> > Consciousness as Unified Field... > > TurquoiseB wrote: > I have *no problem* with an underlying unity to > the universe that works like an operating system. > Then you probably wouldn't have a *problem* with the notion of a 'programmer' who writes the operating system, since something cannot come out of nothing. Obviously, operating systems don't write themselves.
> It just works in the background to allow creation > to run itself, > So, you're assuming that the programmer designed the operating system to run itself, but that the programmer doesn't have the ability to make any changes in the operating system - it just runs itself perfectly every time; there are no errors in the system, no flaws, just absolute perfection. > without having to be either aware of creation or > having the ability to interfere with it. > So, you're saying that the underlying 'unity' is a system created by a programmer and that it runs itself in the background but that the programmer doesn't habe the ability to interfere with it's operation - so the system is a static system, not dynamic at all. There is no change possible, it's destined to operate the way it does because it's all pre-programmed. > And for me, this operating system can be reduced > to two primary components -- karma plus free will. > *Two components* would indicate that there is a dualism in creation, each working against the other. But you had previously stated that there was just one component - an operating system. But, you have not defined 'karma', thus you've just introduced an infinite regress or a 'circle jerk'. For example, does the word 'karma' operate on the level of mental states, or just on the level of the material? Is there such a thing as moral reciprocity? Or, is 'karma' just the material law of cause and effect? If so, then you would have just a mechanical system, with the law of karma operating in a purely automatic fashion - if so that would rule out the idea of right actions. If karma is just a mechanical law of cause and effect then that would rule out 'free will'. You can't have a pure mechanical system that allows for free will, because you have already stated that no change can be made by the creator of the operating system. That would be a contradiction and would produce error since a perfect system would have no need for change. Error in a perfect system would produce chaos. > The combination of those two forces accounts for > all phenomena in the known universe, without the > need for any kind of Godly sentience or > intervention. > You've just introduced another infinite regress or 'circle jerk': are there any 'forces' in the universe? A 'force' would imply change which you have already ruled out. A 'force' could enter into the operating system and could cause change in the system. > Since I'm an Occam's Razor kinda guy, the simple > explanation is the more likely explanation. Any > explanation that involves a sentient or > interventionist God is more complicated, and thus > less likely. > If you were an 'Occam's Razor' kinda guy, you would not have introduced a dualism in your system - a creator or programmer AND a interventionist 'force' that could cause change in the system. > While there may *be* inviolable "laws of nature," > I would suggest that no human being on the planet > knows what they are. At best they have a guess at > what they are. > There are the laws of physics. I would suggest that almost everyone on the planet is aware of. For example, human excrement ALWAYS flows downstream. Everything that goes up must come down. > And any scientist *or* philosopher worth his salt > would probably agree with me. > So, which scientist would disagree with the "laws of nature"? > And if they did, their ability *to* walk through > a wall that appears solid does not "disprove the > laws of nature." It only disproves the puny ideas > of what those "laws" were that humans had before. > If a person could 'walk through walls' then that would be magic, the ability to cause change in physical object at will. The operating system would be able to create itself manifold and replicate itself. But you have introduced the concept of 'ideas', which would be foreign to the operating system. It has already been established by you that the system is a purely mechanical system without any consciouness - only a conscious creator or operator could have 'ideas'. > Not that long ago, the "laws of nature" that most > human beings in the Western world would agree were > sacrosanct and inviolable involved the sun orbiting > the earth. That this turned out not to be true did > not invalidate the concept that there may be some > rules that shape the nature of the universe, it > just revealed the poverty of human imagination in > trying to get a handle on what those rules are. > This is however a logical fallacy of accident since a determination of the veracity of a statement does not automatically indicate support of an opinion expressed in that statement.
