Comparative Religion: Godmen

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Nope, the movie suggests that consciousness collapses the wave-function. It's wrong.

I'm referring to the other assumptions you interpreted to be the premise of the movie and that are inaccurate.

The largest error in your judgment that leaps out at me is the idea the movie supposedly says that our view of reality only exists in our brains and is therefore a product of our brains. You realize that this movie is associated with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The idea that our view of reality comes through our brains, but stems from a larger consciousness or mind of the universe is the underlying premise. Based on this context, your critique collapses.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm referring to the other assumptions you interpreted to be the premise of the movie and that are inaccurate.

The largest error in your judgment that leaps out at me is the idea the movie supposedly says that our view of reality only exists in our brains and is therefore a product of our brains. You realize that this movie is associated with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. The idea that our view of reality comes through our brains, but stems from a larger consciousness or mind of the universe is the underlying premise. Based on this context, your critique collapses.

But it still says that consciousness is the collapse of the wave-function and thus all matter is produced by our consciousness including our brains which generate/produce/create/emerge/etc.. consciousness. With no brain there is no consciousness, the brain is a physical arrangement of matter and energy. Thus it cannot be that consciousness collapses the wave-function, because concsiousness depends on already collapsed wave-functions.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

But it still says that consciousness is the collapse of the wave-function and thus all matter is produced by our consciousness including our brains which generate/produce/create/emerge/etc.. consciousness. With no brain there is no consciousness, the brain is a physical arrangement of matter and energy. Thus it cannot be that consciousness collapses the wave-function, because concsiousness depends on already collapsed wave-functions.

Here is my point: "What the Bleep" does not assert this. You are asserting that "What the Bleep" asserts this, and then you are saying it's faulty. "What the Bleep" is not responsible for your faulty perception, and therefore for what you are criticizing.

You are the one who says without the brain there is no consciousness, not "What the Bleep"--they say otherwise.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Here is my point: "What the Bleep" does not assert this. You are asserting that "What the Bleep" asserts this, and then you are saying it's faulty. "What the Bleep" is not responsible for your faulty perception, and therefore for what you are criticizing.

You are the one who says without the brain there is no consciousness, not "What the Bleep"--they say otherwise.

It's fact Angelica. Haven't you ever been anaesthethized? Haven't you ever slept? Where was consciousness before your brain grew inside your skull?

ALL Evidence suggests that the brain is the cause of consciousness and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. The movie is absolutely philosophically and scientifically perverse! It's a mashing together of neurosis, a work of religious fiction. Anyone who believes that non-sense is functionally insane!

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's fact Angelica. Haven't you ever been anaesthethized? Haven't you ever slept? Where was consciousness before your brain grew inside your skull?

ALL Evidence suggests that the brain is the cause of consciousness and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. The movie is absolutely philosophically and scientifically perverse! It's a mashing together of neurosis, a work of religious fiction. Anyone who believes that non-sense is functionally insane!

I'm not disputing your assertion, Ahnimus.

I'm disputing when you are saying it's the assertion of "What the Bleep" and then using that false idea that it's their assertion to "prove" that their logic is "circular" and therefore false.

If you want to argue the idea that consciousness requires a brain, that is a different issue.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'm not disputing your assertion, Ahnimus.

I'm disputing when you are saying it's the assertion of "What the Bleep" and then using that false idea that it's their assertion to "prove" that their logic is "circular" and therefore false.

If you want to argue the idea that consciousness requires a brain, that is a different issue.

There is nothing to dispute over wether or not consciousness requires a brain.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

There is nothing to dispute over wether or not consciousness requires a brain.

I am disputing your false assumptions about what the movie "What the Bleep" is asserting.

A: you said: "The premise of what the bleep is that our view of reality only exists within our brains, and therefor reality is a product of our brains, but first me must have a real brain, and then that is something that is not within the control of our brain. And you see the whole argument of the movie crash down into a pile of shit."

B: The part that you attributed to "What the Bleep" that is bolded, is NOT something that they say. Therefore your "proof" that it is faulty logic, is, itself, faulty.

C: I understand that you believe that we must have a brain in order to have perception. And therefore to you the what the bleep idea is wrong.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I am disputing your false assumptions about what the movie "What the Bleep" is asserting.

A: you said: "The premise of what the bleep is that our view of reality only exists within our brains, and therefor reality is a product of our brains, but first me must have a real brain, and then that is something that is not within the control of our brain. And you see the whole argument of the movie crash down into a pile of shit."

B: The part that you attributed to "What the Bleep" that is bolded, is NOT something that they say. Therefore your "proof" that it is faulty logic, is, itself, faulty.

C: I understand that you believe that we must have a brain in order to have perception. And therefore to you the what the bleep idea is wrong.

A: That is what I said.

B: That part is in the movie, I've seen the movie 4 times and I remember quite clearly everything in the movie.

C: It's not a belief, it's the only workable theory.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

A: That is what I said.

B: That part is in the movie, I've seen the movie 4 times and I remember quite clearly everything in the movie.

C: It's not a belief, it's the only workable theory.

This is what the film's website says:

"The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further emphasis to the film’s underlying concept of the interconnectedness of all things. ...The chorus members act as hosts who live outside of the story, and from this Olympian view, comment on the actions of the characters below. They are also there to introduce the Great Questions framed by both science and religion..."

From wikipedia: "The topics discussed in What the Bleep Do We Know!? include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality,"


This movie clearly puts forth an intent to weave science and religion/myticism/metaphysics, etc which are far beyond the parameters of the physical material brain. For you to pretend they state that our views of reality exist ONLY in our brains and as a product of our brains, shows that you have chosen to tune out the philosophical/religious aspects. These people flagrantly assert that it goes far beyond that to God/consciousness. It's certainly your choice to misconstrue the concepts so. And again, when you misconstrue what the movie is about, then it's obvious how you've done so and that the logic error lies with your argument.

Within the context of metaphysics, spirituality and magical thinking, the logic that the film-makers have used works nicely. It's only when you have removed the spirituality, that you've created the false premise that makes the logic no longer work.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

This is what the film's website says:

"The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further emphasis to the film’s underlying concept of the interconnectedness of all things. ...The chorus members act as hosts who live outside of the story, and from this Olympian view, comment on the actions of the characters below. They are also there to introduce the Great Questions framed by both science and religion..."

From wikipedia: "The topics discussed in What the Bleep Do We Know!? include neurology, quantum physics, psychology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, magical thinking and spirituality. The film features interviews with individuals presented as experts in science and spirituality,"


This movie clearly puts forth an intent to weave science and religion/myticism/metaphysics, etc which are far beyond the parameters of the physical material brain. For you to pretend they state that our views of reality exist ONLY in our brains and as a product of our brains, shows that you have chosen to tune out the philosophical/religious aspects. These people flagrantly assert that it goes far beyond that to God/consciousness. It's certainly your choice to misconstrue the concepts so. And again, when you misconstrue what the movie is about, then it's obvious how you've done so and that the logic error lies with your argument.

Within the context of metaphysics, spirituality and magical thinking, the logic that the film-makers have used works nicely. It's only when you have removed the spirituality, that you've created the false premise that makes the logic no longer work.

Why didn't you bold the words like "presented as". Way to embellish the parts you think are important, but actually aren't.

A huge conference was held at Caltech by REAL scientists and philosophers debunking this entire movie. They misrepresent the science and use perverse philosophy to try to tie it all up into a neat magical bundle, using that "magical thinking" they admit to in what you posted. It's all bullshit. Dr. Emoto is not a scientist, nor do his results follow scientific method, none of the "presented as" people are neuroscientists or quantum physicists, they pretend to know something about it, but they all share in common the fact that they are newage followers of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. It's junk science and it's propaganda.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Why didn't you bold the words like "presented as". Way to embellish the parts you think are important, but actually aren't.

A huge conference was held at Caltech by REAL scientists and philosophers debunking this entire movie. They misrepresent the science and use perverse philosophy to try to tie it all up into a neat magical bundle, using that "magical thinking" they admit to in what you posted. It's all bullshit. Dr. Emoto is not a scientist, nor do his results follow scientific method, none of the "presented as" people are neuroscientists or quantum physicists, they pretend to know something about it, but they all share in common the fact that they are newage followers of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. It's junk science and it's propaganda.

I am saying that THEIR base premise is one of science and spirituality, whether what they assert is true or not. Within that context, their logic is perfectly sound.

You said the premise was about the physical brain. If their premise WAS about reality being purely--or "ONLY", as you said--a product of the physical brain, your critique would be accurate. However your critique is inaccurate because it's based on your premises, and not the actual premises and intentions of the movie makers who are intending to weave in magic and metaphysics, God and religion.

For the record, I completely agree with what they have done, and the holistic soundness of it.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I am saying that THEIR base premise is one of science and spirituality, whether what they assert is true or not. Within that context, their logic is perfectly sound.

You said the premise was about the physical brain. If their premise WAS about reality being purely--or "ONLY", as you said--a product of the physical brain, your critique would be accurate. However your critique is inaccurate because it's based on your premises, and not the actual premises and intentions of the movie makers who are intending to weave in magic and metaphysics, God and religion.

For the record, I completely agree with what they have done, and the holistic soundness of it.

All the "science" is brain related. 80% of the science is irrelevant if consciousness collapses wave-functions and manifests reality. Which they have no evidence for, it's wild speculation. Wishful, or magical thinking. I.e. BULLSHIT.

You obviously religious believe in htis holonic bullshit and are unwilling to hear any criticism of it. If you were, you'd know it's bullshit.

angelica

“The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in fairy books - charm, spell, enchantment. They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery.”

~G. K. Chesterton~

angelica

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

~Albert Einstein~

Ahnimus

Congratulations Angelica, you can quote scientist opinion. It doesn't mean shit, it doesn't reflect fact, it only reflects their intuition. FYI Einstein believed in predeterminism, so there is no way he believed in the shit this movie tries to push, nor did Einstein believe in the Christian God. Actually learn something about what the quote means first.

Ahnimus

That movies website quotes a lot of scientists, like Stephen Hawking, who also believes in destiny and no individual choice. Both of them, in-fact half of the quote authors on that website believed in destiny, they believed that consciousness was at the mercy of physical matter. Completely the opposite of what that religious organization tries to make them say.

Ahnimus

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4831204601412295941&q=brain%2C+mind+and+consciousness

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

All the "science" is brain related. 80% of the science is irrelevant if consciousness collapses wave-functions and manifests reality. Which they have no evidence for, it's wild speculation. Wishful, or magical thinking. I.e. BULLSHIT.

You obviously religious believe in htis holonic bullshit and are unwilling to hear any criticism of it. If you were, you'd know it's bullshit.

My concern, here, has been with the distorted perceptions you have asserted, and that you have stood behind about the premise of "What the Bleep". I wanted to present the inaccuracy of such an assertion, which I've done.

I think the part that you don't get is that for these spiritual views, the "observer" is considered to be Spirit that lives through us, so there is a difference between the observer and the brain that you did not factor in, seemingly.

As for the rest, it's been very obvious for a very long time that you and I have vastly different views. I am perfectly fine with that. (see my signature for further understanding)

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

My concern, here, has been with the distorted perceptions you have asserted, and that you have stood behind about the premise of "What the Bleep". I wanted to present the inaccuracy of such an assertion, which I've done.

I think the part that you don't get is that for these spiritual views, the "observer" is considered to be Spirit that lives through us, so there is a difference between the observer and the brain that you did not factor in, seemingly.

As for the rest, it's been very obvious for a very long time that you and I have vastly different views. I am perfectly fine with that. (see my signature for further understanding)

The opposite of truth is not truth. That's a stupid claim.

This is all stupidity. The movie in no way presents a case for an 'observer' or that the collapse of wave-function has anything to do with observation. They misrepresented the double-slit experiment by presenting the detector as a giant eye-ball, it's silliness, stupidness. They present no case what-so-ever for anything, it's wild speculation, and remember the basketball court scene where they talk about altering reality with your mind... right... bullshit.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lDIqNTDi96I

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The opposite of truth is not truth. That's a stupid claim.

This is all stupidity. The movie in no way presents a case for an 'observer' or that the collapse of wave-function has anything to do with observation. They misrepresented the double-slit experiment by presenting the detector as a giant eye-ball, it's silliness, stupidness. They present no case what-so-ever for anything, it's wild speculation, and remember the basketball court scene where they talk about altering reality with your mind... right... bullshit.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lDIqNTDi96I