Yes, we all have our "reality," but if everything is interconnected (even on the level of the electron), how much of that do we perceive? And what makes us so sure that there aren't an infinite number of reality all woven together? Alot of scientists consider this to be a very real possibility. And as far as "materialism" is concerend, haven't we discovered it's all energy? What if it's consciousness forming energy?

As sometimes happens (I'm embarassed to say) I spoke to quickly when I replied to this last night. I said that I would not0 accept that there were no "things" without consciousness, not even 50% true.

On reflection (and a little sleep), I would modify that somewhat. I still hold that the universe, and the matter in it, are real enough. I will grant, however, that our perceptions are only one of many possible. For that reason, what the universe may look like to us, how the "surface" aspect of anything might appear (or even whether, with different sensory apparatus any surface might be obvious at all) is by no means a given. Even whether the matter that we perceive might appear solid, even that is open for question.

There's no question, for example, that the petals of a flower appear vastly different to the bee (which perceives light in part of the spectrum that we do not), than it does to us. But I would still argue that the "flower" -- however it might appear, seem, smell, feel or in other fashions be brought to the awarenesss of other creatures -- is still real in the sense that it is matter, it is organized, and it is living.
Well, you see in part you've made my point by asking if "everything" is interconnected. That itself makes the case that "things" exist independent of our consciousness of them.

What the ultimate nature of the stuff of the universe really is, and how it might be interconnected, is still very much up-in-the-air, and I'm not well-versed enough in the sciences to make a case for any particular viewpoint. But don't, please, make the mistake of supposing that anything in such programs as "What the Bleep Do We Know?" are representative of the thinking of real scientists or philosophers.

Now, I agree that Einstein made the interconvertability of matter and energy obvious, which makes them different aspects of the same thing at some level I suppose, although they are not the same thing in the same state. Just as water and ice are the same thing, they have quite remarkably different properties, brought about by nothing but temperature.

And finally, your question, "what if it's consciousness forming energy," I would have to say that this is still backwards. We can do very real experiments in which consciousness is taken away yet the level of energy in the thing being observed changes not even a fraction. We cannot do an experiment which removes all energy from a living system, and see consciousness remain (let alone try to produce some more energy to replace that which was taken away). Such a system is dead.

And you must remember something else, too. Consciousness requires that energy (or matter, really) be exceptionally highly organized. Energy/matter in amorphous clouds, in spite of Star Trek, cannot be organized enough to provide consciousness or intelligence. The organizing principle for you and I is the brain.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

So then what is the purpose, the function?
Just a random bunch of chemicals accidentally organizing into higher forms to do what?
The materialist point of view is so pointless as it is devoid of purpose and meaningful function.

As we all know form follows function, so then what is the function which our form follows?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which is like saying that when the rely tower is down you will get no cell service, but this does not disprove the existence of satellites or wireless communication.

It seems you are wedded to the notion that life came to be as it is all at once. Yet the evidence suggests that, rather than being created (including, for reasons that escape me, the anopheles mosquito) on October 31, 4004 BC, it has evolved over hundreds of millions of tiny steps. That process indeed has a function -- the survival and replication of the genetic material that defines it. And interestingly, that function both partakes of and participates in the resulting form.

Please, at least try to study Darwin. Jumping from non-life to human life all at once is -- at least according to any evidence available on this planet -- is kind of unlikely.

But if you can think of a reason that the anopheles mosquito was created along with man, do please let us in on the secret. I'm sure it'll be most fascinating, not to mention spiritual.
But you see, tomorrow when the relay tower is back up again, we will get wireless service again. That should, to anybody actually looking at cause and effect, suggest that the problem was the tower, not the non-existence of wireless.

But wait, there are more than 6 billion working brains on the planet right this very moment. Could you just provide some evidence, since "the tower is up and functioning," of consciousness that exists without a brain to support it? Once again, I'm certain we'd all be fascinated.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Not to mention that relay towers are predicated upon the existence of satellites which were put up in order to transmit a signal, so he's putting the cart before the horse.

I have, and I think that things did evolve over a long period of time.
I think that the creationist date which you mentioned is bollocks.
You mistake me for a christian, which I am not.
I agree with the "intelligent design" position rather than the "random accident" position.

The sudden disappearance of neanderthal and the equally sudden rise of homo sapiens does give credence to speculations such as Zachariah Sitchin's (if you are familiar with any of his works).
Also, the lack of a "missing link" creates many difficulties for the accidental evolutionist. Perhaps one exists, or, perhaps there is more to the story than the accepted version would have us believe.

Currently man's present function seems rather viral as we are destroying our host planet which is not symbiotic and are extincting species whose function we don't even know which also took a long time to develop. Very unwise of us supposedly oh so smart monkeys.

On what level do you think that these 6 billion brains are presently working at right now? optimum levels? No, the "relay towers" are not working very well, they seem to be impaired or "retarded" somehow and no one has yet been able to do anything about it.

I also do not have any respect for these humanistic/materialistic arguments which lead to people who believe in "spiritual realities" being viewed as being mentally ill. It has happened several times in the past century and many people were murdered and incarcerated due to such cruel and unhumanitarian thinking. So I have no fondness for those positions or ideals.

You know, it is a most amazing thing that, after all I've written here on spirituality (including the fact that it does not depend upon religious belief for its existence), that you would suggest I think people with such feelings as being mentally ill.

And you make a terrible mistake if you believe that humanism is incapable of looking deeply into the mysteries of existence and the necessities of human ethics and morality.

You make a further mistake when you write as you did in such a way as to imply that it is only "materialists" and "humanists" who have been cruel to other people. It is not religion, or science, or humanism, or atheism that makes people cruel. Outside of the few sociopaths, it is usually misguided dogma (whether that dogma is political, religious or scientistic), unmitigated by a sense of the value of the individual human person that results in the direst cruelties.

Even worse, I'm afraid, is the notion that there are objective moral values which we can "tap into" without regard to understanding human needs. This is the idea that, somehow, God is the source of objective moral value. Unfortunately, of course, God isn't telling us what those are, so we are still left with having to figure them out ourselves.

And before you tell me that God does give us what we need, allow me to point out that from one religion to the next, God seems to be giving different messages. No, not about murder, stealing and so on. Those are easy, and they are excessively human, since each such act hurts another human. We don't need God to tell us that.

Yet in one church alone, the Anglican/Episcopal Church, Bishops have been praying mightily looking for inspired revelation on the issues of female Bishops and homosexuality. And guess what -- God sends each of them a different answer. Could it possibly be that it isn't God, after all?

Or maybe God gets a kick out of schism.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

don't take it personally as it was not aimed at you personally. It was aimed at the ideal and what that ideal leads to. You are not your "ideal" no matter how intimately you identify with it.


It was not only those which committed crimes against humanity, but I am only referring to a certain kind of sociopathic behavior which we saw manifest in china and russia which were specifically targeting those who believed in "spiritual realities" and then used such pretexts to "legally" be cruel. This is where, historically, such ideals have led. That is a material reality with loads of evidence.


The lesson I see therein is that we need to learn how to get along without outside intervention. As a species we have evolved/grown and as a being grows there are stages of interaction from the "guardian". Some things just have to be figured out on one's own for them to be known and understood, otherwise they are imposed values which are of little value.
It is sad to see that people are still waiting for god to wipe up their own messes. God helps those who help themselves.
Do as you will, but do no harm.

Not really. I believe in what has been called a "living Godiverse:" that our universe is a sapient organism. I already believe there's probably at least one other, our parent/ Creator. The possibility of a multitude is already there.

__________________
We do not fear the night, who have loved the stars so fondly.