David But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended.
> > 
> > Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of confabulation?
> 
> Since you are still questioning and I've given you my concept of confabulation, I have no idea what you are after. I think you are saying you don't trust your own experience of consciousness as meaning what it seems.-What would confabulation look like for you, if you experienced it?-You say you have not experienced it so you must know what to look out for. So when you say you have not experienced it what are you looking out for?-If you have described what confabulation means for you, then please provide a link, thanks.


> dhw: Thank you for this explanation. Perhaps you would also explain why some scientists do not think that consciousness is the basis of the universe.-I have no idea. The concept makes good sense, since it is a constant issue, and is constantly challenged by experimentation in every more complex ways..

David But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended.
> 
> Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of confabulation?-Since you are still questioning and I've given you my concept of confabulation, I have no idea what you are after. I think you are saying you don't trust your own experience of consciousness as meaning what it seems.

David I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained.
> > 
> > Romansh: What would confabulation look like if you could find it?
> 
> David But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended.-Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of confabulation?-If the answer is yes, please have a go at answering my question above.

DAVID: Answered in my previous entry. My interpretation of the arrival of humans covers your holes.
> 
> dhw: Ah, so you do know how God's 3.8-billion-year programme for all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders works, and you do know why all these extinct and extant organisms and wonders were/are necessary for the production of one species. It's true that you have offered the balance of nature to provide food for humans as an explanation. But at other times you have admitted you don't know. And it is the aspects of your theory you can't explain that I call holes.-As I've said, it all leads up to the arrival of humans, and I don't consider your problems with it potholes in the road.-
> dhw: Do you understand the concept of delayed choice experiments?
> [/i]
> 
> I understand that nobody understands why particles behave the way they do, and observation appears to dictate their behaviour. How does that invalidate the fact that matter and energy have been proved over and over again to behave in an utterly predictable manner whether we observe them or not? I am not denying the importance of consciousness, but I am simply pointing out that quantum experiments do not make the quantum world any more real than the world we experience in our everyday lives, regardless of the subjectivity of our perception.-In delayed choice, conscious changes in the outcome change the observations in the beginning. Choice changes the state of the initial quanta. That is as real as anything else, even if there is not a rational explanation except consciousness. And it is why many quantum scientists think consciousness is the basis of the universe. Do you have a problem with that? Matter and energy work under these rules all the time at macro levels while at the micro levels the particles are playing their game producing the macro level.


> DAVID: What you see as holes, simply I don't, so we are stuck with the difference.
> 
> dhw: If there are aspects of a theory you don't understand (such as how divine planning/dabbling works, or why millions of species and lifestyles and wonders are necessary for the production of one species), I would suggest that not seeing holes is the result of closing your eyes!-Answered in my previous entry. My interpretation of the arrival of humans covers your holes.-> 
> DAVID:Yes a great mystery. We don't understand delayed choice experiments except by invoking the primacy of consciousness.
> 
> dhw: And we don't understand toe-stubbing except by invoking the primacy of matter and energy.-Neat sidestep. Do you understand the concept of delayed choice experiments?

David I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained.
> 
> Romansh: What would confabulation look like if you could find it?-But I don't find it. You appear to interpret your sense of consciousness as a misinterpretation, not willfully intended.


> dhw: If I am presented with a theory full of holes, of course I want reasons, just as you do when applying your human logic to alternatives.-What you see as holes, simply I don't, so we are stuck with the difference.-> DAVID: I assume, if God is guiding evolution, He knows everything.
> 
> dhw: Why do you assume that? Haisch thinks God wanted to experience what it was like to live in the universe. So God wouldn't have known that in advance, would he? Some process theologians suggest that God is learning all the time: he is (in) the process of “becoming”. And if he created life as a great experiment, there would not be much point if he knew every result in advance. My hypotheses 2 and 3 allowed for guidance and God NOT knowing everything.-I cannot deny that thought.-> DAVID: Thank you for listening. His point of view represents many famous quantum scientists. Consciousness is the basis of reality, which explains how I developed my idea of a universal consciousness.
> 
> dhw: I understand why the idea appeals to you. What a pity the rock I stubbed my toe on didn't share Haisch's belief that consciousness creates reality. In the light of daily experience, for all its subjectivity, I would be reluctant to exclude matter and energy from any description of “the basis of reality”.... Maybe we should confine ourselves to Haisch's wonderfully helpless response to the simplest of questions: ”There is a mystery here.”-Yes a great mystery. We don't understand delayed choice experiments except by invoking the primacy of consciousness.

I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained.-What would confabulation look like if you could find it?


> dhw: I have answered it a thousand times: nothing beyond bacteria was “required by Nature”, but dinosaurs, the weaverbird and the duckbilled platypus all showed up. I have indeed looked at the results of evolution, and I see an extraordinary variety of life, and I learn that 99% of the variety has died, and none of this fits in with what you call an “arrow of purpose”. -That is your analysis. You want reasons for all the variations of life. You want human-planning logic. I don't know that it is required. I admit, I look at the endpoint of evolution, and admit I do not fully understand the process.-
> dhw: You have even left out two hypotheses (2 and 3) in which humans did have a special place, but perhaps you can't bear the thought of your God not knowing everything right from the start. -I assume, if God is guiding evolution, He knows everything.-> 
> dhw: You are repeating my own acknowledgement that it is far-fetched. What you cannot see is that your own concept of an eternal sourceless know-it-all intelligence is equally far-fetched. That is why you need faith to believe in it.-Not farfetched if one concludes it is the only answer to the 'why' question.-> 
> dhw: I listened to Haisch's lecture, in which he claims repeatedly that consciousness creates reality and reality depends on consciousness (sometimes substituting observation for consciousness). .....I would say the mystery is the weirdness of the quantum world, but that doesn't make it any more real than the world we inhabit. We had the same discussion with Ruth Kastner. We all know that conscious perception is subjective, but that does not mean there is no such thing as objective reality, .....-Thank you for listening. His point of view represents many famous quantum scientists. Consciousness is the basis of reality, which explains how I developed my idea of a universal consciousness.


> dhw: Complete misunderstanding. For the sake of argument, I have accepted that design set up the mechanism for evolution. But that does not mean the mechanism preprogrammed the course of evolution. Your God could have designed it to do its own thing.
> 
> DAVID: But that hypothesis leaves out a drive for humans; they then are an accident of chance, a la Gould.
> 
> dhw: Of course it leaves out a drive for humans. That is the issue we are debating: your belief that your God geared evolution to the production of humans...... All three explain the higgledy-piggledy bush, and even 1) is designed by the mechanism, but humans are not your God's purpose.-You are a great playwright, but your imagination of God's purposes does not look at the results of evolution. Have you every answered the question, why are there humans at all? Never required by nature when they showed up. Everyone else was doing fine.-> 
> dhw: Random mutations within God's mechanism are just another example of divine design without humans as the purpose of every phase-See Noble's lecture. NO random mutations.-> 
> dhw: “Where does autonomous intelligence come from?” is one of the great unanswered and unanswerable questions. Your answer is all earthly life and intelligence comes from another form of intelligence which didn't come from anywhere but simply IS. And you mutter “first cause”, as if that explained everything. Since the only intelligence we know is associated with materials, the claim that “first cause” is intelligent is no more credible than the claim that intelligence can arise “de novo” through a particular combination of materials. Of course it's far-fetched.-What is farfetched is assuming that 'somehow' consciousness can arise from non-living inorganic material. See Haisch's lecture. -> DAVID: According to Haisch, who uses quantum examples, he states consciousness is the basis of reality. I've read his book. Watch his video. It is only 30 minutes, 40 with the questions discussion. His reasoning and the many quantum theorists who support him, is why I stress so much quantum mechanics in my entries.
> 
> dhw: I found an interview on a rather dull programme called The Moore Show. I can see why you like him, and there was one intriguing idea that God's purpose is to know himself through us. Maybe his book explains what he means. If “many” quantum theorists support him, that can only mean that some do not, and so it would be difficult for a non-quantum-theorist to take sides.-I've never seen disagreement. He's not the only one. Heisenberg is another famous proponent. Consciousness plays a role in all experiments where choice and timing of choice is involved. I've covered this several times in the past. Remember delayed choice can change the original observations!-> (I see you've now given a link to the video. I'll try to catch up over the
weekend.)-I don't know what website you found I presented him twice now, once on Thursday:-Thursday, December 10, 2015, 01:31


> Romansh: In the everyday vernacular I have more than my fair share of intelligence and I can only suppose an average share of consciousness.
> 
> But then when I use this supposed intelligence and consciousness I find cracks in these concepts, not just intellectually speaking but in actual practice.
> 
> If I look carefully I can find myself confabulating my supposed intelligence and consciousness. 
> 
> Again for me, everything is conscious or nothing is conscious ... they are two sides of the same immaterial coin.-I don't find confabulation. I just accept what I feel. With Haisch saying everything starts with consciousness I guess you have a point, at least, that consciousness is immaterial, and I would remind you, totally unexplained.

David The usual problem. I recognize my consciousness and my intelligence, and I have to assume you possess the same. I assume you control your thoughts as I do. -In the everyday vernacular I have more than my fair share of intelligence and I can only suppose an average share of consciousness.-But then when I use this supposed intelligence and consciousness I find cracks in these concepts, not just intellectually speaking but in actual practice.-If I look carefully I can find myself confabulating my supposed intelligence and consciousness. -Again for me, everything is conscious or nothing is conscious ... they are two sides of the same immaterial coin.

David Exactly. I have my origin of that intelligence. You have none.
> 
> Romansh: What we call intelligence is actually (in my opinion) simply a pattern of behaviour of molecules, electrons, ions an no doubt some "quantum" fields that has evolved over time. 
> 
> Arguments from incredulity for an intelligence to set all this in motion, just don't work for my pattern.
> 
> I would like to see the evidence for this magical "intelligence" that we imbue one another with.-The usual problem. I recognize my consciousness and my intelligence, and I have to assume you possess the same. I assume you control your thoughts as I do. You drag in quantum fields as an evolved latecomer. You might want to review the Haisch video I presented yesterday. Based on quantum observations he thinks consciousness is the basis of reality, so everything starts with quantum reality.-Thursday, December 10, 2015, 01:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nttB3Wze3Y8