Realistically recreating human consciousness - along with every event in the universe - is no small task.

It would require:

- quantum computing
- a data storage room the size of texas (if not all north america)
- easily more energy than is consumed by the entire planet in a year

So stating - "only one person would need to experience that simulation"..

..is like saying - "you would only need one person",

to recreate the Great Wall & Pyramids & Grand Canyon & Himalayas, etcetera..

Sure, I guess. But the amount of time & energy make it extremely improbable.

..Much more likely the civilization would collapse first.

The guy even concedes that point multiple times.

Hi RFlagg. God has given evidence of His existence through the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, by raising Him from the dead. You’re right, you could have a supernatural experience in any religion, because the devil is the god of every false religion and he can give signs too. He has never raised a man from the dead, however, neither did he ever pay for the worlds sins, yours and mine.

God revealed Himself to man from the very beginning. Everyone from the beginning knew who God was, but gradually the knowledge of God faded away as men chose to turn away and follow after their own ways. Therefore, God raised up a people for Himself who would prepare the way for His Messiah.

Darren brown doesn’t know that you have an enemy of your soul who is trying to destroy you. You seem to be saying that supernatural experiences are a phenomena of human consciousness rather than from an external power. But there is an intelligence behind those experiences; they aren't merely delusions in and of themselves. There is also a manipulative hand seeking to influence how you see those experiences.

You mentioned that you were a former Christian, and this is what you listed: you watched TBN, foxnews and voted republican. I hope you know that none of those things makes you a Christian. Jesus talks about true and false Christians; what makes you believe you ever really were a Christian? Going to church? Praying? Reading the bible? None of those things makes you a Christian either. If you never really were a Christian, you should know from the bible that you are unable to tell the difference between Christianity and any other religion without Gods help. He has to open your eyes because right now you are dead in trespasses and sins. Jesus Christ didn't come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people alive.

Assuming the 'negative outcome' scenario, also the nature of human consciousness (so simply and patently codified), what 'preparation' beyond one's will would prepare a human for a planet made hostile to humanity BY humanity?

Life itself is an injustice according to the parameters we are willing to accept as just or fair or equitable. So Emily here decides to film her abortion procedure for her own benefit, her own ego, a journalistic form of self-therapy perhaps? I would challenge any American white woman's spoken motivations for ending a pregnancy and find by peeling the layers of the onion away in about 10 minutes of Q&A that that little piece of meat growing inside of her needs to go because it's gonna be an inconvenience to her lifestyle, a challenge to her own limited consciousness of the nature of life and the universe.

Swat that little nuisance before it lands on my food, for crissakes.

>> ^Tojja:

Missed the boat a little, but for those who want to read the most intelligent summary of the salient scientific considerations associated with abortion, have a read of an article by Carl Sagan himself (co-written by Ann Druyan). Absolutely thought provoking and relevant: http://2think.org/abortion.shtml
Thanks for the link! I especially appreciate that Sagan brings the science and facts to bear in his consideration, and it's impossible to argue with his methodology. I have to say there's something personally gratifying in that we've trodden some of the same ground in our little dialectic.


Sure, I disagree with his ultimate conclusion, but that's because I believe there's a distinction between human cognition and human consciousness (or "ensoulment" as he terms it).

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

does anyone find merit in the idea that global warming is the required catalyst for a change of human consciousness?

The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.

The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.

So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

>> ^bareboards2:
This is a demonstrably false statement:
@EMPIRE said Religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.
I have often thought that atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid and intellectually bankrupt as any religious person. Here is the proof of it. You have your belief and no facts are going to get in your way.
You are the holder of the One Truth. There can be no Other Truth. If someone believes otherwise, they are a Heretic and an abomination.
The world isn't perfect. It is full of flawed human beings just trying to get by, trapped by their meat puppet bodies and brains. Some need a crutch to make it through life. You would deprive them of their crutch? THEY WILL FALL DOWN.
I keep saying the same thing over and over here on the Sift. You'd think I'd learn to back out of these pissing matches. I don't though, because I know that atheists ultimately are intelligent people, open to rational thought. I wouldn't try to talk shinyblurry out of his beliefs. That is a complete waste of effort. I am enough of a Pollyanna to think a rationalist will eventually get it -- that humans are flawed, that humans have had gods since the very beginning of human consciousness, that thinking that ALL HUMANS will leave behind an evolutionary trait is a fools game.
The best we can hope for is to keep religion out of the laws as much as possible. That is where someone's evolutionary crutch needs to keep to itself and out of my life. And keep educating about rational thought, throwing a life line to people who are born into a religion and don't hear anything but their family's brand of dogma.

I said religion is nothing but bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.
I never once said I want to deny people the right to be stupid. I know very well, that religion is a crutch for many people. It's unfortunate that they have to lean on something as frail, demonstrably wrong, and more times than not a cancer on human societies such as religion, but it's their choice.

Now, just because I don't want to deny people their rights, doesn't mean I won't call them out on their bullshit when I see it. And that's what I think should be happening more often.
It's not funny or productive to make fun of someone who is merely ignorant of something, but doesn't have a problem with trying to learn some more (ignorance can be easily fixed with education). Unfortunately, as we all know, the vast portion of the population of this planet has no access to proper education. However, in the case of people brought up in a developed nation, with all the access to information and education, who..... oh, I dunno, think Joseph Smith is a prophet, need to be ridicularized for the stupidity of their belief system.

There has to be a line (although fuzzy I'm sure) that separates faith from mental insanity. Believing in something like Lord Xenu, I'm sorry, but it's the case of mental insanity. Should they be allowed to believe in it? Sure. But they should also be categorized as lunatics who should have absolutely no way to interfere with the normal proceedings of a civilized society.


>> ^bareboards2:

This is a demonstrably false statement:
@EMPIRE said Religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.
I have often thought that atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid and intellectually bankrupt as any religious person. Here is the proof of it. You have your belief and no facts are going to get in your way.
You are the holder of the One Truth. There can be no Other Truth. If someone believes otherwise, they are a Heretic and an abomination.
The world isn't perfect. It is full of flawed human beings just trying to get by, trapped by their meat puppet bodies and brains. Some need a crutch to make it through life. You would deprive them of their crutch? THEY WILL FALL DOWN.
I keep saying the same thing over and over here on the Sift. You'd think I'd learn to back out of these pissing matches. I don't though, because I know that atheists ultimately are intelligent people, open to rational thought. I wouldn't try to talk shinyblurry out of his beliefs. That is a complete waste of effort. I am enough of a Pollyanna to think a rationalist will eventually get it -- that humans are flawed, that humans have had gods since the very beginning of human consciousness, that thinking that ALL HUMANS will leave behind an evolutionary trait is a fools game.
The best we can hope for is to keep religion out of the laws as much as possible. That is where someone's evolutionary crutch needs to keep to itself and out of my life. And keep educating about rational thought, throwing a life line to people who are born into a religion and don't hear anything but their family's brand of dogma.

This is a demonstrably false statement:

@EMPIRE said Religion is NOTHING BUT bullshit, deception and complete ignorance.

I have often thought that atheists can be just as dogmatic and rigid and intellectually bankrupt as any religious person. Here is the proof of it. You have your belief and no facts are going to get in your way.

You are the holder of the One Truth. There can be no Other Truth. If someone believes otherwise, they are a Heretic and an abomination.

The world isn't perfect. It is full of flawed human beings just trying to get by, trapped by their meat puppet bodies and brains. Some need a crutch to make it through life. You would deprive them of their crutch? THEY WILL FALL DOWN.

I keep saying the same thing over and over here on the Sift. You'd think I'd learn to back out of these pissing matches. I don't though, because I know that atheists ultimately are intelligent people, open to rational thought. I wouldn't try to talk shinyblurry out of his beliefs. That is a complete waste of effort. I am enough of a Pollyanna to think a rationalist will eventually get it -- that humans are flawed, that humans have had gods since the very beginning of human consciousness, that thinking that ALL HUMANS will leave behind an evolutionary trait is a fools game.

The best we can hope for is to keep religion out of the laws as much as possible. That is where someone's evolutionary crutch needs to keep to itself and out of my life. And keep educating about rational thought, throwing a life line to people who are born into a religion and don't hear anything but their family's brand of dogma.

I think culture can be used to affect evolution. Not always in a good way, though. The fact that the intelligent don't fuck as often as the dumb is kind of scary to me.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I think it's simply a cultural evolution. We're breaking out of a 20 year oppression from freedom of speech known as "political correctness". I was listening to Louis CK the other day in an interview from a couple of years ago and he mentioned that his comedy used to be more "silly" and nonsense. He hadn't really found a voice for himself until this one joke that he told.

Half expecting the audience to gasp, he told them that he had a 3 year old daughter that was a "fucking asshole". The audience erupted with laughter. He then built on that joke and the next time he went on stage he told the first part, then said "I get the whole 'baby in the dumpster' thing". The crowd was dying of laughter. From story of personal evolution of an act, I deduce that we're all adjusting our compasses. We still know what ignorance is from the days of political correctness, but we're no longer afraid to offend others. We're now entering the "You don't have the right to not be offended" era.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
indeed. i'm wondering if the popularity of that type of comedy is indicative of some sort of positive trend in the evolution of the human consciousness. or maybe i'm just grasping for positive trends among the less interesting aspects of a singular species destroying the planet.



ha! delightful. "get over yourself comedy"! def. a far cry from amos and andy.
spot on. hopefully we are getting less petty as a species.
i've been kicking around the connection between evolution of the consciousness and cultural/societal evolution. something about w/out culture/society we'd be jabbing eachother with pointy sticks. culture as either an evolution lubricant or as the primary propellant. the pretty hip too on the idea of the internet, being a cultural phenomenon, propelling evolution based on information exchange.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I think it's simply a cultural evolution. We're breaking out of a 20 year oppression from freedom of speech known as "political correctness". I was listening to Louis CK the other day in an interview from a couple of years ago and he mentioned that his comedy used to be more "silly" and nonsense. He hadn't really found a voice for himself until this one joke that he told.

Half expecting the audience to gasp, he told them that he had a 3 year old daughter that was a "fucking asshole". The audience erupted with laughter. He then built on that joke and the next time he went on stage he told the first part, then said "I get the whole 'baby in the dumpster' thing". The crowd was dying of laughter. From story of personal evolution of an act, I deduce that we're all adjusting our compasses. We still know what ignorance is from the days of political correctness, but we're no longer afraid to offend others. We're now entering the "You don't have the right to not be offended" era.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
indeed. i'm wondering if the popularity of that type of comedy is indicative of some sort of positive trend in the evolution of the human consciousness. or maybe i'm just grasping for positive trends among the less interesting aspects of a singular species destroying the planet.



ha! delightful. "get over yourself comedy"! def. a far cry from amos and andy.
spot on. hopefully we are getting less petty as a species.
i've been kicking around the connection between evolution of the consciousness and cultural/societal evolution. something about w/out culture/society we'd be jabbing eachother with pointy sticks. culture as either an evolution lubricant or as the primary propellant. the pretty hip too on the idea of the internet, being a cultural phenomenon, propelling evolution based on information exchange.

I think it's simply a cultural evolution. We're breaking out of a 20 year oppression from freedom of speech known as "political correctness". I was listening to Louis CK the other day in an interview from a couple of years ago and he mentioned that his comedy used to be more "silly" and nonsense. He hadn't really found a voice for himself until this one joke that he told.

Half expecting the audience to gasp, he told them that he had a 3 year old daughter that was a "fucking asshole". The audience erupted with laughter. He then built on that joke and the next time he went on stage he told the first part, then said "I get the whole 'baby in the dumpster' thing". The crowd was dying of laughter. From story of personal evolution of an act, I deduce that we're all adjusting our compasses. We still know what ignorance is from the days of political correctness, but we're no longer afraid to offend others. We're now entering the "You don't have the right to not be offended" era.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
indeed. i'm wondering if the popularity of that type of comedy is indicative of some sort of positive trend in the evolution of the human consciousness. or maybe i'm just grasping for positive trends among the less interesting aspects of a singular species destroying the planet.

indeed. i'm wondering if the popularity of that type of comedy is indicative of some sort of positive trend in the evolution of the human consciousness. or maybe i'm just grasping for positive trends among the less interesting aspects of a singular species destroying the planet.

The nervous system (brain, spinal cord, nerves) is an organ system just like your digestive system ( liver, intestines, salivary glands, etc.). People injure and mess up parts of their nervous system all the time, through accidents and what-not. While liver damage can lead to things like renal failure, injuries to the brain can lead to changes in memory access and retention, cognition,... interesting things that make up 'personality'.

I think consciousness is biological, and human consciousness is as biological as the consciousness of other animals. I think we are extraordinary at communication, and that's the major thing making us special in the animal kingdom... we love sounds and music and seeing friends and talking and learning about people and things. We are hyper vigilant with respect to personalities, and the fine details make everyone's unique in our eyes. So when a friend dies this personality that we knew so well now only exists as a detailed set of memories in our brain. And because this isn't terribly comforting, and because we're so keen on other people, we like to think that such an amazing thing as a personality continues on somehow after death.

my two cents!

"You just don't get it."
Well, then it's probably not important. If an argument is not worth making, it's not worth hearing.

In the above video he says a lot of stuff that has no bearing on reality, if he is indeed right, I want more evidence than just him or you saying "It's true".

@enoch Concerning dreams; There's a big difference between perception of reality and actual reality. Just because you can imagine (dream) in a non-linear way, doesn't mean your brain processes it in a non-linear way. We can watch movies with skipping times as well (like pulp fiction, for instance) but that doesn't change that the movie plays forward one picture at a time.

I'm sure Jung was a brilliant guy, Freud too, but it seems clear that they make the same God of the Gaps in their time as many other brilliant men did as well. There's a sift with Neil deGrasse Tyson somewhere, where he talks about god of the gaps and the many brilliant men who fall back on that, when they can't explain something.

He bases his argument on "You can have dreams or visions of the future, only ignorance denies this" well, I think that's false. Our brain can guess and sometimes hit somewhat close to what actually happens, but the brain retroactively molds our memory to fit better, by only remembering some parts and forgetting others. I've not seen evidence yet of anyone being able to predict the future beyond the obvious or better than guesswork. So, that is a faulty assumption. Like he says in the latter part, he does not believe for the sake of believing, but if there's sufficient reason to believe a thing, he will believe it. That's a good way to go, but there's not enough reason to believe the mind is separate from the body. There are, on the other hand, plenty of evidence that we're confined in our bodies.

>> ^rougy:

>> ^berticus:
jung had salient insights into human consciousness?
where?
next you'll be telling me freud was really great too.

If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.
It's...wasted breath.
He coined the term "synchronicity" which so many have tried to denigrate into "coincidence."
But it is much more than that, and only the aware will comprehend.
He recognized the archetypes that transcended cultures, around the world, through the centuries.
Anybody who calls bullshit on C.G. Jung hasn't done his homework.