How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[seeds]

To see my own perspective on what the “complex multidimensional foam” entails (and why I highlighted “born within” in the above quote), then take a look at a series of drawings I created to demonstrate, not only how all of the universes are literally alive, but also what our ultimate purpose may possibly be – click here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm

Mr seeds.. why are you so keen to suggest there is any benefit to a consciousness beyond the human frame? What is this benefit?

Hi atto,

I suggest that the benefit will be eternal life, with an eternally growing, eternally evolving, and eternally “fruitful” purpose that will be absolutely equal for every human ever awakened into existence.

All of which will transpire within a new and wondrous setting that will make our present setting seem as dark and restricted as it was when we existed in our mother’s womb.

(Did you not click on the link I provided?)
_______

[seeds]

Name one purpose that a universe would have for existing, without the presence of life and consciousness to confer meaning on its contents.

Go ahead, doc, name just one reason for the existence of “anything” whatsoever, if there was absolutely nothing to see, feel, hear, taste, or smell the “thing” in question.

The universe including all the stars and planets, with or without life needs no other reason than to just exist.

So then, innumerable fusion dynamos, uselessly frittering away their energy and light on innumerable empty and barren spheres, is your idea of a “purpose and reason” for their existence?

The presence of consciousness and awareness is irrelevant to the existence of everything else.

Quite the contrary, doc, the existence of everything else, without the existence of life and consciousness, would be utterly meaningless and useless as suggested above regarding the frittering away of suns on barren spheres.

However, if you sprinkle a few capsules (cells) of DNA onto the surface of the spheres, then a sun’s true purpose and reason for existing becomes obvious.

Doc, I’m not insisting that you must believe it, but you keep missing the point of the implications of the “quantum sans consciousness” theory, wherein the stars and planets do not exist in the forms you are picturing them in.

Again, I am not demanding that you accept any of the theories, but please try to make a modicum of effort to apprehend their premises.
_______

[seeds]

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If you are very narrow-minded you would say that without a conscious being to hear, there is no sound. But if you are more open-minded you would agree that sound is just vibrations in the air and to be a sound doesn't need a conscious being to hear it.

Wow, if irony were gold, then you would be a rich man, doc.

I’m a big fan of metaphors that help us visualize difficult concepts. So...

Imagine a DVD player playing a DVD of a raucous and noisy scene of trees falling over left and right in a forest, all of which is appearing up on your new Samsung 4K television screen while blasting the crashing tree sounds from the speakers of your new surround-sound audio system.

Now, imagine removing the television screen and the speakers from this scenario while allowing the DVD to continue running, wherein all of the information that represents the images and sounds is still progressing through its algorithmic processes.

The question is, are the images and sounds of trees hitting the ground, literally present in the bumps and pits of coding on the DVD? Or is the existence of the imagery and sounds dependent upon the presence of the monitor and speakers?

Hopefully, the obvious point is that the informational patterns that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe are analogous to the information on the DVD, while the sensory aspects of consciousness, in this case, vision and hearing, are analogous to the TV monitor and speakers.

And just as it is logical to deduce that there are no actual sounds and images of trees falling to the ground amidst the bumps and pits of information encoded on a DVD, likewise, there are no sounds and images of trees falling to the ground amidst the peaks and troughs of quantum waves.

Both mediums require the presence of something else (other than themselves) to transform the information into that which the information represents, otherwise, “reality,” as we understand it, does not exist.

Now if you continue to insist that in the absence of consciousness, sound is still there, then you just aren’t looking deep enough into the “noumenal-like” underpinning of reality where the tree question has its roots (pun intended).

Quantum theory’s concept of “non-local” reality, like Kant’s concept of noumena, is inconceivable, and it is there in which the quandary of the falling tree lies.
_______

[seeds]

Dear seeds...the last time we engaged in discussion, I do recall it ended rather abruptly...

Dam, I’ll get back to you after I’ve taken some time to process your exceptionally kind post.
_______

[thedoc]

Wow, if irony were gold, then you would be a rich man, doc.

I’m a big fan of metaphors that help us visualize difficult concepts. So...

Imagine a DVD player playing a DVD of a raucous and noisy scene of trees falling over left and right in a forest, all of which is appearing up on your new Samsung 4K television screen while blasting the crashing tree sounds from the speakers of your new surround-sound audio system.

Now, imagine removing the television screen and the speakers from this scenario while allowing the DVD to continue running, wherein all of the information that represents the images and sounds is still progressing through its algorithmic processes.

The question is, are the images and sounds of trees hitting the ground, literally present in the bumps and pits of coding on the DVD? Or is the existence of the imagery and sounds dependent upon the presence of the monitor and speakers?

Hopefully, the obvious point is that the informational patterns that underpin the phenomenal features of the universe are analogous to the information on the DVD, while the sensory aspects of consciousness, in this case, vision and hearing, are analogous to the TV monitor and speakers.

And just as it is logical to deduce that there are no actual sounds and images of trees falling to the ground amidst the bumps and pits of information encoded on a DVD, likewise, there are no sounds and images of trees falling to the ground amidst the peaks and troughs of quantum waves.

Both mediums require the presence of something else (other than themselves) to transform the information into that which the information represents, otherwise, “reality,” as we understand it, does not exist.

Now if you continue to insist that in the absence of consciousness, sound is still there, then you just aren’t looking deep enough into the “noumenal-like” underpinning of reality where the tree question has its roots (pun intended).

Quantum theory’s concept of “non-local” reality, like Kant’s concept of noumena, is inconceivable, and it is there in which the quandary of the falling tree lies.
_______

Imagine the DVD player is still going and still hooked up to the speakers and TV but neither you nor anyone else is in the house or close enough to the house to hear the DVD playing. Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes. Unhooking the speakers removes the means to vibrate the air so the analogy is not accurate.

[thedoc]

Again, I am not demanding that you accept any of the theories, but please try to make a modicum of effort to apprehend their premises.
_______

I do understand the point and I've heard it before, I just don't think it's correct.

You claim that the purpose of all the other stars in the universe is for the benefit of consciousness, so far humans are the only one that science knows of, so what is the purpose of any star other than the Sun?

BTW, what happens at the quantum scale does not translate up to the larger scales so the presence or absence of an observer doesn't mean anything except at quantum scales.

[thedoc]

Quite the contrary, doc, the existence of everything else, without the existence of life and consciousness, would be utterly meaningless and useless as suggested above regarding the frittering away of suns on barren spheres.
______

The meaning is in existence itself the universe doesn't need any other excuse to exist. To the best of our knowledge the universe existed for over 9 billion years before there was any living thing to be conscious of it, or are you claiming that the universe did not exist till there was life to be conscious of it.

[thedoc]

the link I provided?
_______

Interesting speculation.

[Dontaskme]

Imagine the DVD player is still going and still hooked up to the speakers and TV but neither you nor anyone else is in the house or close enough to the house to hear the DVD playing. Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.

What is it that hears the DVD playing?...it is not the ear that hears, for the ear is only the instrument for hearing, remove the instrument for hearing and there is no sound. Sound is known, by consciousness only, no ear ever heard a sound.

The notion that the DVD is still producing sound in the absence of the instrument for sound is just a memory arising within consciousness itself as (knowledge known)

Consciousness has to be present at all times, everywhere, otherwise the statement ( '' Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.'' )could not have been possible....the statement was a re-cognition or a memory of knowing consciousness...that is never absent.

.

[Harbal]

remove the instrument for hearing and there is no sound. Sound is known, by consciousness only,

Well done, Dontask, you finally said something sensible.

[Dontaskme]

Well done, Dontask, you finally said something sensible.

Please explain to me exactly what I've said in coherent detail, and then I will inform you as to whether you are correct in your confident assertion.

[thedoc]

Imagine the DVD player is still going and still hooked up to the speakers and TV but neither you nor anyone else is in the house or close enough to the house to hear the DVD playing. Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.

What is it that hears the DVD playing?...it is not the ear that hears, for the ear is only the instrument for hearing, remove the instrument for hearing and there is no sound. Sound is known, by consciousness only, no ear ever heard a sound.

The notion that the DVD is still producing sound in the absence of the instrument for sound is just a memory arising within consciousness itself as (knowledge known)

Consciousness has to be present at all times, everywhere, otherwise the statement ( '' Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.'' )could not have been possible....the statement was a re-cognition or a memory of knowing consciousness...that is never absent.

.

That is one position that for sound to exist there must be a being to hear the sound, but I contend that sound is just the vibrations of the air with or without a being to hear it. Most definitions state that a sound is vibrations of the air or other medium that "CAN" be heard by the ear, not "MUST" be heard by the ear, so there is no requirement for there to be a listener present for the vibrations to qualify as a sound.

[Harbal]

Please explain to me exactly what I've said in coherent detail,

Look, you came out with something that made sense, the fact that you probably stumbled upon it inadvertently is something that need not be brought to anyone's attention, just pretend you understood what you were saying and accept the misplaced credit for it.

[Dontaskme]

Imagine the DVD player is still going and still hooked up to the speakers and TV but neither you nor anyone else is in the house or close enough to the house to hear the DVD playing. Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.

What is it that hears the DVD playing?...it is not the ear that hears, for the ear is only the instrument for hearing, remove the instrument for hearing and there is no sound. Sound is known, by consciousness only, no ear ever heard a sound.

The notion that the DVD is still producing sound in the absence of the instrument for sound is just a memory arising within consciousness itself as (knowledge known)

Consciousness has to be present at all times, everywhere, otherwise the statement ( '' Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.'' )could not have been possible....the statement was a re-cognition or a memory of knowing consciousness...that is never absent.

.

That is one position that for sound to exist there must be a being to hear the sound, but I contend that sound is just the vibrations of the air with or without a being to hear it. Most definitions state that a sound is vibrations of the air or other medium that "CAN" be heard by the ear, not "MUST" be heard by the ear, so there is no requirement for there to be a listener present for the vibrations to qualify as a sound.

Doc..no ''thing'' never heard a sound, sound is known by the only knowing there is and that is consciousness. Sound is an auditory illusion of consciousness which is unknowable... yet here it is ..appearing as sound heard.

.

[Harbal]

That is one position that for sound to exist there must be a being to hear the sound, but I contend that sound is just the vibrations of the air with or without a being to hear it. Most definitions state that a sound is vibrations of the air or other medium that "CAN" be heard by the ear, not "MUST" be heard by the ear, so there is no requirement for there to be a listener present for the vibrations to qualify as a sound.

When it gets to the point of losing arguments with Dontaskme, I think it's time to consider hanging up your philosophical boots.