God Exists, Sort Of

Religion and Secularism
21
... we have pretty well determined the laws of the universe that govern the things we interact with using our basic senses.
The philosophy of science prevalent for the last two hundred years or so is basically that we can only say something is true if we can observe it. That of course limits us to acknowledging only what we can demonstrate. Einstein used this philosophy to posit that nothing can move faster than light speed. Consider that he had to say that because if he had said we cannot observe anything moving faster than the speed of light he would have been indicating that it might be possible for something to move faster than light speed. Under the philosophy he accepted he had to deny that possibility even if he believed it.

The current accepted philosophy of science includes a practical a priori notion that our senses limit the possibilities of existence in the Universe. I find this more than a bit presumptuous. I accept the notion that what exists in the Universe and actions associated with it is not dependent upon the ability of human beings to discern it. To deny something’s existence simply because we have not experienced it is wrong, to me. That is just as wrong as claiming that something does exist without having experienced it. I accept that it may not be possible for one human to share every experience with another human especially by means of demonstration. Knowledge and proof are elusive.

Imagination is limited to extrapolation from experience. We can imagine only in terms of what we have experienced. If we are to accept that there actually is the “other 95%” then we should accept that our imagination is limited to only 5% of what is. Thus limited, of course we would not assign a high probability to anything we might imagine within the other 95%, but I suggest that we should assign a very high probability of things so very different that we might not recognize them.

22
Consider that he had to say that because if he had said we cannot observe anything moving faster than the speed of light he would have been indicating that it might be possible for something to move faster than light speed. -- IBL
You are confusing experience directly with our senses and knowledge that we have based on extrapolating what we experience, using instruments to extend our senses, and physics to theorize beyond what we can sense.
23

This entire question of a pervasive intelligence that fundamentally guides physical reality can be completely resolved by the recognition that consciousness is not required and that mathematically guided quasi-intelligence is sufficient to act as guiding equations for physical values interacting via mathematical functions.

value input <----> mathematical function <----> value output is a quasi-intelligent process which does not require motive or intent, only reliability and consistency.

Mathematics are the only discipline that uses reliable ordering guides (equations and algorithms) over emotionally controlled responses.

Mathematics make God superfluous in the orderly functional physical progression described by objective sciences, even as it may serve an advisory function in the subjective psychologies and philosophies to man. Note that the rest of life on earth does very well without worship.

Mathematics is a “sort of god” !!!

24

#340831

Beautimus! Two for two Lausten.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk - Science Saved My Soul. - philhellenes YouTube channel, Nov 1, 2010
First video by him I've seen. I liked it a bunch.

Then I went to learn more, I though I was looking up a person, but apparently it’s not Phil Hellenic. (audience laughs) Oh the cost of not being able to read everything in sight, then again… :-\

 

PHILHELLENIC MOVEMENT
Classical or Greco-Roman antiquity is one of the foundations of European civilization as a whole, but a passionate admiration of the arts and civilization of ancient Greece, as distinct from those of Rome, is a more recent phenomenon. The philhellene creed was summed up by Percy Bysshe Shelley’s declaration, in the preface to his drama Hellas (1822), that “We are all Greeks.” All western civilization, on this account, derives from Greece, with Rome seen merely as the conduit through which this influence flowed. The origins of Hellenism lie in the mid-eighteenth century, in the shift of taste and attitudes that expressed itself aesthetically in a reaction against the baroque and the pursuit of simplicity; socially in the cult of the primitive, natural man, and the noble savage; and politically in the ideologies of the American and French revolutions. Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717–1768), the founder of art history, characterized the qualities of Greek sculpture and literature as “a noble simplicity and a calm greatness.” The critic and thinker Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781), in his essay Laocoon (1766), accepted this account of sculpture but disagreed over literature, observing that Greek tragedy represented extreme emotional and physical suffering. These ideas were popularized by August Wilhelm von Schlegel (1767–1845) in his Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur (1809–1811) translated into English in 1815 as Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature; translated into English in the first years of the nineteenth century, it had great influence in Britain. Such discourse commonly admired Greek civilization for being unlike that of the modern world and measured it against the present day through various contrasts: between past and present, South and North, classical and Romantic, sculpture and music, perfection within defined limits and a reaching for the infinite. …

… In Germany, however, a new kind of Hellenism appeared in Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Birth of Tragedy (1872), which saw in the tragedians Aeschylus and Sophocles a tense equilibrium between the Apollonian and Dionysian impulses of the human psyche. These ideas were to influence Sigmund Freud’s theory of the mind, and Freud also drew on Sophocles for his idea of the Oedipus complex. In contrast to earlier Hellenism, a sense that the Greeks explored the dark and irrational side of humanity was to be influential throughout the twentieth century.

25

 

Cc: What can be done with that notion?

@ibelieveinlogic. One just might consider the possibility that we are not at the top of the intellectual heap.

Or the possibility that life as we recognize it on Earth is just one of a million forms and that some might be beyond our capacity to recognize.

Or the possibility that consciousness just might exist without what we would recognize as a physical manifestation. What is the other 95% of the Universe that we can’t see?


Well you can consider the possibly, but you wind up with snake eyes. Our brain is the most complex organ upon Earth? True or False

If you say it’s false, you are obligated to provide an example of something more complex and competent.

 

Out in the void of space or within the various energetic zones, stars, novas, black holes, etc. biological development is impossible. There’s nothing particularly complicated about stars, planet formation, plasma, galaxies, black holes, exploding matter, etc., etc.

Sure, all the evidence is pointing at life being relatively simple to start, with evolution being an inevitability, and that we can expect to find microbes on any number of planets, still a sober appraisal of the development of complex creatures upon this planet reveals what an astounding amount of freak events needed to line up. It is not a foregone conclusion that something more complicated than our brain exists out there. We haven’t even been able to find the microbes.

Human intelligence, society and technology, that leaves a mark our space probes would be able to recognize. So far nothing. Of course, that doesn’t prove anything, it only implies odds. Still, speaking of odds, something more complicated than our body/brains is a very very very long shot, at best. Then to fancy millions of life forms more advanced than we are, now that’s a stretching worthy of religion and pipe dreams. But, not rational thinking.

Or the possibility that consciousness just might exist without what we would recognize as a physical manifestation
What's that even mean?

Consciousness may not require corporeal interaction. But there certainly needs to be interaction between senses/body/brain and an environment.

 

What would consciousness look like, if there’s nothing to be conscious of?

<blockquote>@cuthbertj. Now THAT’s big and totally beyond what we could even imagine.</blockquote>
Yup.  Just like that notion of God.  If she's real, she's way way beyond our comprehension, and certainly not a personal god watching over our souls, or one we can track.

ps. Excellent points @write4u

26
Or the possibility that consciousness just might exist without what we would recognize as a physical manifestation
Well, of course, if you want to get all philosophical and ponder the possibilities. Here's a starter notion to work with:
Humanity is the most exquisite example of god's need and desire to understand itself.
27
ccv3 said:

Well you can consider the possibly, but you wind up with snake eyes. Our brain is the most complex organ upon Earth? True or False


True in a general sense. But there are some animals with greater specialized organs and capabilities than man.

If you say it’s false, you are obligated to provide an example of something more complex and competent.
Can we cite the earth's ecological system itself? It's been around for 4.5 billion years as a creative host to billions of living organisms. We may not always appreciate the complexities of its mathematically functional cycles but as far as creativity, the earth far outstrips man in numbers and varieties.

I, for one, stand in awe of the earth’s creative majesty, as it mindlessly circles the sun with mathematical precision and its natural resources and varying climates has allowed for the emergence of man and his extraordinary brain as well as all the other extraordinary species that have occupied the earth at one time or another.

I vote for Tellus Mater as the mathematical mother of life on earth…

https://shirleytwofeathers.com/The_Blog/waycoolpictures/pop-up-books-for-grown-ups/

28

 

@write4u. But there are some animals with greater specialized organs and capabilities than man.
Yeah, if you say so, but none of those are more complex than our brain.
@write4u. Earth's evolution and biosphere ...
Touché. Shot through the heart and you're to blame! ;-) Yeah, deep time, evolution, the dance between geology and biology, pretty fantastical, for sure, very close to my own heart and sense of self.

It sounds good, grander, ageless, well beyond us. But the integrated complexity and communication and self-awareness and memory and learning.

I don’t know. It’ll be fun to think about but I don’t think I’m convinced.

29

Can’t remember if I posted this one before or not, but I came across it in my notes and thought it related. It’s from The Quantum and the Lotus, a Buddhist and Physicist discussing reality. They get into perceptions and how different species perceive differently. To the physicist, it seems like the Buddhist is saying that there is no reality, but he clarifies:

”It’s obvious that the exterior object we perceive at a given moment isn’t a pure invention of our minds. However, the entirety of our “land-scape,” or the way we perceive the world, merely results from the way our minds have developed and the experiences we have accumulated. This is why members of the same species perceive a more or less similar set of phenomena. The different species experience different parallel “unrealities,” which lead to various perceptions of what we call “the same glass of water.” But, careful. When we say “the same,” this doesn’t mean that there’s a “real” glass of water positioned behind the semitransparent screen of our senses. Here, “the same” means that the working of various conscious minds during numerous previous existences has led to similar crystallizations. They reflect a process during which concepts formed by our perceptions become fixed, and appear more or less similar depending”
30
Then to fancy millions of life forms more advanced than we are, now that’s a stretching worthy of religion and pipe dreams. But, not rational thinking.
I think then you have no conception about just how big and old the universe actually is and how limited our knowledge of it is. Take a look at the Hubble Deep Field image, and realize how many galaxies it shows and that that's just a small fraction. And many or most of those have billions upon billions of stars. It's actually irrational to think there are NOT millions of beings more advanced than us. And we're only 3000 or so years into our childhood so to speak. Imagine a civilization a mere 100,000 years more advanced than us? That's nothing in cosmic time.
31
I don’t know. It’ll be fun to think about but I don’t think I’m convinced.
I agree, it is unlikely that the earth's biosphere is consciously aware and appreciative of the fantastical creations it has fashioned. But, in the abstract, the earth's biome might qualify as a living object. It meets all the dynamical requirements for a "living organism"....

 

1 Like
32
@write4u. But, in the abstract, the earth’s biome might qualify as a living object.
I very much agree with you on that, with one edit, remove "abstract." ?

 


?   ?    I'll never look at googly eyes the same way again.

&nbsp;
33

[quote=“citizenschallengev3, post:25, topic:7784”]

Well you can consider the possibly, but you wind up with snake eyes. Our brain is the most complex organ upon Earth? True or False

For its size, I agree. But its complexity lies in quantity of a few different constituent parts. The brain consists of just 3lb of fatty tissue with a small number of different microtubules and related organelles. But they number in the trillions and that is what gives it its complexity.

It may be compared to the new GPT 3 AI which functions very similar to the brain but lacks the sheer numerical connections from which consciousness emerges.

But the human biome is an entire world on its own, inhabited by trillions of different, symbiotic species that keep us alive. (Bonnie Bassler)
I would guess that, compared to information processing, the human biome has many separate interactions than the brain.

And we can extend that model of complexity to the earth itself. A self-perpetuation collection of an incredible variety of interacting species.

34

Oh yeah- Mother Nature/Mother Earth or maybe it’s Wonka Tonka (Great Spirit) or both. Well, that would be more like Pantheism than deism. I’d have to argue a bit with such a human idea that you described (isn’t that what happens when people discuss their concept of deity?), because IMHO, if we are doing “what ifs” such a concept has to be within everything- the universe, the earth, and every living being on earth, every planet and beings on those planets, because we are created with the very same thing that’s found in the universe. It runs through everything and is part of everything, connecting to us to everything and everyone. Now to get the neurochemistry in your brain going and giving you that feel good sensation…

Words and translation:

c)Video by gewajega@yahoo.com
Music: Walela (Rita Coolidge, Priscilla Coolidge, Laura Satterfield)
Album “Walela”.
Lyrics:
We n’ de ya ho, We n’ de ya ho,
We n’ de ya, We n’ de ya Ho ho ho ho,
He ya ho, He ya ho, Ya ya ya
Translation:
“We n’ de ya ho
Freely translated: “A we n’” (I am), “de” (of), “Yauh” --the-- (Great Spirit), “Ho” (it is so).
Written as: A we n’ de Yauh ho (I am of the Great Spirit, Ho!).”
This language stems from very ancient Cherokee.
Translation by David Michael Wolfe who is an Eastern Virginia Cherokee and a cultural historian.

35

Nice Mariana - I’ve heard of Wonka Tonka, but I’ve loved Tonka toy trucks all my life, so it’s a bit late for me to dissociate the two and I wind up making up silly rhymes in my mind. :blush:

And that is what I totally reject.
It’s right there with Matrix talk.

It is the creature doing the perceiving of that glass of water, according to its own abilities and needs!
The glass of water is always that glass of water no matter how you yourself are perceiving it.

Or?

How is that different from claiming we create the physical manifestation we observe?

36

Thank you. Tonka means big, great, large… TaTonka is Sioux for buffalo. Actually, the word “tonka” is Sioux and anything needing to be called big, large, huge, vast, great… is said to be tonka. So your trucks were just big and nothing special. Now if they were Ta Tonka or Wonka Tonka then they’d be special. Does that help blow your idea of tonka for you trucks?

That said, Walela is Cherokee for hummingbird.

1 Like
37

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:35, topic:7784”]

How is that different from claiming we create the physical manifestation we observe?

But that is not what we do. We do not create the actual physical object itself. We create the perception of that object ( in motion)
in our minds, not in actuality.

If that perception is flawed such as “seeing double”, that does not create two things in reality. It creates two thing in our minds only.

There is no static object. All objects are continually changing patterns of quantum change. The “observation” by any means is a snapshot of that change and “freezes” (collapses) the motion (wave function) of the observed object in the observer.

Take a photograph of a race car at high shutter speed and the car will appear still in the picture. Take the photograph at slow shutter speed and the care will become a blur in the picture.

If you “pan” the camera with the passing car, the car will appear still in the picture, but the background will be blurred.

Collapsing the wave function has no effect on the reality of the action, but only on the “observation” of that action.

38

Post 118 and 119 totally nail it

I’ll need to review my own posts. This seems like just semantics. I avoid manifest. Sounds like I’m doing some magic

39

My point exactly, but too often that line is played with. Hoffman I’m most familiar with, but he’s no exception.

“not in actuality.” - of course not, but why is that such a puzzle to treat as some profundity?
I mean like how else could it be, so what’s the point there?

Understand the details in ever more detail, sure, but to turn it into some quasi-mystical unachievable hard problem the way Chalmers did, where’s that get us?

40

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:39, topic:7784”]

“not in actuality.” - of course not, but why is that such a profundity?
I mean like how else could it be, so what’s the point there?

Controlled hallucination?
The brain can only make a best guess of what the data tells it. And that data may not always represent actual reality.