Christianity

[seeds]

Nietzsche: "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?"

AJ: What is that 'horizon'? What else could it be but the Scholastic model of The World?

What is this "...Scholastic model of The World..." to which you are referring? I'm not real clear on why you would suddenly insert the concept of the "Great Chain of Being" after your Nietzsche quote, nevertheless, I am open to discussing it.

Simple: the horizon that was wiped away was, and is, essentially the Scholastic Model.

But it wasn't actually wiped away.

No, the "Scholastic Model" (of which you have posed as being synonymous with the concept of the Great Chain of Being) is still there, and it (the "GCoB") simply needs to be envisioned more accurately.

I do not think that this particularly needs to be discussed since, like you, I agree that the models, the pictures, and indeed the old cosmologies that were conceived of cannot any longer function sufficiently.

Well, now I'm a bit confused.

And that's because earlier you stated this...

...no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.

However, clearly, I am at least one person on the forum who is interested in discussing and analyzing the issues you brought up, so much so that I offered my own speculative suggestions as to why the world is in such a chaotic state (as per my initial post with the Venn diagram: viewtopic.php?p=600240#p600240)

Yet now you state that we don't particularly need to discuss what I suggest might be the underlying cause for "...the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements...", or for humanity's loss of "...metaphysical certainty...", or for the crumbling of the once stable "...ground under one's feet...".

So, if not the speculative reasons for the above list of problems that, again, you initially brought up, then what, exactly, were we supposed to be discussing and analyzing?
_______

[Age]

Determinism means being in line with the six conservation laws of physics: energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, electric charge, color charge, and weak isospin.

No, it doesn't actually. It means the metaphysical claim that these things are all that exist, and all that can have any effect so far as causality goes.

Non-determinism also believes in physical laws. It does not at all deny they exist and work, nor does it need to. But non-determinism holds that human beings, their volitions and their choices, are also causal agents, capable of inititating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes.

But since causing something always means changing something's energy, linear momentum, electric charge, or any of the other conserved quantities, and since the four fundamental forces are the only interactions that exist in the whole universe, and since they only interact with other physical particles or objects, nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects.

Two things here;

1. How do 'you' KNOW that only those four fundamental forces are the ONLY interactions that exist in the WHOLE Universe?

2. How is something 'caused'?

3. How do 'you' KNOW that the, supposed, four ONLY fundamental forces ONLY interact with OTHER physical 'things'?

4. Your so-called "argument" here is; Since physical things interacting with physical things causes physical things, and physical things can ONLY interact with physical things, therefore ONLY physical things exist.

Here you are PUTTING YOUR BELIEFS FORWARD, FIRST, and THEN 'trying to' "FIND" words or language that will HELP in backing up and supporting YOUR, obviously, VERY STRONGLY HELD ONTO BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

Which, what 'you' BELIEVE and are REALLY SAYING here IS; There is NO God, NOR Spirit, and ONLY physicality exists, and therefore this ALSO MEANS that my OTHER BELIEF, about how there is NO ABILITY TO CHOOSE, WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED by a past event, is ALSO true, right, and correct.

This means, in particular, "that human beings, their volitions and their choices" are not "causal agents, capable of initiating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes."

But what you just SAID does NOT mean this AT ALL.

What you SAID was just CIRCULAR so-called "reasoning", in order to just 'TRY TO' back up and support YOUR currently HELD ONTO BELIEFS.

All you are REALLY SAYING is just what you currently BELIEVE and ASSUME is true, which you OBVIOUSLY do NOT have ANY ACTUAL PROOF FOR.

[Age]

Unless Belinda, or anyone else, says exactly what they believe, how can you possibly know what they do believe?

You can't. But Belinda has told us. "I'm a Determinist," she says.

And if she is, then all the corollaries follow -- unless, of course, she's an irrational Determinist, and believes things that simply contradict one another completely.

LOL

Here, AGAIN, is PRIME "immanuel can" TALK. That is; if one even thinks that a word has a different meaning or definition from what I have and HOLD for that word, then it IS 'them' who IS 'irrational'.

The 'superiority complex' and the SUPERIORITY OVER "others", which 'you' continually convey "immanuel can" would be Truly SURPRISING if for NOT ALREADY KNOWING EXACTLY HOW and WHY 'you' ARE the WAY 'you' ARE "immanuel can".

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she is rational: and therefore, I am also expecting that she believes everything Determinism entails.

LOL
LOL
LOL "immanuel can".

I do NOT recall coming across ANY one who can in such a short space and in very few words come across as being SO SUPERIOR, to "others", SO FORGIVING, of "others", YET at the exact same time also being SO CONDESCENDING, of "them".

Have 'you' EVER considered that it IS 'you', "immanuel can", who IS Wrong and/or IRRATIONAL here? Or, does this NEVER come INTO PLAY within that 'thinking' WITHIN that head?

[Age]

...nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects.

That's a presumption, not a proof.

What makes you think that nothing can happen that isn't caused by strictly physical "particles or objects"? What's your grounds for that confidence?

At this very moment, you're trying to change something metaphysical (my mind)

The saying, "my mind", is A MISNOMER.

with words conjured up from your own metaphysical entity (your mind).

What makes 'you' think that A 'mind' IS a 'metaphysical entity' and that there are MANY of 'them' ALL owned by MANY different 'things'?

What is your ground for that confidence?

At this very moment, 'you' are 'trying to' change some 'thing', which is NOT YET PROVEN to be 'metaphysical' (whatever the word 'metaphysical' even means or refers to, to you), with words conjured up from what COULD BE just a physical brain.

So you are trying to demonstrate the falsehood of Determinism.

Are you 'trying to' demonstrate the truths of 'determinism'?

Or, do you BELIEVE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, that there is NO such 'thing' as 'determinism' AT ALL, in ANY way?

And you are succeeding in that, even if you don't succeed in convincing me; for your own performance confirms you do not really believe in pure Physicalist Determinism. You think you can change minds, by using ideas.

Do 'you' even think or BELIEVE that there ARE these 'things' called 'minds', floating about who KNOWS WHERE?

[BigMike]

...nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects.

That's a presumption, not a proof.

No, that's what every physical experiments tells us. Momentum, energy, and all the rest is conserved; it is not created by your mind. Psychokinesis or telekinesis is fraud. James Randi fought hard against paranormal and fake science claims. He even offered a million dollars to anyone who could prove "supernatural" abilities. None of them could, of course.

What makes you think that nothing can happen that isn't caused by strictly physical "particles or objects"? What's your grounds for that confidence?

Because of the conservation laws, of course. The conserved quantities can't be created or destroyed, they can only be passed around. If your willpower can change the amount of momentum or energy in something, for example, to make it do something else, it has to have that momentum or energy to begin with.
So, your willpower must have some way to "store" energy and momentum. For that, it needs mass. It has to be something physical. So it needs to follow the same laws of physics as everything else.

At this very moment, you're trying to change something metaphysical (my mind) with words conjured up from your own metaphysical entity (your mind). So you are trying to demonstrate the falsehood of Determinism. And you are succeeding in that, even if you don't succeed in convincing me; for your own performance confirms you do not really believe in pure Physicalist Determinism. You think you can change minds, by using ideas.

If your "mind" can cause anything, it must be physical. You appear to believe that your mind possesses psychokinetic, "divine," or supernatural powers and can create energy and motion out of thin air using only "willpower." That would be extraordinary, and as Carl Sagan famously stated, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

No, there are no "oughts" in Determinism. There are only the "is's". Whatever the pedophile did, that's what he had to do; and it's nonsense, then, to say he "ought not" to have acted like a pedophile. Belinda was predetermined to be a non-pedo. He was predetermined by forces utterly outside his control, the forces of cause-and-effect, to be a pedophile. He never had a choice. And neither did Belinda.

I , and the child molester, are free to choose relative to the extent we understand the causes and effects of our actions. Understanding is both rational and sympathetic.

Deteminism is more benevolent, and even more Christian, than you credit it with.

Strong determinism is not mere causal chains like in some closely controlled scientific experiment. Strong determinism is wholistic.

[Immanuel Can]

...nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects.

That's a presumption, not a proof.

No, that's what every physical experiments tells us.

No, they do not. "Physical experiments" make no judgments. And they do not show whether or not "physical experiments" are all there is. All they prove is that "physical experiments" work in their own realm.

But everybody knows that. And people who believe in will, in choice and volition, also know that physical laws work. How else do you think they are able to judge that if they do X, effect Y will follow? In other words, how else do you suppose they exercise their wills?

So that's a non-sequitur. It's simply a presumption. You cannot conclude from the fact that one type of thing works that no other types of things work. There's no indicator in the fact that "physical experiments" turn out, that "mental experiments" have no efficacy. That is not rational.

What makes you think that nothing can happen that isn't caused by strictly physical "particles or objects"? What's your grounds for that confidence?

Because of the conservation laws, of course.

"The conservation laws" have no opinions.

So, your willpower must have some way to "store" energy and momentum.

This does not at all follow. A mental event is not a "momentum. And ideas have no mass. How much does "love" weight? What's the specific gravity of a pint of "understanding"? How many board feet in a "decision"? What do the Vernier calipers tell you about the dimensions of a "concept"?

Yet these things change actions. And we can see, from that fact that you are arguing at all, that you KNOW they do. You're acting as if they do, right now. But how does "argumentation" store "momentum"? How much "mass" is in this discussion?

Your statement is just wrong...and so wrong, that you are contradicting it yourself, by your own actions.

At this very moment, you're trying to change something metaphysical (my mind) with words conjured up from your own metaphysical entity (your mind). So you are trying to demonstrate the falsehood of Determinism. And you are succeeding in that, even if you don't succeed in convincing me; for your own performance confirms you do not really believe in pure Physicalist Determinism. You think you can change minds, by using ideas.

If your "mind" can cause anything, it must be physical.

Of course it can cause things. And the reason it can cause things is that it can activate your limbs. Your mind is not physical, but your limbs are.

Carl Sagan famously stated, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

An extraordinary claim for which Sagan provided no "extraordinary evidence" himself.

Sagan models for us an old problem: namely, that the men who do science are not always the best philosophers of science. The guy in the lab may do the experiment, but if he is not astute by way of logic, not a careful interpreter of what he has seen, then he is capable of misunderstanding what the results of his experiment warrant him in believing or claiming, and he may claim things his evidence does not support. That quite often happens. But the group it happens most often with are the Materialists, who wrongly think that every demonstration of material effects somehow rationalized the belief that there's nothing else in the universe but material effects.

That's no more sensible than a man thinking that because he's a blacksmith or carpenter, painting or writing operas must be impossible. It's just bad philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote: No, there are no "oughts" in Determinism. There are only the "is's". Whatever the pedophile did, that's what he had to do; and it's nonsense, then, to say he "ought not" to have acted like a pedophile. Belinda was predetermined to be a non-pedo. He was predetermined by forces utterly outside his control, the forces of cause-and-effect, to be a pedophile. He never had a choice. And neither did Belinda.

I , and the child molester, are free to choose relative to the extent we understand the causes and effects of our actions.

Actually, you're so free to do them it doesn't even matter whether or not you understand the causes and effects.

Deteminism is more benevolent, and even more Christian, than you credit it with.

Oh, B...that's so funny.

"Benevolent Determinism," you say? That's like a "magnanimous glacier," or a "kind-hearted aerodynamics."

Determinism has no feelings. It's an alleged force, or a purported law. It's really only an empty theory. Such things do not care about you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I tend to think of the prevailing state of the world as being a situation where humanity is in the chaotic process of transitioning between two paradigm bubbles.

What I mean is that we are in the process of moving out of the "old (material/spiritual) paradigm"...

(which is a general state of mind [a general level of consciousness] that humanity has functioned at for the last several millennia)

...and into a "new paradigm bubble" (a higher level of consciousness) that has not only been initiated by the discoveries in quantum physics and cosmology, but also as a result of the more widespread use of mind-expanding drugs.

With this I agree. Numerous elements would have to be hashed out but I agree largely.

No, the problem is that modern science and cosmology have helped to expose the utter nonsense of the old religions and is ushering in their demise...

...which, consequently, is destroying the "glue," so to speak, that helps to bind us together in a general state of consensus (at least within the religion-based bubbles of the societies we were born into).

And that, in turn,...

(because there is nothing [no grand unifying vision] to forge an alliance around)

...is producing the "atomization" you spoke of, and is creating the middle area of the diagram, which represents the chaos and confusion that will reign until humanity's transition into a new (material/spiritual) paradigm bubble is complete.

With this I agree. Numerous elements would have to be hashed out but I agree largely.

In other words, we need a new spiritual “mythology” that can exist in harmony with our newer and more advanced understanding of the universe.

So, the challenge is to find a new metaphysical vision of reality that can replace all of the ancient religions in a way that not only serves the same function and purpose as the old,...

...but also, doesn't look incredulous and nonsensical from the perspective of modern science.

If we can do that, then we will finally be able to move out of that chaotic (rudderless/ungrounded/atomized) middle section of the diagram...

[Image]

...and into the new paradigm bubble in which science and religion can once again maintain a tolerable co-existence.

I understand what you are saying yet I would say that a mythology (mythological stories) do not seem to be creations of rational processes. The mythological stories that we do have (Plato has numerous, and the Christian story is certainly a powerful, resounding one) rise to the surface of awareness and *picture* something in ways that are open to various levels of interpretation.

So for example the idea of 'fall' has never been hard for me to understand allegorically, or in mythic language. The Vedists use the term 'material entanglement' for ourselves in a fallen condition. But of course this view fits into an elaborate religious model (which I gather you'd reject in part).

Because the above quote mentions the "...fall of Lucifer..." and "...Lucifer defied God...," it (along with the image you supplied) is referencing "old paradigm" nonsense.

Those words and the imagery they evoke are a part of those useless "tailings" I mentioned earlier that we need to discard after mining the valuable nuggets from the Christian Story.

As I tried to make clear in my prior post, it's time to transition beyond the mythological nonsense of the old and crumbling paradigm established by our ancient ancestors and move into the new paradigm bubble.

It seems to me in the model you are presenting that you are working with the Ascending Ape explanatory model as opposed to the Fallen Angel explanatory model. The diagram of a man on a latter going upward would fit the model of biological material becoming conscious and then consciously working to complete an ascension-process.

The Fallen Angel model implies having fallen from some (previous) state of union and to have been fallen into a sort of mire -- the physical material world -- that is particularly dangerous because, in the course of life and survival the soul (jiva) can make serious mistakes, even with good intentions, that increase his bondage and, if you will, 'time served' at this level. The idea being that we are all living in one discreet level within a wide range of different levels.

The pictures I am using to explain this, again the diagram I am using, is from the Indian Subcontinent (Vedanta) and is, as far as I have experienced, the most rational-irrational model that I can conceive of.

So I would say that the extremely stark model that has been at the core of Christian conception is not 'false' but is simply to reductive. We had a long conversation where much of this was present to IC who, naturally, would have none of it.

I think that we are going to have to discuss what the 'belief system' of those who lived within the understanding of the Cosmos that was The Great Chain of Being in order to have a clear idea of what in it is 'mythological nonsense' (though full of lovely and suggestive notions and ideas). We could of course focus on Shakespeare and the 17th Century (and many philosophers that were writing at that time -- it is wonderful material).

So in this post I have acknowledged having read through your first posts and where I agree.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, the "Scholastic Model" (of which you have posed as being synonymous with the concept of the Great Chain of Being) is still there, and it (the "GCoB") simply needs to be envisioned more accurately.

If this is so then each of these, as models, is still operative and functional. Yet you say that they need revision and up-dating.

So again I think we need to linger for awhile over what exactly is and were the models that we talk about. The famous Ulysses Speech in Troilus and Cressida is often quoted when 'cosmic order' (so important to to the Medieval mind) was thought of:

The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre
Observe degree, priority and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office and custom, in all line of order;
And therefore is the glorious planet Sol
In noble eminence enthroned and sphered
Amidst the other; whose medicinable eye
Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
And posts, like the commandment of a king,
Sans cheque to good and bad: but when the planets
In evil mixture to disorder wander,
What plagues and what portents! what mutiny!
What raging of the sea! shaking of earth!
Commotion in the winds! frights, changes, horrors,
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
The unity and married calm of states
Quite from their fixure! O, when degree is shaked,
Which is the ladder to all high designs,
Then enterprise is sick! How could communities,
Degrees in schools and brotherhoods in cities,
Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
The primogenitive and due of birth,
Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
But by degree, stand in authentic place?
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows! each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy: the bounded waters
Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores
And make a sop of all this solid globe:
Strength should be lord of imbecility,
And the rude son should strike his father dead:
Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,
Between whose endless jar justice resides,
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then every thing includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself.

Briefly, it begins with a reference to what in Vedanta is known as Rta or hierarchical order. The surrounding cosmos is, then, a diagram of heavenly relationship. They all stand in their specific place and operate together.

The Sun is seen as the 'medicinable eye' that has the fundamental organizing and also healing power (as does the sepharoth Tifaret in the Kaballah tree of life). Down on the Earth plane that which corresponds to the Sun is the King, obviously. And thus all of the Kings associations with the Sun, with gold, etc.

But chaos always impinges, somehow, into the Order of Things. Especially those objects like comets that appear out of nowhere and traverse against the grain of Heaven. Naturally, astrologically, these do not portend well. Plagues & portends arrive. These are aspects of mutinous chaos and with them come

• raging of the sea! shaking of earth!
  Commotion in the winds! frights, changes, horrors,
  Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
  The unity and married calm of states
  Quite from their fixure!

So when the emissaries of Chaos appear in the sky, there is a sympathetic reaction within the peaceful, ordered Kingdoms. "Sickness" appears but this sickness is related to those disturbances within a man's body (the microcosmic picture) that are reflections or symptoms of disorders which have impinged on man's world cosmically, macro-cosmically.

Structures and Hierarchies are attacked. And the social order, stable of productive, is assaulted. When these 'degrees of relationship' are disturbed it is like 'untuning a properly tuned string' and out of this discord arises.

Strength and authority should rule *imbecility* (the lower orders of intelligence) but in the dystuned, discordant world imbecilic intelligence assaults the wise and elevated (higher orders of intelligence that by nature should rule) and everyone makes an assault on Power and especially those non-qualified, and finally proper, ordered power degenerates into raw, unreasoning power that is compared to a wolf --- which eventually eats everyone up.

[Nick_A]

A J

.no one even seems interested in discussing and analyzing contemporary events in the light of the break-down in the possibility of metaphysical agreements.

That is because people here do not respect the difference between knowledge and opinions. Where opinions are derived from the ever changing world of sensations, knowledge is derived from inner efforts to experience timeless forms and essences. In the modern world advancement in technology enchants people into arguing over opinions avoiding knowledge as getting in the way of education. The result can only be the struggle for power concluding with "might makes right" and eventually war.

I respect your efforts but if people don't want knowledge and react against it, you must look for the few who still are drawn to knowledge as opposed to glorifying opinions.

[seeds]

...nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects. This means, in particular, "that human beings, their volitions and their choices" are not "causal agents, capable of initiating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes."

BigMike, you had a similar argument with Harry Baird back in August (in this same thread) where you stated the following...

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

...of which I countered with this...

Nonsense!

Every time you raise an arm to scratch an itch on your head, it represents a situation where consciousness (your own consciousness) is pushing a vast number of atoms around.

Indeed, this,...



...for example, represents a situation where the consciousness of the signer is using atoms to convey that which resides within her own mind, to the minds of other consciousnesses.

Indeed, even hardcore materialism itself refutes your claim...

As I have stated to my (hopefully) good Internet friend, uwot,...

...If according to hardcore materialism there is literally nothing else other than matter, then that means that the stuff that forms our thoughts and dreams is simply an inward extension of the same stuff that forms the stars and planets.

And what that implies is that if humans (within the inner context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish (by merely “thinking it” into the forms we desire),...

...then, clearly, our wills hold sway over the fundamental essence of universal matter, either "directly" in the case of the inner-dimension of our own minds, or "indirectly" in the case of the outer reality of the universe.

_______

Now I make no secret of the fact that I (like Berkeley) believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness.

In which case, just as we cannot reach into each other's minds and willfully grasp and control each other's mental imaging energy in the same way that we control our own mental imaging energy,...

...likewise, neither can our wills reach out and "directly" grasp and control the material fabric of the universe (i.e., the mental imaging energy of the higher Being to whom the energy [and universe] belongs).

So, you are absolutely correct to claim that our wills have no "direct" influence over the material fabric of the universe.*

In other words, no, we cannot change water into wine, or cause the flab around our guts to disappear just by thinking it.
-------
*(However, according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of our consciousness may be required to initiate the collapse of the wavefunction. So, in that sense, we do indeed have direct influence over whether or not the features of the universe will appear in their positionally-fixed, three-dimensional forms, or simply remain as superpositioned fields of quantum information, or what Heisenberg called "potentia" or potential reality.)
_______

[BigMike]

...nothing can happen that isn't caused by physical particles or objects. This means, in particular, "that human beings, their volitions and their choices" are not "causal agents, capable of initiating particular effects and actuating alternative outcomes."

BigMike, you had a similar argument with Harry Baird back in August (in this same thread) where you stated the following...

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

...of which I countered with this...

Nonsense!

Every time you raise an arm to scratch an itch on your head, it represents a situation where consciousness (your own consciousness) is pushing a vast number of atoms around.

Indeed, this,...



...for example, represents a situation where the consciousness of the signer is using atoms to convey that which resides within her own mind, to the minds of other consciousnesses.

Indeed, even hardcore materialism itself refutes your claim...

As I have stated to my (hopefully) good Internet friend, uwot,...

...If according to hardcore materialism there is literally nothing else other than matter, then that means that the stuff that forms our thoughts and dreams is simply an inward extension of the same stuff that forms the stars and planets.

And what that implies is that if humans (within the inner context of our own minds) can willfully grasp the substance that forms the stars and planets and transform it into anything we wish (by merely “thinking it” into the forms we desire),...

...then, clearly, our wills hold sway over the fundamental essence of universal matter, either "directly" in the case of the inner-dimension of our own minds, or "indirectly" in the case of the outer reality of the universe.

_______

Now I make no secret of the fact that I (like Berkeley) believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness.

In which case, just as we cannot reach into each other's minds and willfully grasp and control each other's mental imaging energy in the same way that we control our own mental imaging energy,...

...likewise, neither can our wills reach out and "directly" grasp and control the material fabric of the universe (i.e., the mental imaging energy of the higher Being to whom the energy [and universe] belongs).

So, you are absolutely correct to claim that our wills have no "direct" influence over the material fabric of the universe.*

In other words, no, we cannot change water into wine, or cause the flab around our guts to disappear just by thinking it.
-------
*(However, according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of our consciousness may be required to initiate the collapse of the wavefunction. So, in that sense, we do indeed have direct influence over whether or not the features of the universe will appear in their positionally-fixed, three-dimensional forms, or simply remain as superpositioned fields of quantum information, or what Heisenberg called "potentia" or potential reality.)
_______

I'm not going to bother restating what I've already said numerous times both here and elsewhere, so let's move on. Science-deniers like you just don't grasp it.

[Harbal]

Now I make no secret of the fact that I (like Berkeley) believe that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness.

While it might not be unreasonable to believe that the universe could be the mind of a "higher" consciousness, it is very unlikely that you possess any knowledge or information that would justify a belief that it actually is. If you did have such knowledge, then, as far as I am aware, you would be the only person in existence to have it. While that is possible, I think it highly improbable.

[Dubious]

This is epiphenomenalism, the view which I've already pointed out is analytically defeated in the article Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge by Titus Rivas & Hein van Dongen. Of course, as hq points out, disproofs such as this will simply be ignored by the fools of physicalism, who are only interested in evidence which supports their view.

You just don't get it, do you? Consciousness can not push atoms around. End of discussion.

Nonsense!

Every time you raise an arm to scratch an itch on your head, it represents a situation where consciousness (your own consciousness) is pushing a vast number of atoms around.

Indeed, this,...

You're using words like "ridiculous and nonsense" far too often to the point where they can come back to haunt you. Consciousness cannot push atoms around - certainly not by your example! Consciousness provides the intent as does instinct which triggers the nerve impulses to the muscles which moves all the atoms in your arm. It's all very materialistic. In rare cases, as in brain trauma, consciousness is not required at all. Consider, for example, AHS (Alien Hand Syndrome) where your hand, usually the left, seems to act under its own volition completely independent of any overt conscious intent.

The world needs more science and less Bishop Berkeley who knows nothing of the mind of god or whether god even exists.