I believe in a Creator

I respect the wisdom of both ancient and modern science. But I see no reason to assign “intententional creation” to any of it.

Does “causality” need to be motivated? Even Plantinga seems to argue from the perspective of a motivated willful God.

This has to be part of religion, or else the concept of God’s Will becomes purely Newtonian and is already “sufficient” to fill the "necessity " of creation.

I don’t think most religious people even care. Some are happy to know that some philosopher made up an argument but they don’t ever work through it.

This is all tough to follow. Are you talking about argument in support of the supposition:

Back to the bigger point.
It seems to me the realization that our Gods are creations of our own minds, with roots deep within our own evolving biology/brain/mind, resolves those religious debate. Since Gods aren’t the product of any universal anything, we humans created them for our own use.

The rest of nature doesn’t care and will continue carrying on without their own Gods. God is a human construct. It can be repeated in many different ways, but it comes down to the same bottomline.

The Earth/Sun created geology and biology and biospheres, those created us humans, and we created our Gods.

Nothing difficult about it, except for some reason it’s treated as the invisible gorilla in this ballgame.


or just about any argument for god. people who go to church mostly fall into the “personal experience” reasoning. Be it “community” or some feeling, they go because it seems like the thing to do. They might tell you straight out that’s how they decided, or they might take you down a long road of partially thought through logic, but they’ll end with a comment on how their personal experience of god is their best proof. There is no logical argument against it because it’s not logical

If you’re looking for a reasonable debate, this might be the place to start. I read this book, it gets technical. Justin is this atheist and he insists there are logical arguments worth hearing, for God.

That’s one of my main points - we think creation/reality needs a creator. Reality being the “something” rather than “nothing”. But we think that only because of our limited experience of seeing things created/exist/cease to exist. So the question Why is there something rather than nothing, which is the basis for the entire Why Do We Exist? question is a false question. It only SEEMS like a real question, kind of like What does Green taste like? It’s a properly formatted question, seems legit, but once you realize color and tastes are incongruent concepts, you see it’s a bad question.


Roger Penrose came up with a shocker I had never thought of.
Mainstream science holds that “observation causes collapse of the wave function”

Penrose turns this around and proposes that “collapse of the wave function (quantum resolution of superposed potentials) causes the observable reality”

The implications are very interesting to contemplate.

Especially with some shrooms.

This looks to be an interesting read:

Of Superposition and Solipsism: A Survey of Quantum-Mechanical Approaches in Addressing “The Hard Problem” - by Daniel Swain, (UC Davis, Prized Writing 2007–2008)

Instructor’s Comment: Daniel Swain tackles a difficult problem in explain- ing issues of quantum mechanics and consciousness. The “Hard Problem” is philosopher David Chalmers’ succinct designation for one of the most famous problems in philosophy, the mind-body problem, and it is of current relevance due to the striking successes of contemporary neuroscience.

If the physical processes of the material brain give rise to consciousness (as most neuroscientists believe), then it should be feasible—though not trivial—to map out these processes in the brain. But this is easy in comparison with explaining how such physical processes actually generate subjective conscious awareness.

What kind of conceptual framework could embrace these different realms? This is the Hard Problem.

Quantum mechanics may provide such a framework. Central is the concept of superposition, wherein a quantum state remains in simultaneous combination of potentialities until an observation is made.

But how can an observation provoke a random and discontinuous collapse of the superposition into one of its potential alternatives?

This is the measurement problem.

To some it suggests a mysterious connection between consciousness (of the observer) and the actualities of the observed world. Daniel has done a wonderful job—one of the best I’ve ever seen—of explaining these issues and outlining some possible quantum approaches to the Hard Problem.

—Evan Fletcher, Integrated Studies

I find it easier to believe that this wave function collapse is more an artifact of the math - then, geniuses got ahold of the idea, and have been having a field day with it ever since. Confined by self-serving rationalizations and a desire to make a big splash, and this in turn has shackled our thinking when it comes to grasping the world of the tiniest, or I should say, how it relates to us.

Now I’m challenged with reading the entire 5K essay, see what I can make of it and pull out of it. :v:t3:

1 Like

Lausten, I’ve been trying to listen to it, thanks be, I have 15 sec advance, so am speeding though the empty space, too much self promotion going on, I am up to about 40min currently, I need to do some work outside and will probably try sloughing through all of it - but I’m not too hopeful of getting anything more out of it, than a participation patch. :frowning:

Here again, to my sensibilities, this is what “being lost within one’s own mindscape is all about” - this discussion is happening a meta-physical realm, they are jousting over ideas and word formulations that have lost relevance to the real world because they (like most everyone else) ignore the realities of our human biology and how Evolution formed us, (which is treated as an irrelevance, so ignored.)

I wish someone would discuss the most fundamental of fundamentals,
The cosmos created our solar system,
our solar system created Earth,
Earth’s geology and biology, (with the help of time, i.e. Evolution), created Life,
Earth’s biosphere created Humans,
The Human mind created our Gods and science.

Our consciousness is the source of our soul.

Our consciousness is, in the final analysis, the inside reflection of our body monitoring itself and the dynamic situation it is embedded within.

Just as the flow of electricity will cease, when the dynamo ceases,
so too our consciousness (and the soul it creates) ceases when the body dies.

Except for that portion that loved ones, and others and our works possess.
Why aren’t those fundamentals tackled?

Does anyone?

Yeah. I think you’re right. I flipped through it, and I’m not sure they address the “necessary creator”. Have you read Ursula Goodenough’s Sacred Depths of Nature?

I also just started David Sloane Wilson’s Atlas Shrugged. It features a charismatic bio prof who preaches about evolution as the secret to everything. Kind of amateurish writing, since he’s not a writer. But you can choose how much to pay for it.

What do you mean by “fundamental”?
Where do you want to start? We are talking about 13.7 billion years of evolutionary processes from the very subtle to gross expression in observable patterns,

So far you are talking about generalities without any mention of the fundamental processes that are “necessary and sufficient” for those processes to unfold in chronological orders of complexity.

I think Penrose is addressing the subtle dimensions of the fine-scale structure of spacetime, such as gravity.

What has Occam to say about gravity? Can you riddle me the curvature of empty space by massive objects? That is one fundamental aspect of spacetime, no?

How about the 4 fundamental interactive forces that form the regular patterns that can be mathematically and algorithmically described .

To say one thing causes another thing does not answer the fundamental “how or why.”

And Hoffman takes it to Lalaland.

Physics of Life Reviews

Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78


Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory

Author Stuart Hameroffa, Roger Penrose


The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown.

**We proposed in the mid 1990’s that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) of the quantum state.

This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice.**

The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space–time geometry,

so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain’s biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe.

Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology.

We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.

An objection that enunciates part of my problem with this OrchOR daydreaming (other part being that Penrose ignores biological evolution):

"I am always perturbed by ‘reductionist’ thinking. Penrose wants to reduce ‘consciousness’ to quantum effects. Why not accept that ‘emergent phenomena’ don’t necessarily obey the ‘laws’ of quantum physics. That they can transcend them. ‘Gross’ matter does not obey the laws of quantum mechanics; why should consciousness, which is a non- quantum phenomenon, be different? "
Malcolm Goodson

"Roger Penrose is one of the most creative minds in mathematical physics. He wrote over 300 papers and is mostly known for his work on general relativity and black holes. "

In other words, he hasn’t had the time to study evolution or biology. He’s a master mathematician and a pretty good hand at aperiodic tessellations:

Here’s another critique

Penrose read too much into Godel’s theorem - and then announced (In the Emperor’s New Mind) that AI MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE!!.
Because computational processes running on matter can’t do certain things.

But he sort-of forgot that human beings are, in fact, computational processes running on matter too.

His arguments not only applies to silicon chips but also to human brains. And in the corner he had found himself.

Whereupon he had to come up with some explanation to account for the observed difference. What additional magical component could meaty brains use? And so he posited his notion of spooky quantum effects to explain consciousness. Because, you know?.. quantum!

Although to the best of my knowledge, he has yet to attach any predictive power to this theorem, nor explain why we couldn’t build a chip with “quantum nanotubes”.

Glyn Williams, studied at Royal Holloway, University of London Answered Nov 3, 2015

If I actually want to learn something constructive about human consciousness I’ll take my learning from scientists that actually study the human organism, before a mathematical genius any day. Sorry I hope that doesn’t come across too pissy.

Dr. Mark Solms deftly demystifies Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness, while coincidentally highlighting why Hoffman’s “Conscious Agents” are luftgeschäft.

(6.01) Dr. Mark Solms demystifies Chalmers’ “Hard Problem” of Consciousness.

(6.02) The Other Side of Mark Solms PhD, farmer, vintner, humanitarian.

(6.03) Students’ Resource: A representative cross-section of Dr. Mark Solms’ scientific publications.

And if I want reductionism and learning about the tiniest, my tastes run in the direction of Nick Lane. Has anyone here ever read or listened to

Nick Lane’s “The Vital Question?”

For two and a half billion years, from the very origins of life, single-celled organisms such as bacteria evolved without changing their basic form. Then, on just one occasion in four billion years, they made the jump to complexity. All complex life, from mushrooms to man, shares puzzling features, such as sex, which are unknown in bacteria. How and why did this radical transformation happen?

The answer, Lane argues, lies in energy: all life on Earth lives off a voltage with the strength of a lightning bolt. Building on the pillars of evolutionary theory, Lane’s hypothesis draws on cutting-edge research into the link between energy and cell biology, in order to deliver a compelling account of evolution from the very origins of life to the emergence of multicellular organisms, while offering deep insights into our own lives and deaths.

Both rigorous and enchanting, The Vital Question provides a solution to life’s vital question: why are we as we are, and indeed, why are we here at all?

Mind blowingly fascinating, heck just read the first couple chapters, that’ll help get one’s feet back on terra firma. I’ve starting my second listen through and may have to buy this book like his Oxygen, since books are superior to tapes, … er, cd, … er, digital.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:153, topic:9361”]

From some of your quoted passages.

so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain’s biomolecular
processes and the basic structure of the universe.

Isn’t everything connected to the basic quantum structure of the universe? Does the Universe itself not unfold via fractal quantum processes?

"I am always perturbed by ‘reductionist’ thinking. Penrose wants to reduce ‘consciousness’ to quantum effects. Why not accept that ‘emergent phenomena’ don’t necessarily obey the ‘laws’ of quantum physics. That they can transcend them.

Because they emerge from them ! Penrose does not reduce consciousness to individual microtubules. He recognizes that consciousness emerges from the EM fields within the brain. Without quantum mechanics consciousness would not, could not emerge at all.

‘Gross’ matter does not obey the laws of quantum mechanics; why should consciousness, which is a non-quantum phenomenon, be different? "

Gross matter IS an explicated product of quantum mechanics. Chaos Theory explains the spontaneous self-organization of regular patterns from chaotic beginnings.
This is a quasi-intelligent mathematical function based on the logical laws of probability., which btw, also guide the function of evolution via natural selection.

Consciousness is a result of the quantum function in microtubules which are nanoscale processors. Even if there are additional dimensions they are still part of the fabric of the universe. To propose some unknowable causal agency outside the universe is by definition not scientific and is part of the ego-god problem.

Here’s another critique

Penrose read too much

I don’t think that dumbing it down is going to help.

The concept that everything within this universe belongs to this universe is consistent with Occam’s razor.

The same logic applies to consciousness as a product of quantum neuronic brain processes causal to a local EM field which is recognized when compared with the brain’s long-term memories or with the cellular short-term cytoplasmic and cytoskeletal memories, both functions performed by microtubules.


This probably should go on another thread, but, have you heard of this guy?

1 Like

We can relate to the concept that man is an expression of Nature because we can observe and define Nature.

But to say that man is an expression of God without being able to observe and define a Creator makes the term God only an imaginary invention.

Without a definition how would you even know if you found God?

I don’t think that; "I’ll know God if I find Him " is going to do it.
You might just walk right past Him and never know!

Suppose God can be found in Mathematics? Now there is a practical definition that we can observe and relate to. In fact, we use Mathematics to create all sorts of things.

Is our ability to create Higgs bosons an observable sign that we are using the Creative power?

But of course, that concept is much too mundane to be considered seriously.
But Max Tegmark proposes a mathematical Universe!


Is totally missing the point.
God is manifested from human thoughts!

Microtubules might be a mechanism required for consciousness to unfold (though at this point that notion is still build on speculation, more than on evidence) -

But to ignore that consciousness is the result of interactions - as opposed to a thing that can exist independently in a fractal state somewhere out there in the universe, seems absurd in the extreme. But that’s basically what’s being claimed.

Oh and do wish you’d stop this

Where the heck have I proposed some unknowable causal agency!?!

Oh incidentally, where out there in the universe can you expect (hope) to find life?

That’s nice and poetic sounding, but seriously, think about it.
If you review human history, I think you’ll find, we found mathematics through commerce. Only, by and by, did we start using it to help better formulate intellectual notions.

Not sure who you are addressing this to at this point. I haven’t heard from Eli1 in a long time.

It was a general statement to anyone reading this thread.