Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 272. (Read 845578 times)

legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
May 05, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
Logical self-reference provides the 'independent network' capable of "learn[ing] to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network's hidden units."


Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 6. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
It is interesting to consider under which conditions a representation will remain unconscious based on combining these two principles (Cleeremans, 2008). There are at least four possibilities. First, knowledge that is embedded in the connection weights within and between processing modules can never be directly available to conscious awareness and control. This is simply a consequence of the fact that consciousness, by assumption, necessarily involves representations (patterns of activation over processing units). The knowledge embedded in connection weights will, however, shape the representations that depend on it, and its effects will therefore detectable – but only indirectly, and only to the extent that these effects are sufficiently marked in the corresponding representations. This is equivalent to Dehaene and Changeux’s (2004) principle of “active firing.”

Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 11. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
In closing, there is one dimension that I feel is sorely missing from contemporary discussion of consciousness: Emotion (but see, e.g., Damasio, 1999, 2010; LeDoux, 2002; Tsuchiya and Adolphs, 2007). Emotion is crucial to learning, for there is no sense in which an agent would learn about anything if the learning failed to do something to it. Conscious experience not only requires an experiencer who has learned about the geography of its own representations, but it also requires experiencers who care about their experiences.

A couple points:

1)  With regards to the first quotation (see emboldened phrases):  I dislike assumptions.  I try to avoid them if possible.  In this case, it is.

Also, I find the idea that knowledge is embedded between processing modules problematic, at least inasmuch as it would be relevant to, well...processing modules.  Practically, this consideration seems to fall by the wayside of any relevance, both as a response to my comment and to you or I.

2)  
Quote
e·mo·tion
əˈmōSH(ə)n/
noun
a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
"she was attempting to control her emotions"
synonyms:   feeling, sentiment; More
instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge.
"responses have to be based on historical insight, not simply on emotion"
synonyms:   instinct, intuition, gut feeling; More

Since we know pre-limbic living things learn, too, I'm focusing on the emboldened characteristics of the word "emotion."  Accordingly, I'm having a hard time understanding why learning requires experiencers who care about experiences.  

Quote
learn·ing
ˈlərniNG/Submit
noun
the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught.
"these children experienced difficulties in learning"
synonyms:   study, studying, education, schooling, tuition, teaching, academic work; research
"a center of learning"
knowledge acquired through experience, study, or being taught.
"I liked to parade my learning in front of my sisters"
synonyms:   scholarship, knowledge, education, erudition, intellect, enlightenment, illumination, edification, book learning, information, understanding, wisdom
"the astonishing range of his learning"

Based upon these definitions: 1) Emotion is defined independent of reason or knowledge; 2) Learning is knowledge acquisition.

Original claim:  Learning requires experiencers care about their experiences.

Premise 1:  Emotion = not reason or knowledge
Premise 2:  Learning = acquiring knowledge
Premise 3 (Introduced): Caring is an emotional experience.

Rephrased claim:  Those able to acquire knowledge are enabled by an unreasonable, unknowledgeable experience.

Edit:  To clarify, I understand the differences between general experience, emotional experience, and learning from emotional experience (e.g. "This makes me feel bad/good").  I just don't find it convincing at all that a learner requires an emotional experience, which by definition provides no reason or knowledge upon which to act.  I think we can learn just fine by following logical rules of inference which yield sound conclusions whether we give a damn or not.

Edit 2:  I'd like to give some further thought to whether incentives are required for learning.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
May 05, 2015, 01:59:30 AM
If god exist, he need put some text under this line  Grin Grin Grin
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahem!!! You want some text?

Ow just quoted this message and there was already a text.. hhhhmmm

Yep - lying is the way religion BS spreads!
full member
Activity: 164
Merit: 100
May 05, 2015, 01:52:44 AM
If god exist, he need put some text under this line  Grin Grin Grin
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahem!!! You want some text?

Ow just quoted this message and there was already a text.. hhhhmmm
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
May 04, 2015, 10:40:58 PM
Ah, but one could easily design an experiment to eliminate this bias. The truly skeptical should do just that!

Natural selection already has: had “purple” been of such great benefit to plants, it would be (at least, more) ubiquitous in the plant kingdom.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
May 04, 2015, 10:33:18 PM
The universe is a network of peers that's why quantum superpositions and such are possible.

Quote from: Ahmed Farag Ali, Saurya Das. “Cosmology from Quantum Potential.” _Physics Letters B_ 741 (2015): 276-279. 278. 04 Apr. 235. link=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057
In summary, we have shown here that as for the QRE, the second order Friedmann equation derived from the QRE also contains two quantum correction terms. These terms are generic and unavoidable and follow naturally in a quantum mechanical description of our universe. Of these, the first can be interpreted as cosmological constant or dark energy of the correct (observed) magnitude and a small mass of the graviton (or axion). The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
May 04, 2015, 10:31:53 PM
Logical self-reference provides the 'independent network' capable of "learn[ing] to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network's hidden units."


Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 6. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
It is interesting to consider under which conditions a representation will remain unconscious based on combining these two principles (Cleeremans, 2008). There are at least four possibilities. First, knowledge that is embedded in the connection weights within and between processing modules can never be directly available to conscious awareness and control. This is simply a consequence of the fact that consciousness, by assumption, necessarily involves representations (patterns of activation over processing units). The knowledge embedded in connection weights will, however, shape the representations that depend on it, and its effects will therefore detectable – but only indirectly, and only to the extent that these effects are sufficiently marked in the corresponding representations. This is equivalent to Dehaene and Changeux’s (2004) principle of “active firing.”

Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 11. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
In closing, there is one dimension that I feel is sorely missing from contemporary discussion of consciousness: Emotion (but see, e.g., Damasio, 1999, 2010; LeDoux, 2002; Tsuchiya and Adolphs, 2007). Emotion is crucial to learning, for there is no sense in which an agent would learn about anything if the learning failed to do something to it. Conscious experience not only requires an experiencer who has learned about the geography of its own representations, but it also requires experiencers who care about their experiences.
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 250
May 04, 2015, 08:06:25 PM
The universe is a network of peers that's why quantum superpositions and such are possible.

So it logically follows that the creator of the universe is obviously the all-powerful all-knowing all good spaceless timeless uncaused transcendent personal deity who chose the ancient jewish desert dwellers to write down his message on scrolls and then eventually reveal himself to the rest of us by doing things like turning water into wine while in the form of his own son, an ancient Jewish carpenter who was eventually sacrificed so that he could forgive you for not living up to standards that are impossible for you to live up to.
original wall of text is credit to darkmatter2525

Well actually, it logically follows that the creator of the universe is us, The observer(s?)
legendary
Activity: 868
Merit: 1058
Creator of Nexus http://nexus.io
May 04, 2015, 01:34:52 PM
The mind carries many latent "circuits" that must be activated through the blueprint encoded in the 56 unused base pairs of DNA.

The universe functions similar to that of a bio computer - we can see formations of such processes through mathematics, physics, and computation. Consciousness is only EM energy vibrating at a high enough frequency to allow movement in less time frames, giving many the perception of it being "conscious" when "conscious" is a state everything exists in, relative to the plane / dimension in which they vibrate in.

Similar effects are seen in electron orbital patterns, as their signature shape is directly influenced by the energy state of the leptons, in which by jumping levels, the electrons change the way they are perceived, even though quantum spin 1/2 particles are not fully perceivable in 3D frames [time].

Thank You,
Viz.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
May 04, 2015, 12:42:20 PM
Finally, to demonstrate just how necessary philosophy is, keep in mind that science is wholly incapable of exploring, verifying, or concluding upon its own assumptions.  The assumption of a Positivistic Universe is fundamentally required for scientific exploration, and yet 1) there is not a shred of evidence that such a Universe exists, and 2) the assumption itself is empirically unfalsifiable.

But if the assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. It's unscientific), why does science permit its use?  The answer is simple: science yields to Philosophy to justify the Positivistic Universe assumption by deferring to the rules and limitations of sound inference via inductive reasoning.

Again, philosophical explanations > empirical explanations 100% of the time.


One product of the Positivistic Universe is the Computational Theory of the Mind (CTM) in which the mind was reduced to being the byproduct of a highly sophisticated, biological computer—the brain.

Irreducible Mind skillfully argues that CTM is empirically false and provides detailed documentation of what CTM cannot explain. For example, CTM never addresses how consciousness could arise from the brain, and anomalous experiences suggest otherwise. CTM can’t even account for some of our everyday experiences, such as volition, or free will. CTM is a theory that reflects its origins rather than the richness of human experience.

http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/

Yes.  The problem with CTM is that it ignores the effect of perception on the brain as it is defined.  That is, it ignores that the theory itself emerges from the product of the thing it tries to explain in the first place.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 12:39:06 PM
Hi QuestionAuthority:
You use armchair skepticism, but you never bothered to experiment with the plate... The point is this:

One's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible; kindly reference again Nagel's arguments and the latest research in mind science:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/thomas-nagel-and-the-anathema-of-questioning-materialism
http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/

Also, on that second link you will find mention of the word hypnosis. I have made a post about that subject here. Please keep in mind that Knowledge that is not your own is dangerous, more dangerous than ignorance.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 12:29:08 PM
Finally, to demonstrate just how necessary philosophy is, keep in mind that science is wholly incapable of exploring, verifying, or concluding upon its own assumptions.  The assumption of a Positivistic Universe is fundamentally required for scientific exploration, and yet 1) there is not a shred of evidence that such a Universe exists, and 2) the assumption itself is empirically unfalsifiable.

But if the assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. It's unscientific), why does science permit its use?  The answer is simple: science yields to Philosophy to justify the Positivistic Universe assumption by deferring to the rules and limitations of sound inference via inductive reasoning.

Again, philosophical explanations > empirical explanations 100% of the time.


One product of the Positivistic Universe is the Computational Theory of the Mind (CTM) in which the mind was reduced to being the byproduct of a highly sophisticated, biological computer—the brain.

Irreducible Mind skillfully argues that CTM is empirically false and provides detailed documentation of what CTM cannot explain. For example, CTM never addresses how consciousness could arise from the brain, and anomalous experiences suggest otherwise. CTM can’t even account for some of our everyday experiences, such as volition, or free will. CTM is a theory that reflects its origins rather than the richness of human experience.

http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
May 04, 2015, 12:24:16 PM
It has been two months since this post:



God is love. In my opinion, The love energy "purple plate" is physical evidence of God.

Science has proven that by projecting love or positive energy to a plant, the plant will flourish. The plate energy will also do the same thing to plants. Burns, cuts, aches and pains involve a sudden change to the normal vibration rate of tissue. The theory is that the energy around the plates helps to accelerate the healing and thus return the injured area to its normal rate of vibration.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_universalenergy09.htm

Precisely how the plates work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you. There are so many mini-miracles the plates accomplish (some of which you’ll discover for yourself) it’s difficult to detail all of them.

The effect that I notice most is that healing is noticeably accelerated.

This healing device is effective and since the forum's God thread also needs healing, I recommend researching and purchasing plates for yourself and your family. You can find the plates on Amazon.

I have a couple of those collectable Disney plates, would those work? I have a few genital warts that just won't go away. All those piercings and tattoos should have warned me the bitch was nasty. Do I rub the plates all over my crotch? Exactly how does that work?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
May 04, 2015, 11:48:14 AM
There is no way to use "placebo" as an explanation with plants.

One could, subconsciously, be providing better care to them.
Ah, but one could easily design an experiment to eliminate this bias. The truly skeptical should do just that!

Furthermore, one's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible


Quote from: Merriam-Webster. "Solipsism." 2015. Web. 04 May 2015. link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism
:  a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also :  extreme egocentrism

Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-11. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
In other words, such a network is unable to distinguish between a veridical perception and an hallucination. Doing so would require the existence of another, independent network, whose task it is to learn to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network’s hidden units. That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.




This fits with what I and Hatonn and Chopra have been saying about finding god within you and about metabiological evolution; a shift in the consciousness of consciousness.

For your reference, Deepak Chopra's The Way of the Wizard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyMfuTzSDLw
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
May 04, 2015, 09:37:46 AM
There is no way to use "placebo" as an explanation with plants.

One could, subconsciously, be providing better care to them.



Furthermore, one's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible


Quote from: Merriam-Webster. "Solipsism." 2015. Web. 04 May 2015. link=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism
:  a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also :  extreme egocentrism

Quote from: Axel Cleeremans. “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to Be Conscious.” _Frontiers in Psychology_ 2 (2011). 10-11. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
In other words, such a network is unable to distinguish between a veridical perception and an hallucination. Doing so would require the existence of another, independent network, whose task it is to learn to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network’s hidden units. That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.




Logic is axiomatically a predicate for logical networks (any network or system is self-apparently logical by virtue of its structure and consistency).

Logical self-reference provides the 'independent network' capable of "learn[ing] to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network's hidden units."
hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
May 04, 2015, 08:03:54 AM
You mean other then the world being 2015 years old? Shocked Grin

That statement always blows my mind there is no proof that he does our don't.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
May 03, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
Precisely how the pla[cebo]s work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you.

Quote from: UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute link=http://www.placebo.ucla.edu
One of the most puzzling facts of medicine is the placebo effect: namely, that a substantial proportion of patients report feeling better after receiving a "sugar pill," or some other treatment with no known benefit for their illness. Between 30 - 60% of patients with illnesses ranging from arthritis to depression report a substantial improvement in their symptoms after receiving a placebo. It is not clear that placebo can "cure" any illness, but the power of the placebo effect in improving symptoms and reducing suffering is impressive.

You use armchair skepticism, but you never bothered to experiment with the plate...

There is no way to use "placebo" as an explanation with plants.

Furthermore, one's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible; kindly reference again Nagel's arguments and the latest research in mind science:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/thomas-nagel-and-the-anathema-of-questioning-materialism
http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
May 03, 2015, 07:02:15 PM
Precisely how the pla[cebo]s work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you.

Quote from: UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute link=http://www.placebo.ucla.edu
One of the most puzzling facts of medicine is the placebo effect: namely, that a substantial proportion of patients report feeling better after receiving a "sugar pill," or some other treatment with no known benefit for their illness. Between 30 - 60% of patients with illnesses ranging from arthritis to depression report a substantial improvement in their symptoms after receiving a placebo. It is not clear that placebo can "cure" any illness, but the power of the placebo effect in improving symptoms and reducing suffering is impressive.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
May 03, 2015, 06:37:26 PM
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
May 03, 2015, 06:35:43 PM
It has been two months since this post:



God is love. In my opinion, The love energy "purple plate" is physical evidence of God.

Science has proven that by projecting love or positive energy to a plant, the plant will flourish. The plate energy will also do the same thing to plants. Burns, cuts, aches and pains involve a sudden change to the normal vibration rate of tissue. The theory is that the energy around the plates helps to accelerate the healing and thus return the injured area to its normal rate of vibration.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_universalenergy09.htm

Precisely how the plates work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you. There are so many mini-miracles the plates accomplish (some of which you’ll discover for yourself) it’s difficult to detail all of them.

The effect that I notice most is that healing is noticeably accelerated.

This healing device is effective and since the forum's God thread also needs healing, I recommend researching and purchasing plates for yourself and your family. You can find the plates on Amazon.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
April 27, 2015, 02:58:35 PM

This is entirely why the scientific method doesn't work when proving for God.

If you believe what you say, here, then you must simultaneously concede that your "proof" (i.e. the link you keep pasting over and over) is not proof at all.  Either you believe physical evidence can prove God's existence or you don't.  You can't have it both ways (and, furthermore, there is a correct answer despite your beliefs).

So, which is it?  Do you believe it is possible for physical evidence to prove God's existence, or not?

Quote
The universe includes everything. But, because of Who God is, the universe might not include God. Or God might be both within and without the universe. Or God might fill the universe as well as being within and without.

I find it easier to just stick with defined sets such as "real" and "unreal."  Using the phrase "Universe" isn't necessarily bad, but it does us little good to reference if there are instead multiple or parallel Universes that we cannot observe.

By sticking to "real" and "unreal," it doesn't make any difference how many Universes there are.  It also helps us avoid potential problems that you're alluding to, here.  If God is real, he is included within the set of Reality, and it doesn't matter whether or not he exists in this Universe.

Quote
There is no other meaning for "the universe" than "everything." So, science can't work with God the same as it works with the universe.

Smiley

Again, this problem is avoided by sticking to the sets 'Real' and 'Unreal.'
Jump to: