that the universe manifested from that point to this current one, as a chaotic disorganized event.

I am simply observing the event without that assumption, hence the analogy of the seed.

There's no proof for gods, or for universal consciousness.

That all depends on how one interprets the data already obtained, and if one accepts that there is more we all don't know about this universe than what we do know. Your trying to sidestep that fact doesn't help your argument.

As I said;

The difference between your position and my own is that I can agree that present day science can indeed be interpreted as correct re your interpretation of the data Kenisaw, but also that it might not be and thus, metaphysics remains a viable option - another way of interpreting the same data.
You on the other hand, categorically claim that it cannot. In your mind ALL the evidence is in, the jury has deliberated and the verdict returned in favor of your position. In my mind, ALL the evidence is not in, and won't be any time soon...thus - as I said - "metaphysics remains a viable option - another way of interpreting the same data."

Obviously we differ as to how we choose to interpret our reality, but the assumption which allows for the claim that consciousness derives from the chemical reactions in the brain and then makes the claim that consciousness is emergent of the brain, is still speculation and does not take into account other evidence which brings such interpretation into question.

Right, other evidences, which are never provided by you.

See my members notes, which are well organized and indexed for ease of access as these definitely render your claim that I NEVER provide evidence, as an untruthful declaration on your part.

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD [img]https://debatingchris

tianity.com/forum/templates/Igloo/images/icon_latest_reply.gif[/img]

♦ On the theory of the universe having always existed and will always exist.


♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.

♦ Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?

♦ The Earth Entity

♦ Looking into the science of Astral Projection

♦ Near Death Experiences

Of course, if you are specifically meaning empirical evidence which can be scientifically verified etc, then this;

♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"

Or is this where we make the unconnected leap from the fact of conscious beings to the claim that consciousness exists separate from conscious beings, which isn't evidence but a false leap in logic?

I have never claimed that consciousness exists separate from conscious beings, as my own theology based in metaphysics has it that we are aspects of ONE consciousness and that any feelings of separation are purely based in the understanding that this particular universe was designed to give that impression, but the impression is all that it is really. A superficial illusion which is easily enough seen through by the individual interested in doing so.

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

There is no verdict, only ongoing learning.

Then you are best not to continue to imply that what you are interpreting from the data is absolutely correct and that any other interpretation is therefore incorrect. Otherwise you contradict yourself with expressions such as the above.