In God's Image

Religion and Secularism
182
KevinOsborne - 18 August 2015 04:43 PM How about coordination. If we have a few quadrillion quadrillion individuals spying into the same universe with different realities how is it that on earth when the HMS Hood blows up, everyone in the vicinity while seeing something different, agrees that they are all seeing the same thing in the same time frame? It makes for a nice game of chess when the board is the same for both players, even though it is not quite the same and even the result can be contested not by the camera’s eye but the personal reality of the players.
I re-read this and I believe what you said here is important. We fundamentally share our realities by agreement. When the agreement changes to disagreement, bad things happen. Then I read your mention of the chess board and it occurred to me that it is a perfect mirror image of itself, but when the game is played (dynamism), allows for a (near) infinite variety of moves (events) to play out against the backdrop of the greater "mirror image" IMO, this mirror like aspect of our "mind" to identify with another's viewpoint or emotions is Empathy
empathy, NOUN "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another". Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press
It is believed that this ability to project oneself into the other person's shoes is seated in the "mirror neural network"
Mirror Neurons (source: Society for Neuroscience) "You see a stranger stub her toe and you immediately flinch in sympathy, or you notice a friend wrinkle up his face in disgust while tasting some food and suddenly your own stomach recoils at the thought of eating. This ability to instinctively and immediately understand what other people are experiencing has long baffled neuroscientists, but recent research now suggests a fascinating explanation: brain cells called mirror neurons."
http://www.brainfacts.org/Brain-Basics/Neuroanatomy/Articles/2008/Mirror-Neurons Empathy = Understanding = Wisdom. A noble Humanitarian goal, IMO.
183

It is possible to occupy the space of another, partially or completely, in my opinion. One can make the experiment in this way: Get a friend with whom you disagree with on a particual topic. It should be something minor. Be sure you are not agreeing, and feel yourself holding to your own space. Then have the other person explain exactly why he/she has that viewpoint. Be willing to understand. Force yourself to completly see the other person’s viewpoint. There will come either complete frustration or you will find yourself actually moving into the other person’s space and completely agreeing with him/her.
Then, very important, go back to your original viewpoint and hold that as well. This is quite an experience if one can pull it off. It does begin, or go along with, a process of believing less that one exists basically as a human being and more as something else.

184
It is possible to occupy the space of another, partially or completely, in my opinion. One can make the experiment in this way: Get a friend with whom you disagree with on a particual topic. It should be something minor. Be sure you are not agreeing, and feel yourself holding to your own space. Then have the other person explain exactly why he/she has that viewpoint. Be willing to understand. Force yourself to completly see the other person's viewpoint. There will come either complete frustration or you will find yourself actually moving into the other person's space and completely agreeing with him/her. Then, very important, go back to your original viewpoint and hold that as well. This is quite an experience if one can pull it off. It does begin, or go along with, a process of believing less that one exists basically as a human being and more as something else.
Try this: http://www.maniacworld.com/Spinning-Silhouette-Optical-Illusion.html
185

So anything outside your personal understanding is illusion?

186
So anything outside your personal understanding is illusion?
No. The opposite is true. Sometimes our personal understanding is an illusion. Try this one: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/mot-feetLin/index.html
187

Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is ther for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.

188
Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is there for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.
The scientific method is designed to find out what is true. Personal perceptions (experiences) are purely subjective (conditioned) and cannot be trusted to be true. Therein lies the problem.
189
Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is there for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.
The scientific method is designed to find out what is true. Personal perceptions (experiences) are purely subjective (conditioned) and cannot be trusted to be true. Therein lies the problem. I'd say the absolute truth is everything is real. So honing down reality to an observable minimum is a method more aligned to find points of solution to particular questions than seeing the entirety. If relativity exists, for example, how do the mechanics of perception work? We are all seeing from a different viewpoint. How is it we all see something different but can agree we are seeing the same thing, without considering that can't quite be accurate?
190
Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is there for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.
The scientific method is designed to find out what is true. Personal perceptions (experiences) are purely subjective (conditioned) and cannot be trusted to be true. Therein lies the problem. I'd say the absolute truth is everything is real. So honing down reality to an observable minimum is a method more aligned to find points of solution to particular questions than seeing the entirety. If relativity exists, for example, how do the mechanics of perception work? We are all seeing from a different viewpoint. How is it we all see something different but can agree we are seeing the same thing, without considering that can't quite be accurate? Perception and observation. Ten years of watching the pistachio orchard and I have a puzzle I don’t even want to try and figure out because it does not make any sense to me what so ever. The pistachio tree is a desert tree that seems to leaf after the spring winds subside in late May or June. I have learned to watch the budding of the pistachio trees as to when the spring winds are over. The orchard is in a certified wind area, meaning that the average wind over a years’ time is 15mph or more. The gusts will reach 70 mph. One year the trees started budding in February. We had no winds to speak of that spring. Now, how in the hell do these trees know if the wind is going to blow? Is this in the subject area of this post?
191
Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is there for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.
The scientific method is designed to find out what is true. Personal perceptions (experiences) are purely subjective (conditioned) and cannot be trusted to be true. Therein lies the problem. I'd say the absolute truth is everything is real. So honing down reality to an observable minimum is a method more aligned to find points of solution to particular questions than seeing the entirety. If relativity exists, for example, how do the mechanics of perception work? We are all seeing from a different viewpoint. How is it we all see something different but can agree we are seeing the same thing, without considering that can't quite be accurate?J Perception and observation. Ten years of watching the pistachio orchard and I have a puzzle I don’t even want to try and figure out because it does not make any sense to me what so ever. The pistachio tree is a desert tree that seems to leaf after the spring winds subside in late May or June. I have learned to watch the budding of the pistachio trees as to when the spring winds are over. The orchard is in a certified wind area, meaning that the average wind over a years’ time is 15mph or more. The gusts will reach 70 mph. One year the trees started budding in February. We had no winds to speak of that spring. Now, how in the hell do these trees know if the wind is going to blow? Is this in the subject area of this post? Oh, I see, it's god that tells them. Gotcha! %-P Lois
192
Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is there for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.
The scientific method is designed to find out what is true. Personal perceptions (experiences) are purely subjective (conditioned) and cannot be trusted to be true. Therein lies the problem. I'd say the absolute truth is everything is real. So honing down reality to an observable minimum is a method more aligned to find points of solution to particular questions than seeing the entirety. If relativity exists, for example, how do the mechanics of perception work? We are all seeing from a different viewpoint. How is it we all see something different but can agree we are seeing the same thing, without considering that can't quite be accurate? No one is honing reality down to what is observable. That is the point of QM and GR, the probing into that which is not observable without the aid of instruments. As you correctly observed, we reach "concensus" as to what is real, but that does not mean that everything an individual sees is real. I gave you examples of optical illusions, which seem to be real to the observer, but are not true in reality.
Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. [1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality The mechanics of observation by our senses are limited, flawed, and subject to our "point of view". This is the reason we build instruments to augment our perceptions. Concensus of fact (truth) is reached trough testing and falsification. If everything we see is truth, why would we need terms such as "falsification" and "predictable results"? This is why I showed you the optical illusions, which are designed to fool us into seeing something which is not true. A colorblind person may see a color and can swear honestly that what he sees is true (to him). A spectrometer will record the actual wavelengths (which are properties of color) and falsify or confirm that what the person saw was true or false.
193
Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is there for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.
The scientific method is designed to find out what is true. Personal perceptions (experiences) are purely subjective (conditioned) and cannot be trusted to be true. Therein lies the problem. I'd say the absolute truth is everything is real. So honing down reality to an observable minimum is a method more aligned to find points of solution to particular questions than seeing the entirety. If relativity exists, for example, how do the mechanics of perception work? We are all seeing from a different viewpoint. How is it we all see something different but can agree we are seeing the same thing, without considering that can't quite be accurate? Perception and observation. Ten years of watching the pistachio orchard and I have a puzzle I don’t even want to try and figure out because it does not make any sense to me what so ever. The pistachio tree is a desert tree that seems to leaf after the spring winds subside in late May or June. I have learned to watch the budding of the pistachio trees as to when the spring winds are over. The orchard is in a certified wind area, meaning that the average wind over a years’ time is 15mph or more. The gusts will reach 70 mph. One year the trees started budding in February. We had no winds to speak of that spring. Now, how in the hell do these trees know if the wind is going to blow? Is this in the subject area of this post? Perhaps you underestimate the sensory ability of trees. Atmospheric pressures preceding weather conditions are used by many organisms. Ever noticed insects becoming more active when a storm front is developing? Moreover, it appears that trees are able to communicate (probably through chemical emissions). An experiment was conducted how a tree defends against a caterpillar infestation. When a tree becomes infected, it begins to produce tannin, but remarkably it does not distribute the tannen equally to all the leaves. It was discovered that caterpillars can adjust their body chemistry to be able to process tannin. But that takes a lot of energy and stunts the growth of the caterpillar. By cleverly distributing the tannen randomly, the tree forces the caterpillar to change its internal chemistry as it moves from leaf to leaf, resulting in stunted growth and lower survivability. A clever and effective defense mechanism. But most remarkable, during the tests it was noticed that when one tree was purposely infected and the tree began to produce tannin, other (uninfected) trees in the area, also began to increase their tannin production as a defensive measure. How did these trees know there was a potential threat? It is now believed that the chemical signature of the tannin in the infected trees is carried by the air to other trees, which then responded by producing their own tannin. Communication?
194
Perception is the observation of what is within view. It is always correct in that it is seeing what is there for the individual. No one is right or wrong in perception, it is simply what is there for that person. The scientific method is designed to find what most people agree to see, but any perception is a part of the puzzle and must be included in an accurate model of this place. My opinion.
The scientific method is designed to find out what is true. Personal perceptions (experiences) are purely subjective (conditioned) and cannot be trusted to be true. Therein lies the problem. I'd say the absolute truth is everything is real. So honing down reality to an observable minimum is a method more aligned to find points of solution to particular questions than seeing the entirety. If relativity exists, for example, how do the mechanics of perception work? We are all seeing from a different viewpoint. How is it we all see something different but can agree we are seeing the same thing, without considering that can't quite be accurate? No one is honing reality down to what is observable. That is the point of QM and GR, the probing into that which is not observable without the aid of instruments. As you correctly observed, we reach "concensus" as to what is real, but that does not mean that everything an individual sees is real. I gave you examples of optical illusions, which seem to be real to the observer, but are not true in reality.
Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. [1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality The mechanics of observation by our senses are limited, flawed, and subject to our "point of view". This is the reason we build instruments to augment our perceptions. Concensus of fact (truth) is reached trough testing and falsification. If everything we see is truth, why would we need terms such as "falsification" and "predictable results"? This is why I showed you the optical illusions, which are designed to fool us into seeing something which is not true. A colorblind person may see a color and can swear honestly that what he sees is true (to him). A spectrometer will record the actual wavelengths (which are properties of color) and falsify or confirm that what the person saw was true or false. We have a difference of opinion then. I submit the best way to understand this place is to accept all viewpoints as reality. They may not be real to everyone, in fact they can't be because each of us, including instruments, is limited in perception. However being willing to accept everything as real opens doors that otherwise are closed.
1 Like
195

@KevinOsborne,
We have no disagreement at all (see post 181). Each person lives in his own reality, but we can functionally come to concensus of what that reality is for US. Once this is understood, perhaps we may become more “respectful” of other’s views.
But here we are talking about products of the mind which are nor physical but holographic (metaphysical) and have very little to do with the Reality of the Universe, because we can see and experience only a tiny part of what and how things really happen in physical reality.
If you have not read my previous posts, see my point of view.(see post 156)

196
@Write4U #161 Some thoughts and questions: - What is the nature of awareness? (in it's uncompounded sense)* - How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?
It depends on your interpretation of "awareness". Is a computer aware? Yes, but not in an abstract sense, it is purely packets of information being transported via the mathematical function. In that sense, one might say the computer is Pseudo-intelligent.
- If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)
I submit that the term awareness has two application; One, a pure Metaphysical mathematical connectivity. Two, a Self-Awareness which is not purely mathematical, but also has Motive, and Emotional issues.
- In "truth" (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated? - Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets. Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation. They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to "truth". - To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)
I hope I can be more objective than that. I truly appreciate the deep insights contained in those works. A lot of them seem to understand the difficulty of presenting common symbols in their formalization of their scripture. I donlt dismiss scripture. I say the are mathematically incorrect, even as the metapohorical message is valid.
Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.
Perhaps, but the fact remained that all potentials in my environment placed me at that table, at that time, sitting in that seat, drawing a once in a century hand. But it had nothing to do with me, as a personal favor from a higher Sentience. I was merely the lucky final selections of all potentials which resulted in my extraordinary position? It was a Function of Natural Selection , another timeless property of the wholeness. I submit that the Implication, which forms and emerges out of all the potentials present at that space/time coordinate in a chronological order along the timeline which is created during the transiton of potential to function which is causal to expression in physical reality. To make happen what in fact does happen. The dreamlike image of what is "determined" to become reality, The Implicate. To me this sounds a like a mathematical functuion, not the function of a god as anyone has expressed before. My point is the Potential Conditon exhibits the exact same creative abilities of any god, but it does so only from the dynamics of transmission of fundamental packets of information, through an efficient mathematical function, which always and timelessly existed in pure abstract qualities of the wholeness. They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that), but for these functions to be able to emerge simultaneously with the change, they must have been latent abilities of the pre-existing condition, made visible to us in a limited range of observabe detail as reality. There are particles penetrating through steel as if it doesn't even exist. IMO, the scientific quest for "knowlede about" has just begun, whereas the spiritual quest for "personal relationship with" seems to have stagnated for lack of unexplainable (holy) miracles, which otherwise might have reinforced your belief in a sentient personal relationship to God (whatever that may mean). I challenge all Theists ti actully create a holographic image of God inside your mind. How does this mental image appear to you in human terms. Close your eyes and "see" God. What do you see". Please forgive if this may sound intrusive, but I promise to respect the image, (any image) from volunteers, with an sincere effort to compare it in my own mirror neural network to something I can identify with and at least empathize with. Which I beliee I have already demonstrated in my viewpoinys on Deism.
* (Note: One could substitute Self for "awareness" aka Purusha. This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile. But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)
But a self caused sentient (aware) causaility, seems "highly improbable" to me, IMO. By the law of Heirarchical orders, Potential would have to have existed before the self caused mathematical causality, could have "Become into Being" . That seems pure logic to me.
197
@KevinOsborne, We have no disagreement at all (see post 181). Each person lives in his own reality, but we can functionally come to concensus of what that reality is for US. Once this is understood, perhaps we may become more "respectful" of other's views. But here we are talking about products of the mind which are nor physical but holographic (metaphysical) and have very little to do with the Reality of the Universe, because we can see and experience only a tiny part of what and how things really happen in physical reality. If you have not read my previous posts, see my point of view.(see post 156)
Being respectful is responding to posts with trick images? We don't agree on what a viewpoint is or how this place is put together, which is fine with me. Pointing that out isn't disrespectful in my book. You are entitled to yours. However if you are required some undefined respect I'm happy to let you go on your way.
1 Like
198

<![CDATA[

@Write4U #161
Some thoughts and questions:

  • What is the nature of awareness? (in it’s uncompounded sense)*
  • How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?

It depends on your interpretation of “awareness”. Is a computer aware? Yes, but not in an abstract sense, it is purely packets of information being transported via the mathematical function. In that sense, one might say the computer is Pseudo-intelligent.
- If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)
I submit that the term awareness has two application; One, a pure Metaphysical mathematical connectivity. Two, a Self-Awareness which is not purely mathematical, but also has Motive, and Emotional issues.
- In "truth" (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated? - Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets. Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation. They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to "truth". - To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)
I hope I can be more objective than that. I truly appreciate the deep insights contained in those works. A lot of them seem to understand the difficulty of presenting common symbols in their formalization of their scripture. I donlt dismiss scripture. I say they are mathematically incorrect, even as the metapohorical message is valid. (Emphasis was added by me.) I still have not understood your rational for excluding experience (i.e.sentience) and it's various by-products from "reality". Is it because the mathematical function cannot interpret experience? Please forgive me if you have already covered this; I am fast reaching the limits of my comprehension. Can the mathematical function interpret it's own implicit and explicit existence?
Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.
Perhaps, but the fact remained that all potentials in my environment placed me at that table, at that time, sitting in that seat, drawing a once in a century hand. But it had nothing to do with me, as a personal favor from a higher Sentience. I was merely the lucky final selections of all potentials which resulted in my extraordinary position? It was a Function of Natural Selection , another timeless property of the wholeness.
(Note: I have highlighted a distracting anthropomorphic imposition.) Are "the Function of Natural Selection" and the "Mathematical Function" both latent characteristics of "truth" along with "potential"? The pantheon is growing. Are they real? If so, why not a "function" of Self awareness?
I submit that the Implication, which forms and emerges out of all the potentials present at that space/time coordinate in a chronological order along the timeline which is created during the transition of potential to function which is causal to expression in physical reality. To make happen what in fact does happen. The dreamlike image of what is "determined" to become reality, The Implicate. To me this sounds a like a mathematical function, not the function of a god as anyone has expressed before.
To me the overall effect demonstrated by what has emerged, suggests quite clearly God. Though not "a god"
My point is the Potential Condition exhibits the exact same creative abilities of any god, but it does so only from the dynamics of transmission of fundamental packets of information, through an efficient mathematical function, which always and timelessly existed in pure abstract qualities of the wholeness. They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that), but for these functions to be able to emerge simultaneously with the change, they must have been latent abilities of the pre-existing condition, made visible to us in a limited range of observable detail as reality. There are particles penetrating through steel as if it doesn't even exist. IMO, the scientific quest for "knowledge about" has just begun, whereas the spiritual quest for "personal relationship with" seems to have stagnated for lack of unexplainable (holy) miracles, which otherwise might have reinforced your belief in a sentient personal relationship to God (whatever that may mean). I challenge all Theists to actually create a holographic image of God inside your mind. How does this mental image appear to you in human terms. Close your eyes and "see" God. What do you see".
(Emphasis added by me.) I won't be able to help you with this exercise. For me, It represents a "straw man" type of scenario. The understanding that I work from, and have been trying to convey here, is that ideas and mental images are always finite and relative. The personal sense of "self" (or ego), is also an abstraction. An idea. Finite and relative. I would say that the goal of knowing "truth" cannot be approached from within the limitation of the body/mind complex. I would also say that the body/mind complex is not a "true" limitation. You would say that through the mathematical function we can understand the "real", but must relegate our "experience" (i.e. sentience), to some other place than the "real". As I understand you, It (i.e. experience), is not included in the "universe". I would say that experience is "real" and that the Universe (i.e. Wholeness) includes our "personal sense of self", our actions and thoughts, just as it includes the phenomena of light and the motion of stars. Since the infinitude of the origin, is ever present and eternal, it can only be through it's own nature that it may be known. The difference between our views is that you emphasize a limited and abstracted understanding of the parts via mathematical description. I emphasize experience of original nature via Self realization. I'm wondering what Bohm would say? Or, Krishnamurti?
Please forgive if this may sound intrusive, but I promise to respect the image, (any image) from volunteers, with an sincere effort to compare it in my own mirror neural network to something I can identify with and at least empathize with. Which I beliee I have already demonstrated in my viewpoinys on Deism.
* (Note: One could substitute Self for "awareness" aka Purusha. This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile. But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)
But a self caused sentient (aware) causaility, seems "highly improbable" to me, IMO. By the law of Heirarchical orders, Potential would have to have existed before the self caused mathematical causality, could have "Become into Being" . That seems pure logic to me.
Unless "Potential" is a root characteristic of "Awareness" as it is "Experience" or "Function". My definition of God is simply, all of it. And we have both said something similar: Write4U: "They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that)" ]>
199

@brmckay,
I think we are in general agreement.
IMO, Potential is a common denominator of all that exists at all levels of the universal hierarchy, in that it must be present for anything to happen at all.
It is a simple formula, all that exists, has existed and will exist in any form is (must be) preceded by potential. If the potential for something does not exist there can be no IMplication of what is to become reality (in any form).
The Word that theists use for the exact same condition is God, I call it Potential. There is no difference in function, just a different Word.
The one difference is that the function of Potential is observable and well defined, whereas the function of God cannot be observed or defined AND it is presumed to be purposefully motivated. IMO, this is the only difference and causes a fatal flaw in the proposition of a sentient (by human standards) God.
Sentience (as in human sentience) is not a property of the universe, it is an emergent property in living things. But a mental image has no substance, it is an emergent mental construct, a variable mental hologram, requiring a physical brain. Just as music requires an physical instrument to be produced, but when the music stops, it no longer exists except as a faint memory in our brain, but not outside our brain (in the universe).
Of course we can say that as humans are part of the universe, everything a human does or thinks is part of the universe, but that would only be a fleeting moment, dependent on the activity of the thinker/musician, emerging, then dissolving. What I think is not produced by a universal mind, but is an emergent product of my perceptions and mental processes, which are at best relative to truth, but not necessarily Truth in Reality.
IMO, if you cannot create a mental image of your “firmly” held belief, then how do you relate to your belief in a (any) God,
the Word which you choose to use. I prefer to identify the exact same “condition” with the word Potential and we can certainly relate to that concept in every facet of our lives.
The only question that remains is our personal relationship with the Word. You may believe you can communicate and influence your God. I do not believe the function of the greater universal Potential and its expression in reality can be influenced, except at very, very small levels, such as in a testing laboratory, in order to test the functions of potential in our reality.
In a theist world, the testing laboratory is ritualized mental exercises in a church or temple. Do you believe prayers have an influence on a universal God?
As Carlin said, what about God’s grand design? Can it change by wishing (praying) it to be different?

200
@KevinOsborne, We have no disagreement at all (see post 181). Each person lives in his own reality, but we can functionally come to concensus of what that reality is for US. Once this is understood, perhaps we may become more "respectful" of other's views. But here we are talking about products of the mind which are nor physical but holographic (metaphysical) and have very little to do with the Reality of the Universe, because we can see and experience only a tiny part of what and how things really happen in physical reality. If you have not read my previous posts, see my point of view.(see post 156)
Being respectful is responding to posts with trick images? We don't agree on what a viewpoint is or how this place is put together, which is fine with me. Pointing that out isn't disrespectful in my book. You are entitled to yours. However if you are required some undefined respect I'm happy to let you go on your way. Apparently, you did not understand the reason for my posting the optical illusions, which I thought were pertinent to the discussion and not intended to fool or trick anyone. But if you feel that my posts were "dishonest" in some way, that is not my problem, but yours. I seems from the tone of your reply that our discussion has just now deteriorated from a dispassionate (objective) discussion to a subjective emotional one. And out of respect for your relative viewpoint, I shall end my participation here. Be well, Kevin.
201
@brmckay, I think we are in general agreement.
Probably not so much. The point of divergence remains significant.
IMO, Potential is a common denominator of all that exists at all levels of the universal hierarchy, in that it must be present for anything to happen at all. It is a simple formula, all that exists, has existed and will exist in any form is (must be) preceded by potential. If the potential for something does not exist there can be no IMplication of what is to become reality (in any form).
Hierarchically speaking, 'potential' is preceeded by infinitude. That means that there is no actual limit to "potential", so the term itself becomes 'something extra'. It is as intangible as the emergent characteristics of 'mind'. (Isn't this what Occam's razor is about?)
The Word that theists use for the exact same condition is God, I call it Potential. There is no difference in function, just a different Word. The one difference is that the function of Potential is observable and well defined, whereas the function of God cannot be observed or defined AND it is presumed to be purposefully motivated. IMO, this is the only difference and causes a fatal flaw in the proposition of a sentient (by human standards) God.
You have merely circumvented the intangible characteristic to allow your paradigm credence. It is equivalent to the 'fatal flaw' referred to above. The finitely infinite version of potential, remains an encapsulated, and therefor a relative understanding. Useful within it's sphere, but necessarily partial and anthropomorphic. The concept of it does not acknowledge the unbounded and absolute nature of the 'true'.
Sentience (as in human sentience) is not a property of the universe, it is an emergent property in living things.
This is the 'preferred framework' I mentioned earlier. I would suggest that it is akin to an optical illusion. Consider the possibility that sentience is the emergent characteristic of infinitude and that what you describe as emergent from the brains of living beings, is an abstracted sense of localized sentience. In spiritual circles, the overly specialized ramification of this is often referred to as 'ego'. Or, the 'false self'.
But a mental image has no substance, it is an emergent mental construct, a variable mental hologram, requiring a physical brain. Just as music requires an physical instrument to be produced, but when the music stops, it no longer exists except as a faint memory in our brain, but not outside our brain (in the universe).
What is gained by excluding the intangible? It certainly does not lead one to 'truth'. I would have to point out, that the absolute intangibility of infinitude, makes the fleeting and ephemeral dreams of man as heavy as lead.
Of course we can say that as humans are part of the universe, everything a human does or thinks is part of the universe, but that would only be a fleeting moment, dependent on the activity of the thinker/musician, emerging, then dissolving. What I think is not produced by a universal mind, but is an emergent product of my perceptions and mental processes, which are at best relative to truth, but not necessarily Truth in Reality.
'Truth' is foundation as well as the manifestation; Entirety. The parsings of science and religion only pay homage, and most certainly do not circumvent or supplant 'truth'. That homage that we pay, can be inadvertent or intentional. It makes no difference to the Truth. The effects manifest as experience. The potential of that, is unbounded.
IMO, if you cannot create a mental image of your "firmly" held belief, then how do you relate to your belief in a (any) God, the Word which you choose to use. I prefer to identify the exact same "condition" with the word Potential and we can certainly relate to that concept in every facet of our lives.
It is not clear to me how or why you arrive at this conclusion.
The only question that remains is our personal relationship with the Word. You may believe you can communicate and influence your God. I do not believe the function of the greater universal Potential and its expression in reality can be influenced, except at very, very small levels, such as in a testing laboratory, in order to test the functions of potential in our reality. In a theist world, the testing laboratory is ritualized mental exercises in a church or temple. Do you believe prayers have an influence on a universal God?
Potential is infinitude. But not the linear kind as in a set of possibilities. I think that this must be what you envision, and it explains the exclusion of the intangible from your version of the Universe.
As Carlin said, what about God's grand design? Can it change by wishing (praying) it to be different?
Even in the relative primitivity of my (and presumably your) experience, reality is wonderfully malleable. George's too. He must be talking about something else.