Can Nature and God be the same thing?

To me, reality is inherently perceptual in nature because the field of consciousness, prior to cognition, has no material qualities. At the onset of cognition, everything takes on a form, color and texture informed by knowledge to generate an illusion of Nature. Is this supernatural or what? To me, that is God in action.
To me that sounds like our Human Mindscape in action.

To me nature is the product of a material evolutionary process. It couldn’t care less about human consciousness or cognitive ability.

 

Of course if you want to get poetic or religious, we could see ourselves as God’s OH, wait a minute. I just remembered something from long ago:

Humanity is the most exquisite example of God's need to understand itself. (Got a story to go with it but will spare you all)
But that's all woo, guess that's where chopra comes in.

Just realized I left out part of that quote,

Humanity is the most exquisite example of God’s need, and desire, to understand itself.
Just realized I left out part of that quote. To be sure this is woo and not science, so no spit balls. ;- )

Sree said, “To me, reality is inherently perceptual in nature because the field of consciousness, prior to cognition, has no material qualities. At the onset of cognition, everything takes on a form, color and texture informed by knowledge to generate an illusion of Nature. Is this supernatural or what? To me, that is God in action.”

TimB replies: In my paradigm, perceptions are also behaviors. When you say “Cognitions” this encompasses a bunch of different cognitive behaviors. So it is impossible to understand what you mean by “prior to cognition”. But, there cannot be consciousness without cognitions, and yes, there cannot be cognitions without perceptual abilities. I go further and suggest that some consciousness behaviors (e.g. remembering memories behavior) cannot develop well without the concurrent development of advanced verbal behavior).

NONE OF THIS is supernatural.

Tim: “NONE OF THIS is supernatural.”

What is considered natural is normal and mundane because we know (thanks to science) the nature of everything and how they work. I reject common knowledge, take nothing for granted and, in true Dawkins fashion, question every dogma of science in the same fashion Dawkins questions dogmas of religion. When I examine the world anew, I run like a computer that no longer processes perceptual information like you guys operating on programs written by mankind. You see yourselves as human beings living on Planet Earth. Not me, not until this assertion can be verified, corroborated and confirmed by independent third parties that don’t have consciousness generated by the human brain. Do you get that, sweetheart?

Am I supernatural or what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsIgubUjTck&t=91s

Sree said, To me, reality is inherently perceptual in nature because the field of consciousness, prior to cognition, has no material qualities. At the onset of cognition, everything takes on a form, color and texture informed by knowledge to generate an illusion of Nature. Is this supernatural or what? To me, that is God in action.
It is true, everything takes on form, color, and texture, but that is not informed by a knowledgeable single supernatural entity.

A mathematical essence to spacetime geometry and its various dynamical properties are quite capable of the self-ordering of mathematical patterns, as can be demonstrated in a laboratory.

NOTE: it is the self-ordering that can be demonstrated, not the motivation of the experimenters.

A motivated supernatural being is not required. In fact such an assumption is going down the same path of all mythology, that is old thinking.
Here is a perfet demonstration of self-organisation in pattern forming. You can even find the double helix of DNA magically appearing. This is a demonstration of evolution in pattern formation on very small temporal and spatial scales.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrX2yTGJ6N0

This is not a motivated action, it is merely an expression of the mathematical nature of physical interactions and expressions.

Write4U: “It is true, everything takes on form, color, and texture, but that is not informed by a knowledgeable single supernatural entity.”

Did I assert the existence of a supernatural entity? What did I say that made you insert that notion into my explanation?

Sree said,

At the onset of cognition, everything takes on a form, color and texture informed by knowledge to generate an illusion of Nature. Is this supernatural or what? To me, that is God in action.

Write4U: “It is true, everything takes on form, color, and texture, but that is not informed by a knowledgeable single supernatural entity.”


Or as you put it, “that is God in action”. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I just wanted to offer my perspective of human “cognition” and “learning” without invoking a sort of mystical “teacher”.

I do agree that ultimately the search for truth is causal to both disciplines of Science and Religion. I believe Nature alone is sufficiently difficult to fully understand without invoking even more mysterious causalites such as divine “miracles”.

 

 


 

 

Sree said,

My mind is ever changing, Lausten, like the flowing waters of a stream. I hold on to nothing.


That’s an excellent perspective and reminds of the closing remarks Roger Antonsen in this excellent video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQElzjCsl9o&t=415s

 

Write4U: “Or as you put it, “that is God in action”. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. I just wanted to offer my perspective of human “cognition” and “learning” without invoking a sort of mystical “teacher”.”

Ok, I did use the word “God”. If there is any misunderstanding on your part, it’s my fault. I am not a theist. “God”, to me, means anything amazing and inexplicable . I don’t accept scientific explanations of phenomena. Those explanations are useful for getting things done and that’s just about it.

If there is any misunderstanding on your part, it’s my fault.
Framing that one.
I don’t accept scientific explanations of phenomena.

Those scientific explanations are useful for getting things done and that’s just about it.


 

So typical, Sree is dependent on fabricating a false story of his ‘enemy’

You leave out that science is also about how things get done, and science is also about understanding our life story and our planet’s life story.

What more are you expecting?

@Sree, seriously what is missing in Science?

Can you define it?

Again do you really think you can frame God Almighty?

Your authority is ancient tribal texts. They been study endlessly and used to justify authority and all sorts of things.

And it all adds up to Shadow Plays to help us deal with the incomprehensible, nothing wrong with that,

but it’s a very bad thing to forget that we live in a physical world that transcends all those stories and all the projected faith people can muster.

Citizen, science is the study of the natural world. Scientists are still studying its mysterious nature. Only lay folks are dead certain about what is beneath their feet, above their heads, between their ears, where they come from, and how it happened. Their only disagreement is the last part: how it happened.

Me, I am with those scientists who are still studying the mystery.

Tim said: “NONE OF THIS is supernatural.”

Sree said: “… When I examine the world anew, I run like a computer that no longer processes perceptual information like you guys operating on programs written by mankind. You see yourselves as human beings living on Planet Earth. Not me, not until this assertion can be verified, corroborated and confirmed by independent third parties that don’t have consciousness generated by the human brain. Do you get that, sweetheart? Am I supernatural or what?”

TimB replies: “No. I don’t get what you’re rambling on about. And I don’t get why you are calling me sweetheart. Are you in love with me, now? And no, you are not supernatural. Did you get THAT, darling?”

 

Precious… :slight_smile:

Sree said,

Me, I am with those scientists who are still studying the mystery.


I can guarantee they’re not looking to the bible for answers.

How about; Can the Mathematical essence of nature and God be the same thing.

If creativeness is a measure, the only difference is that Mathematics is a stoic imperative, whereas God has been assigned emotional motives.

If it comes to a logical contest, I’ll pick Mathematics every time.

I can see mathematics in action every day, but I have never seen any evidence of a motivated god.

…physicists tend to define God — if they do at all — on their own terms: a pantheistic all-encompassing disinterested deity. Nature = Divinity. This is not a new idea, though. The search for the divine in the natural world extends back at least into the Enlightenment, … Not coincidentally, this was also the period when the human mind was placed at the center of creation and — one could say — worshipped. If God was in nature, the mind alone could make the discovery. (Excerpt. Trevor Quirk. Texas Monthly)

Sree said,

If God was in nature, the mind alone could make the discovery.


The human mind is the only mind capable of worship and thereby act contrary to natural mathematical rules.

All other minds are only capable of respect and thereby act in harmony with natural mathematical rules.

Lemurs can count as well as humans, they just don’t use symbolic mathematical numbers so that they can cheat… :slight_smile:

Ask two questions and see which yields the most positive POV

a) Can man exist with a God, but without Universal Mathematics?

b) Can man exist with Universal Mathematics, but without a God?

 

Write4U: I can see mathematics in action every day, but I have never seen any evidence of a motivated god.
Mathematics, like a musical score, is a language invented by the human mind. To see mathematics in action is to see God twice removed in everyday life. Would you rather lose yourself in the sound of the violin or see the action of horse hair on cow gut?