It is surely not pseudoscience. It flows out of Einstein’s theory of relativity. There is a discussion between Karl Popper and Einstein regarding the implications.
EarlierI has linked a paper on the subject and I am delinking it.
The quantum theory of time, the block universe, and human...
There is surely a need to understand some aspects of subjective experience of flow of time from POV of physics. Objectively, time does not pass, physics reveals no such phenomenon.
Some people do pay attention to such fringe concerns.
The quantum theory of time, the block universe and human...
In my understanding, from the perspective of eastern religions, creation proceeds from God who does not create but. In sun's presence everything happens in our part of the world, but sun does not will anything. If God was the wilful creator, then it would be trapped in the net of cause-effect...
Not at all. :D
Examples that you cite are mainly of correlations between first party subjective experience to third party records that have no causal explanations. On the other hand, Spinoza’s double-aspect theory (or current dual aspect monism) is perfectly consistent with the correlations...
Huh? Very unique. You mean the physical processes of brain somehow have 'self awareness' and subjective experiences? Or are you saying that there is nothing like 'self awareness' and no subjective experience? Do mean that brain processes develop will and desire? Or are you saying that there is...
'Ordinary mind of nowness'. That is a mouthful. What does that even mean with regards to the origin and nature of an ordinary mind??
Furthermore, is the following description of Nibbana a fabrication?
Ud 8.3
PTS: Ud 80
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro...
QUOTE="Evangelicalhumanist, post: 6210558, member: 47768"]PRECISECLY!!!!
The only reason we identify as "atheist" is we are constantly surrounded by people making claims for which they can provide no evidence.
You seem to be contradicting yourself in above two texts.
I have two questions. Why should an experience of dissolution of subject-object division lead to a definition or an understanding of god? Further, why such a definition cannot be supported by the modules in brain?