Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Edward the Theist]

Edward,
I would be interested in your definition of consciousness.  It appears that you use it when you mean thought.  Dreams are part of a thought process.  How do you differentiate between consciousness and thought or for that matter, how do you differentiate between consciousness and awareness?

I believe dreams are a model that we can use to understand creation and consciousness. A dream seems to be the same as reality but a lower order of it. Take a glass in a dream. If you smash it, you will get shards, and if you smash them you will get dust, and if you smash it you will get atoms, and if you go even further, eventually you will only find yourself.

Consciousness manifests as awareness and thought and will, but I believe it is possible to prove it is also the substance of the universe. But I can't prove that at this time. God will have to provide me with some kind of new insight in order to model it.

I mean, there are problems: why should consciousness form into the universe as we know it? Why should it exist at all? Why isn't nothingness simply the state of things. One thing I know, "nothing" is impossible. There is no such thing as "nothing." And proving that will be very important to me, if I can do it. Because it may be the case that the simplest imaginable state is nothingness, but if that's impossible, perhaps a necessary consciousness must be what has to fill the gap.

The mystery of it all!

[George]

I believe dreams are a model that we can use to understand creation and consciousness. A dream seems to be the same as reality but a lower order of it. Take a glass in a dream. If you smash it, you will get shards, and if you smash them you will get dust, and if you smash it you will get atoms, and if you go even further, eventually you will only find yourself.

What?? I can't remember ever having smashed a glass in a dream but if I did I'm sure I wouldn't continue smashing the shards etc until I was left finding 'myself'. Maybe I'm taking this too literally but you've completely lost me here..

[Asmodean]

I'm at work, so unfortunately there is little time for a proper response. However,

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

"Necessarilly existed"..? How is such a force necessary? And why does it have to be conscious?

[notself]

Edward,

The mistake holding you back is that you believe everything you think.  The proper order is to hypothesize, test, re-test, define, and then perhaps believe.  In order to hypothesize you have to review all literature and studies on the subject not only those that agree with you.  You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

It is quite possible that consciousness is more than one state.  When one is in a coma one is declared unconscious.  When one is stupid with drugs or alcohol, it is possible to be called conscious even though this consciousness is so impaired as to border on the unconscious.  There is consciousness of the higher order, that which responds to others and consciousness of a lower order that keeps heart and lungs working even though the brain may be so damaged that one is unaware of one's surroundings.  In any case, consciousness has never been observed outside a living being.  If consciousness were an underlying force of the universe, then rocks should show evidence of consciousness.  

One definition in my dictionary calls consciousness "an epiphenomenon or dependent accompaniment of physical existence".  What makes you think that consciousness is a precursor rather the immanent property of life?

[Sophus]

I'm at work, so unfortunately there is little time for a proper response. However,

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

"Necessarilly existed"..? How is such a force necessary? And why does it have to be conscious?

Indeed, how on earth is that necessary if not even all protozoa exhibit "consciousness"? This seems very similar to the train of thought Intelligent Design follows.

[spoiler:3oemwdyx]Because I remain so eager for a response to this:

The Magic Pudding’s satirical antenna remark is actually quite astute in that: if you concede certain things are not made to receive consciousness from some external force while others are (especially when some protozoa do and others don't), why then implement the external force at all? It’s not necessary. It means there’s something already going on inside of the organism which accounts for this.

[/spoiler:3oemwdyx]

[Martin TK]

To be fair, he didn't say you weren't what you claim.  Morph's just saying that it doesn't comport with his experience.  That's not an "attack", for my money.

Oh, I agree with you there.... I think his taking my statements as somehow bullying is the only thing I might have taken as somewhat challenging.  I'm done now anyway, it's starting to decay into silliness to me.  I want to debate the issues of religion, not my credentials or his experiences with clinicians, this is getting way out of hand for no reason.

Peace.

You know what? I think you probably are a clincical psychologist. I just don't think you have any credibility anymore. You don't want to be lectured on ethics? Then don't violate them, dude.

I'll keep that in mind, and coming from YOU, it means SO MUCH MORE... thanks...  

[Martin TK]

Edward,
I would be interested in your definition of consciousness.  It appears that you use it when you mean thought.  Dreams are part of a thought process.  How do you differentiate between consciousness and thought or for that matter, how do you differentiate between consciousness and awareness?

I believe dreams are a model that we can use to understand creation and consciousness. A dream seems to be the same as reality but a lower order of it. Take a glass in a dream. If you smash it, you will get shards, and if you smash them you will get dust, and if you smash it you will get atoms, and if you go even further, eventually you will only find yourself.

Consciousness manifests as awareness and thought and will, but I believe it is possible to prove it is also the substance of the universe. But I can't prove that at this time. God will have to provide me with some kind of new insight in order to model it.

I mean, there are problems: why should consciousness form into the universe as we know it? Why should it exist at all? Why isn't nothingness simply the state of things. One thing I know, "nothing" is impossible. There is no such thing as "nothing." And proving that will be very important to me, if I can do it. Because it may be the case that the simplest imaginable state is nothingness, but if that's impossible, perhaps a necessary consciousness must be what has to fill the gap.

The mystery of it all!

I guess the mystery for me is trying to keep up here.  Dreams are a model by which we can understand creation and consciousness??? I'm not following you.  Can you control what you dream to the point of smashing a glass into some state of finding yourself??  I'm just not getting it... what study or testing are you using for this, theory???

What Gaps are you trying to fill?  I'm sorry that you seem to have a bad taste for me, and I'm good with it, but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here, so until you can do more, in a more logical manner, I'm done... Thanks for trying, though... Peace, DUDE...

[Edward the Theist]

but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here.

If you can't follow the discussion, that's not my fault.

[Thumpalumpacus]

but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here.

If you can't follow the discussion, that's not my fault.

Actually, communication is a dual responsibility. You cannot complain of Germans not understanding your message if you speak Portuguese.

[Edward the Theist]

but I can't seem to grasp what you are attempting to do here.

If you can't follow the discussion, that's not my fault. :livelong:

[Edward the Theist]

Edward,

The mistake holding you back is that you believe everything you think.  The proper order is to hypothesize, test, re-test, define, and then perhaps believe.  In order to hypothesize you have to review all literature and studies on the subject not only those that agree with you.  You believe something to be true, underlying consciousness, and then you propose it to others as the truth before you have any way to test it.  You have even skipped the steps necessary to formulate a proper hypothesis.

Okay. But one has to start somewhere. In order to talk about God, we have to start with a definition. I proposed a definition--assuming we're talking about the original post. Now everyone is all upset because like little birds wanting worms they are begging for proof, proof, proof, and I'm not even sure my definition is right.

I know there is consciousness. I have every reason to believe it exists externally to life forms. I have every reason to believe that non-living matter can't produce it. So, I reason that it is a primordial force. I know that before the universe existed there was a state of eternity. I reason that if consciousness is not created by physical matter that it probably existed before the universe. Thus we have the simplest possible state of being: consciousness in eternity. That's where I'm at.

Now, I suppose you want me to prove what the universe was like before it existed. I'm not even sure what kind of proof that would be. What I intend to do is propose a theory for how it was and how the universe came to be from it. I intend to model that mathematically and explore the implications of it philosophically.

As for proof. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. I say consciousness exists outside central nervous systems. You say prove it. I show you paramecium. You say that's not consciousness. I show you studies of behavioral training is parameciums, you say that's not proof of anything. I can't win. So, I'm not playing the game.

The bottom line is proof is in the eye of the beholder. What you belive, you assume is proved.

One definition in my dictionary calls consciousness "an epiphenomenon or dependent accompaniment of physical existence".  What makes you think that consciousness is a precursor rather the immanent property of life?

It can't be an epiphenomenon. An epiphenomenon would be like a waterfall that makes a rainbow. Kill the waterfall, and the rainbow simply fades away. Some people think that's what consciousness is like, but in order to take that model to its logical implication, you would have to assume that the rainbow not only comes from the waterfall, but creates the waterfall to begin with. Epiphenominalism always, inevitably, in one way or another, no matter how you look at it, puts the cart impossibly before the horse.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is that the whiff of snark I smell?  Come now.  Can you not admit that your comparison to dreams and what-not might beggar imagination?  I sure in hell don't dream that way.  

Put it in terms a simple rube like me might understand.

[Edward the Theist]

Is that the whiff of snark I smell?  Come now.  Can you not admit that your comparison to dreams and what-not might beggar imagination?  I sure in hell don't dream that way.  

Put it in terms a simple rube like me might understand.

I dream every night, all night long. I'm not sure everyone else does. But surely someone else does. I have studied my dreams very closely, and I assume other people have similar dreams that I do. Can I prove it? No. I just assume it to be true.

In my dreams, The ground is the ground, the air is just like air. A car is just like a car, etc. And yet all of those things, if (IF) I were to break them down in the dream, all the way to sub atomic particles, or whatever, and beyond. Eventually, I would find only myself. And it would be from me (my mind that is) that everythings finds its substance in my dream, as well as the other people in it, who seem to be different than me.

I therefore think that a dream may be a model for the real world, but the dream is of a lower order. Or, perhaps a dream is just as real as the real world. We don't stay in dreams long enough to find out.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay. But one has to start somewhere. In order to talk about God, we have to start with a definition. I proposed a definition--assuming we're talking about the original post. Now everyone is all upset because like little birds wanting worms they are begging for proof, proof, proof, and I'm not even sure my definition is right.

Nor are we sure, thus the requests for clarification.

I know there is consciousness. I have every reason to believe it exists externally to life forms. I have every reason to believe that non-living matter can't produce it. So, I reason that it is a primordial force. I know that before the universe existed there was a state of eternity.

Time, being one dimension of our reality, unfolded with the three spatial dimensions.  Therefore, any concept of "eternity" is meaningless.   And how did you come to "know" this, anyway?

I reason that if consciousness is not created by physical matter that it probably existed before the universe. Thus we have the simplest possible state of being: consciousness in eternity. That's where I'm at.

Bold, if not big, "if".  Your hypothesis falters when you consider that consciousness has only been shown to exist atop a material substrate.  Can you point me to one example of consciousness that doesn't have a physical base?  Even your paramecia are physical.

Now, I suppose you want me to prove what the universe was like before it existed.

No, even I know that Planck-time renders that question unanswerable.

I'm not even sure what kind of proof that would be. What I intend to do is propose a theory for how it was and how the universe came to be from it. I intend to model that mathematically and explore the implications of it philosophically.

Ugh, philosophy.  Surely you realize that thoughts must bow to reality, and not vice-versa?

As for proof. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. I say consciousness exists outside central nervous systems. You say prove it. I show you paramecium. You say that's not consciousness. I show you studies of behavioral training is parameciums, you say that's not proof of anything. I can't win. So, I'm not playing the game.

Well, I don't think of this as a game, but a discussion.  If you refuse to discuss, however, you lose all chance of convincing those who don't agree.  Remember this passage if you ever complain that people won't listen to you:  "So, I'm not playing that game."

The bottom line is proof is in the eye of the beholder. What you believe, you assume is proved.

Truer words were never spoken.  Physician, heal thyself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is that the whiff of snark I smell?  Come now.  Can you not admit that your comparison to dreams and what-not might beggar imagination?  I sure in hell don't dream that way.  

Put it in terms a simple rube like me might understand.

I dream every night, all night long. I'm not sure everyone else does. But surely someone else does. I have studied my dreams very closely, and I assume other people have similar dreams that I do. Can I prove it? No. I just assume it to be true.

In my dreams, The ground is the ground, the air is just like air. A car is just like a car, etc. And yet all of those things, if (IF) I were to break them down in the dream, all the way to sub atomic particles, or whatever, and beyond. Eventually, I would find only myself. And it would be from me (my mind that is) that everythings finds its substance in my dream, as well as the other people in it, who seem to be different than me.

I therefore think that a dream may be a model for the real world, but the dream is of a lower order. Or, perhaps a dream is just as real as the real world. We don't stay in dreams long enough to find out.

As I said, I don't dream that way, and frankly, I don't see the relevance.  Unless you're doing the "butterfly dreaming it's a philosopher" thing.

Come to think of it, even then I don't see the relevance, because at that point it is non-falsifiable.