Mr Newton's Classroom

[Brain Man]

Last thing on this topic i hope then.

Basically you have mined out the most problematic and worst representation of harleys work possible for scientific purposes which is itself telling. I have already debated and disagreed on the part you quoted with him. Obviously it is a spiritual pattern based inductive reasoning in that section, and that of course is not a strict or accepted scientific process.

In fact i was pretty surprised, because under normal circumstances i would be reluctant to read further myself as i am an atheist, and used to associate a belief in god with bad thinking, however i ignored that because it is known inductive pattern reasoning tempered with periods of practical testing can be extremely powerful, so i never reject this kind of material till i dig round it far more than you have obviously tried.

Pattern Induction is useful for scientific analysis because patterns do exist in nature at all levels of scale. Garret Lisi has revealed that maybe one complex pattern ties it all together. There are patterns for electron orbitals, patterns and structures in the universe. Patterns in biology, fractals and all the good books and breakthroughs written on this topic could fill a room.

Then I noticed that harley had made posts on astronomy and physics news articles which showed quite an depth knowledge and more to the point, very concise and integrated creative solutions to all kinds of gaps in our knowledge. A few grabbed my attention and i wrote to him for more information. Well i was pretty blown away by the depth and the solutions. I don't agree with all of them, but then he is himself unsure, and its a journey in progress. I have now changed my previously narrow view regarding the idea that a religious belief orientated person cannot be a theorist that has insight and possible breakthroughs about the natural world. For some people religion is a necessity for aspects of emotional living, but may not impinge too greatly on logic in other areas.

It is very clear to me that Harley Borgais is a generalized deep thinker, digging away relentlessly into the pattern aspect of the natural world. There is nothing wrong with this approach for what it does. You make the effort, you may find some nuggets of gold in there. No its not journal material, but since when did that really matter for descriptive looks at the natural world ?

Actually don't answer that. Its completely pointless having a discussion with a no, no, no..all wrong type of character such as yourself.

[harleyborgais]

I really want to say something at this point...

I used to not believe in God, and was back and forth on the issue for the first few years of my research (1999-present).

Eventually I reasoned what consciousness was (in its absolute most basic form: Self Awareness), I figured out how Matter Must have formed in the beginning, and how it must also be forming today by that chain-reaction, and I realized there must have been a structure of energy before there was matter, and that this structure was more complicated than the most basic consciousness. Therefore I realized why there is a God, how God created our universe, and why God does not interfere much with our existence. Because we have the creativity and freewill to understand our own existence (just like God does), and therefore the responsibility to do so in a Creative (never Destructive) manner.

Also, when I have followed this path my "Luck" was good, but when my Luck went bad, I could always figure how I was straying from my path, and correcting the issue always increased by luck.

Anyways, the following concepts seem totally irrational to me; that a black hole is a singularity, or has infinite mass, infinite density, or the idea that all matter came from one explosion, which came from nothing (no previous matter or consciousness). Wouldn't you all agree with that?

[harleyborgais]

It will still be a while before I can really reply to all of these, but thank you for your constructive criticism, it is really helping me. I have chosen to subject my work to this at this early (Rough Draft) stage for a reason, and this is it. Thank You all.

[harleyborgais]

Here is one thing I just added to "How We Exist" in response to a comment by JOZeldenrust:
"The curves are considered the female aspect of reality, and the lines represent the male aspect. The curves represent the more dynamic and creative aspect, while the lines are the more rigid, mathematical aspect of existence."

Does that help?

[JOZeldenrust]

Here is one thing I just added to "How We Exist" in response to a comment by JOZeldenrust:
"The curves are considered the female aspect of reality, and the lines represent the male aspect. The curves represent the more dynamic and creative aspect, while the lines are the more rigid, mathematical aspect of existence."

Does that help?

Not really, but I do appreciate the effort.

I'd very much like to know what "the more dynamic and creative aspect" is, and what makes it dynamic and creative. How I can distinguish the the dynamic, creative aspect of reality from the "more rigid, mathematical aspect". In other words, operational definitions.

[Brain Man]

I really want to say something at this point...

I used to not believe in God, and was back and forth on the issue for the first few years of my research (1999-present).

Eventually I reasoned what consciousness was (in its absolute most basic form: Self Awareness), I figured out how Matter Must have formed in the beginning, and how it must also be forming today by that chain-reaction, and I realized there must have been a structure of energy before there was matter, and that this structure was more complicated than the most basic consciousness.

its the other way around. Consciousness and intelligence is more complicated than the structure of matter. The definitions for intelligence worked out for Ai, are based on the whole idea that intelligent systems increase their complexity. Even if they utilize simple structures in nature such as electromagnetism, its being used for a far more complex operation. Intelligence is the emergence of information systems that can integrate their own process and react to the environment with a complexity transition to a more complex state. If anything we fit your definition of God, which is why our brains think there are gods, because we evolved paranoia of each others complex intentions. This is where the idea of god comes from. Its been proven scientifically although if you want you can just argue that all these results were put there by a god. But then thats a paranoid argument which helps build the scientific theory. So really its a non issue. There was never any point in debating about god or proving anything about it, as its a not an issue for rational discussion. Its an emotional need and state.

Intelligence builds itself over matter through self organization. Information theory can explain it all quite logically. It does not seem so amazing when you consider it took 700,000,000 years for it to get to us bit by bit from the initial emergence of our current neuronal proteins, which themselves only took billions of years to self evolve with a seasonal mutation cycle.

Therefore I realized why there is a God, how God created our universe, and why God does not interfere much with our existence. Because we have the creativity and freewill to understand our own existence (just like God does), and therefore the responsibility to do so in a Creative (never Destructive) manner.

Again this re-enforces the neuropsychology of God. You attribute our own psychological process of self understanding which is part of intelligence to something larger beyond your control. Its a form of paranoia whereby we evolved the need to quickly attribute intentional cause and effect so we can be ready to react to predators. In humans this frontal lobe mechanism become out of control as the brain grew and we used this mechanism in many other areas, such as tribal politics and understanding of ills in the environment. If the paranoia of it gets out of control you are reduced to a state of calm resignation basically, because if intentional attribution of anxiety is channeled into a spiritual belief where nothing transpired that was bad you become spiritually calm due to prolonged paranoia with no external stimulus. Thats the psychology of it. Its a mind loop whereby you can keep referring to something beyond your control.

Also, when I have followed this path my "Luck" was good, but when my Luck went bad, I could always figure how I was straying from my path, and correcting the issue always increased by luck.

When you follow the path that reduces anxiety you will tend to do better in the world, at least in the short term. This is just basic psychology.

[Brain Man]

Here is one thing I just added to "How We Exist" in response to a comment by JOZeldenrust:
"The curves are considered the female aspect of reality, and the lines represent the male aspect. The curves represent the more dynamic and creative aspect, while the lines are the more rigid, mathematical aspect of existence."

Does that help?

Not really, but I do appreciate the effort.

I'd very much like to know what "the more dynamic and creative aspect" is, and what makes it dynamic and creative. How I can distinguish the the dynamic, creative aspect of reality from the "more rigid, mathematical aspect". In other words, operational definitions.

This would be more like terms used in system analysis. Linear, non linear, sequential, variation, deduction, abduction etc. You can defined these attributes like this. Ai programmers are working on this stuff just now with IBM watson being the most public example. They aim to make machines think creatively, although watsons algorithms are not the best example of this.



Harley, notice the first thing that happens when Watson is posted on youtube beating humans in an intelligence type reactions. Paranoid reactions. People thinking IBM is the first step towards a skynet terminator with higher power who can wipe us out. This is again our intentional stance going into overdrive, but its more active or regulated in some people than others. If you believe that IBM is the start of Skynet you will likely think the moon landing was a hoax or conspiracy theories in general. Its generalized paranoia, but paranoia is hard to reason with, because its scared of reasoning as this will destroy the underlying spirituality and the pleasurable creative states that are the bipolar flipside of paranoia. Paranoia basically just wants to keep you protected until you can maintain creative flow without interruption.

There isn't any point in trying to destroy paranoia or the seat of God and attributions then. Its a set of active circuits in the brain that you are more likely developed early on in life, or even genetically there which can make you creative and cannot be taken out. The best thing to do with such a state of mind in this day is to ensure you have space and isolation from the rough and tumble of the environment to exist in state of positive creative feedback.

[Brain Man]

Ok ill simplify all this now as i was trying to figure as i go there.


God is basically a fear of greater intelligence gone haywire. You can test peoples reactions to intelligence just by telling them you are PHD student and watch what happens. If they are of lower intelligence the reaction will be almost paranoid if you are anything but a doctor, and you don't immediately try to make that person at ease with how you apply your intelligence. If the person you tell this to is of average intelligence and education it would be less paranoid and more respectful as they have more insight into the education process. You will not need to justify where you are coming from either.

So paranoia is a function of the reaction to intelligence in proportion to how easily you can integrate an understanding of intelligence into yourself. Hence most paranoia is concentrated on integrated organization of groups of people with intelligence and resources to do something with that intelligence such as Government or corporations, where a centralized agenda with an intention is set.

This is why it is has become an issue of intelligence in your quest for God and why Ai and its potential brings out the most current drama in our fears. There are other types of primary fears in our brain as well of course, such as small things, large things, disease etc, but they play second fiddle to our fear of intelligence and that is really where god comes from.

[harleyborgais]

Sorry it has been so long since my last reply. I have been focusing on: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... 2-180.html

There I have been trying to convince people that Black Holes are made of Dark Matter which is made of Coupled and Crystallized Neutron Masses (only formed during Supernova explosions of about 3x the Suns mass, and with spherical symmetry).

I will respond to the posts addressing me soon, but here is something to discuss for now...


Proving God Requires Defining Consciousness

I think God was the first conscious entity, who supposedly created all other conscious entities, and along the way physical reality.

Therefore, the first important step in proving anything about the first consciousness is to Define Consciousness.

Tell me what you think about this definition for Consciousness:

A System of Mutually Inductive (Resonating, Harmonizing) Energy Fields (like our Neurons in our Brains forming our Minds), which can change its own responses to external stimuli according to what is most beneficial to itself.

A Stable atom possesses the same properties and is therefore conscious, but not intelligent. Intelligence as we know it is a vastly greater level of complexity.

[harleyborgais]

Here are some definitions of Consciousness...

think:
12.to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon
15.to analyze or evolve rationally
17.to anticipate or expect
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/think)

Self-conscious
2. conscious of oneself or one's own being.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-conscious)

Roget's Dictionary defines "conscious" as:
-Aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
-Having knowledge of something; aware : we are conscious of the extent of the problem."

con·scious
1.aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of ): conscious of one's own faults;
5.aware of what one is doing:

World English Dictionary
conscious— adj
1. a. alert and awake; not sleeping or comatose
b. aware of one's surroundings, one's own thoughts and motivations, etc
2. a. aware of and giving value or emphasis to a particular fact or phenomenon
4. b. ( as noun ): the conscious is only a small part of the mind

Medical Dictionary
con·scious definition
Pronunciation: /ˈkän-chəs/
Function: adj
1 : capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception
2 : having mental faculties undulled by sleep, faintness, or stupor conscious

1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscious)

[harleyborgais]

It was asked on: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 553AA9TAcJ
But does that mean that a slug, say, or a house fly is a conscious being?
how do you "ask" slug his thoughts on something?
Your answer got at the specific point I was questioning: consciousness surely must impliy some form cognitive recognition of the organism's surroundings, not just instinctive "awareness" or "reaction". My Roget's Dictioinary definition is shallow, isn't it?


----Well it seems quite obvious to me that both the Slug and House Fly are conscious: --------

[harleyborgais]

It seems that any conscious entity can also exist in a state of unconscious. That is one key to figuring out the simplest conscious entity.
It also seems like intent is one thing exhibited only by conscious entities, but is exhibited by even the simplest conscious things (even particles sometimes).

Is it possible to be conscious, but not complex enough to be Self-Aware?
And what is the simplest conscious thing? Paramecium, micro-tubules, DNA Molecules, Viruses, Cells, Atoms, Bacteria?

BrainMan, do you have any reference you can post about micro-tubules reacting with apparent intentions?

I think that Intent will break down to simply Momentum; You are headed that way (mentally), so you have that intention.

[harleyborgais]

BrainMan said:

"Intelligence is the emergence of information systems that can integrate their own process and react to the environment with a complexity transition to a more complex state.
Intelligence builds itself over matter through self organization.
...we evolved the need to quickly attribute intentional cause and effect so we can be ready to react to predators.

[harleyborgais]

BrainMan:

When you follow the path that reduces anxiety you will tend to do better in the world, at least in the short term. This is just basic psychology."

Actually, the choices I have made have increased my anxiety because they have often been the harder ones. They have been the choices to do the hard work, instead of taking the path of least resistance. The effect of these decisions has been both increased anxiety, but also more beneficial outcomes on average for my endeavors and a far more frequent fulfilling of my wishes.

[LucidFlight]

This thread is so awesome I cannot find the proper words to describe it, other than,
"This thread is so awesome I cannot find the proper words to describe it."