A God We Know Nothing About

[lightgigantic]

If I drop a rock on your foot you jump about, the rock and your foot are concretely manifest.

If I imagine dropping a rock on your foot, I can only imagine you jumping about because nothing actually happens. The "rock" in this case is not concretely manifest.

So IOW if you underwent a local anesthetic on your foot and didn't feel a thing the rock wouldn't be real.

Nice.

Shush! I'm imagining you jumping about. God is pointing at you and laughing.

sorry buddy

you missed out on the bonus points
(but I will give you another chance)

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Only in a roundabout way: physics deals with what and how, not why. The overall origin (i.e. what caused the big bang, is pretty much left to one side as being (probably) unanswerable).

Yes, it's a what and how question being asked! What is the observer (consciousness), and how do they come to exist in a physical system? It's not just that we don't know yet, it's that consciousness is not functionally reducible to existing concepts.

As in "purely subjective" (As afar as we can tell).

I suppose the admission I am trying to wring out of you, is that 'purely subjective' things (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) have a reality not dependent on reduction to a physical state. That is the 'realm' in which religious (and indeed all other) experiences occur.

Smart-arses.
We either have too few or too many.
I'm still undecided on that one.

LOL!

Yup, but "god" adds one more (un-necessary?) level.
You get the benefit from "feeling good about something"", but to ascribe reality/ attributes to the subject of that belief... :shrug:

Ockhams razor... It is not another level, or another entity - it's the totality of all there is. We can't cope with that so we anthropomorphise it.

Poetic truths are one thing - persecution etc in pursuit of those truths is another. God as a place holder is okay: but again, the idea of god is being used to do more than just "hold place" it's assigned to the entirety of creation and codes of behaviour - and is used to justify/ enforce certain views.

Yes, I am as opposed to that as you are. Humans have always persecuted others when there is something important at stake e.g. power, money, religion.

We still 'persecute' people on irrational subjective things like values (stealing is wrong), or human social constructions like 'nationality'.

Not quite the same as "god started it off, the rest science explains".

I think science explains the physical world just fine, without adding in God. It is human experience that needs a concept like 'God'. The interesting bit (and the reason it's maybe a placeholder), is , like dark energy, we don't know much about it.

I'll see if I can find the links, ISTR something fairly recently about measuring "happiness" etc directly from the brain.

I think you will find it is some physical correlate of happiness. If we had an alien on the slab, we couldn't measure their experience either qualitatively, nor quantitatively.

Like I said: I doubt I'll live to see the answer found.
Which is, um, annoying.

For me, it's the ever deepening mystery that makes it worthwhile... :m:

 

[Oli]

Yes, it's a what and how question being asked! What is the observer (consciousness)

I think I (and physics) sidesteps that one by assigning it to psychologists and the like.
Oh if only that were a real science...

and how do they come to exist in a physical system? It's not just that we don't know yet, it's that consciousness is not functionally reducible to existing concepts.

At the moment.
Granted it may never be, but the (scientific) study of consciousness is really in its intiail stages.

I suppose the admission I am trying to wring out of you, is that 'purely subjective' things (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) have a reality not dependent on reduction to a physical state. That is the 'realm' in which religious (and indeed all other) experiences occur.

I can see that, but I'm not entirely sure I "trust" it/ them.
But that's just my view of things.

Ockhams razor... It is not another level, or another entity - it's the totality of all there is. We can't cope with that so we anthropomorphise it.

But surely religion (for one) does claim that it's another level/ entity, and not just an anthropomorphism?

Yes, I am as opposed to that as you are. Humans have always persecuted others when there is something important at stake e.g. power, money, religion.
We still 'persecute' people on irrational subjective things like values (stealing is wrong), or human social constructions like 'nationality'.

It's what makes us human?
Ouch

I think science explains the physical world just fine, without adding in God. It is human experience that needs a concept like 'God'. The interesting bit (and the reason it's maybe a placeholder), is , like dark energy, we don't know much about it.

I can go along with with, but some of the claims don't hold up.
As a placeholder it's fine: but to then ascribe qualities and say "this is how you must live..."

I think you will find it is some physical correlate of happiness. If we had an alien on the slab, we couldn't measure their experience either qualitatively, nor quantitatively.

If we had a crab or a cockroach on the slab we'd find it very difficult.
The search is just beginning.

For me, it's the ever deepening mystery that makes it worthwhile...

Yeah, but I won't be here to enjoy it - that's what's annoying.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

It's not just that we don't know yet, it's that consciousness is not functionally reducible to existing concepts.
I suppose the admission I am trying to wring out of you, is that 'purely subjective' things (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) have a reality not dependent on reduction to a physical state. That is the 'realm' in which religious (and indeed all other) experiences occur.

It is that we don't know yet. Consciousness does not fit existing concepts because we don't yet understand it. We may find you are right & we may find you are wrong in the long run yet presently you are wrong because we simply do not know & have no way of knowing. The Flu didn't fit existing concepts so people thought it must be caused by an influence from the stars. They didn't know what caused it & would've been better off saying "I don't know".
Rocks falling from the sky didn't fit Thomas Jefferson's existing concepts so he knew it was a hoax.

 

[swarm]

So IOW if you underwent a local anesthetic on your foot and didn't feel a thing the rock wouldn't be real.

It hardly matters if my foot is numb since I'm dropping it on your foot.

But don't worry. I don't care if you pretend you can't feel it, even though it would take general anesthesia since you'd feel the shock else where in your body with mere local. I can measure the blood flow, examine the deformation of your foot, reality gives a plethora of information about itself.

So did you ever figure out what the topic is?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

He never cares what the topic is.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I think I (and physics) sidesteps that one by assigning it to psychologists and the like. Oh if only that were a real science...

LOL .
Sometimes I think Psychology tries too hard to be a science... in trying to reduce the immeasurable idiosynchrosies of our psyches into neat theories based on animal models e.g. behaviourism - it ends up damaging people.

At the moment. Granted it may never be, but the (scientific) study of consciousness is really in its intiail stages.

True...

I can see that, but I'm not entirely sure I "trust" it/ them.
But that's just my view of things.

I think there is a problem with the interpretation of experience... because I see an invisible pink unicorn, is there really one in the room? The experience exists... but what does it say about objective reality? It's slightly different with a pain, or an emotion though.

But surely religion (for one) does claim that it's another level/ entity, and not just an anthropomorphism?

Some theists do, but I think it is not defensible rationally. Assuming God exists and is 'infinite', our reality must be part of that infinity. God cannot therefore be a separate entity from us. (I'm therefore a panentheist...)

Rather than claim another entity, I think it claims something about the nature of 'reality' i.e. it includes consciousness, is therefore purposeful (despite appearances), and therefore responds to us (despite appearances).

I can go along with with, but some of the claims don't hold up.
As a placeholder it's fine: but to then ascribe qualities and say "this is how you must live..."

For me some values follow naturally from the recognition that we are all connected, all co-expressions of some greater intelligence/mind/consciousness, and therefore all due the respect/love that comes from that. Golden rule stuff.

However, I oppose, (like you) "the Holy Book/Holy Man/Tradition commands this, so you must do it" school of thought. We'd all be stoning prostitutes and avoiding blood transfusions if that were the case...

OK, some people still do :bawl:

Yeah, but I won't be here to enjoy it - that's what's annoying.

Well, if I'm right, you might be, but maybe not as the particular individual you (or I) am right now.

It is that we don't know yet. Consciousness does not fit existing concepts because we don't yet understand it. We may find you are right & we may find you are wrong in the long run yet presently you are wrong because we simply do not know & have no way of knowing. The Flu didn't fit existing concepts so people thought it must be caused by an influence from the stars. They didn't know what caused it & would've been better off saying "I don't know". Rocks falling from the sky didn't fit Thomas Jefferson's existing concepts so he knew it was a hoax.

OK, I accept leaving consciousness in the "don't yet know" file for now. What I'm saying is that there must be a huge paradigm shift before we can understand it. It's not a case of continuing with current 'normal science'.

There was just such a shift in the discovery of micro-organisms as agents of disease. Another was the heliocentric solar system, another in quantum mechanics. I think for consciousness, it will be on that scale or greater...
Our consciousness I believe will be connected to some fundamental (and all pervasive) property of reality. Maybe it's a dimension, like time or space?

 

[Oli]

LOL.
Sometimes I think Psychology tries too hard to be a science... in trying to reduce the immeasurable idiosynchrosies of our psyches into neat theories based on animal models e.g. behaviourism - it ends up damaging people.

That was more or less my introductory statement when I went to university to study "Social Sciences".
"Why did you choose this course?"
"For a laugh: there's virtually no science involved and I wanted to see how deluded you all are.."

I think there is a problem with the interpretation of experience... because I see an invisible pink unicorn, is there really one in the room? The experience exists... but what does it say about objective reality? It's slightly different with a pain, or an emotion though.

There are those who claim that pain and happiness etc. are also illusions...
I'm still not entirely sure where my opinion lies on that.
At least pain and happiness occur to other people (so they claim) and under specific conditions.

Some theists do, but I think it is not defensible rationally. Assuming God exists and is 'infinite', our reality must be part of that infinity. God cannot therefore be a separate entity from us. (I'm therefore a panentheist...)

Ah, theists and rationality...
We have one SciForumer who claims apply logic and can't see that his his logic is predicated on his beliefs rather than the other way round...

Rather than claim another entity, I think it claims something about the nature of 'reality' i.e. it includes consciousness, is therefore purposeful (despite appearances), and therefore responds to us (despite appearances).

A step further on than Einstein's "god"?

For me some values follow naturally from the recognition that we are all connected, all co-expressions of some greater intelligence/mind/consciousness, and therefore all due the respect/love that comes from that. Golden rule stuff.

I don't see the connectedness, but do think the golden rule is worthwhile.

However, I oppose, (like you) "the Holy Book/Holy Man/Tradition commands this, so you must do it" school of thought. We'd all be stoning prostitutes and avoiding blood transfusions if that were the case...
OK, some people still do :bawl:

Too many people want an "easy answer" even if that "easiness" is just because it comes from someone else.

Well, if I'm right, you might be, but maybe not as the particular individual you (or I) am right now.

Then it won't be "me" will it?

OK, I accept leaving consciousness in the "don't yet know" file for now. What I'm saying is that there must be a huge paradigm shift before we can understand it. It's not a case of continuing with current 'normal science'.
There was just such a shift in the discovery of micro-organisms as agents of disease. Another was the heliocentric solar system, another in quantum mechanics. I think for consciousness, it will be on that scale or greater...
Our consciousness I believe will be connected to some fundamental (and all pervasive) property of reality. Maybe it's a dimension, like time or space?

Paradigm shift yes.
And a large one, at a guess.
Another dimension... er, verging slightly into Reiku territory, if you remember him.
But you never know.

 

[swarm]

He never cares what the topic is.

I noticed. He argues like a hari krishna.

 

[Sarkus]

Some theists do, but I think it is not defensible rationally. Assuming God exists and is 'infinite', our reality must be part of that infinity. God cannot therefore be a separate entity from us. (I'm therefore a panentheist...)

Your analysis/rationale is not quite clear to me: Just because one variable (God) is infinite does not preclude another variable from also being infinite and, moreover, mutually exclusive/distinct from the other.

The series of odd numbers is infinite.
The series of even numbers is infinite.

Furthermore, infinities can be bounded... e.g. there are an infinite numbers between 1 and 2. Another infinite between 4 and 5. etc.

Using set analogy, if you're defining God as "the set of all sets", then surely this is merely saying nothing other than "God is everything", and we are therefore by definition a part of "God". But it says nothing else of God and says nothing of the interaction between the parts, nor whether there is any interaction at all between them.

And is not "God" therefore a redundant label, given that we already have "everything" to cover what is meant?

For me some values follow naturally from the recognition that we are all connected, all co-expressions of some greater intelligence/mind/consciousness, and therefore all due the respect/love that comes from that. Golden rule stuff.

But of what value is a single life if it is merely part of a whole that will continue regardless.
Unless you are somehow singling out Humanity as being of additional importance, and that our survival is not a given and should be striven toward?

 

[lightgigantic]

Swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So IOW if you underwent a local anesthetic on your foot and didn't feel a thing the rock wouldn't be real.
”
It hardly matters if my foot is numb since I'm dropping it on your foot.

hehe

your the one trying to explain the validity of your usage of words like "real", so its just a scenario to help you form a coherent argument.

But don't worry. I don't care if you pretend you can't feel it, even though it would take general anesthesia since you'd feel the shock else where in your body with mere local. I can measure the blood flow, examine the deformation of your foot, reality gives a plethora of information about itself.

Thanks

so IOW you have recourse to a set of "rules" for determining the "fact" of a situation, yes?

So did you ever figure out what the topic is?

sure

at the moment I am just trying to help you use the word "real" in an intelligible manner.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is that we don't know yet. Consciousness does not fit existing concepts because we don't yet understand it. We may find you are right & we may find you are wrong in the long run yet presently you are wrong because we simply do not know & have no way of knowing. The Flu didn't fit existing concepts so people thought it must be caused by an influence from the stars. They didn't know what caused it & would've been better off saying "I don't know".
Rocks falling from the sky didn't fit Thomas Jefferson's existing concepts so he knew it was a hoax.

meh

more post-dated cheques from radical reductionism

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

That was more or less my introductory statement when I went to university to study "Social Sciences".
"Why did you choose this course?"
"For a laugh: there's virtually no science involved and I wanted to see how deluded you all are.."

I thought Social Scientists invented the Strong programme - the "Science of Science" (or at least the anthropology of Science). It sounds like you side with the Realists though?

There are those who claim that pain and happiness etc. are also illusions...

There's certainly those (like Dennett or before him Ryle) who argue the self is an illusion. Do some argue pain etc. is too? Like Dr Johnson, I'd refute that argument with sharp kick (to somewhere vulnerable) and the words "I refute your argument thus".

A step further on than Einstein's "god"?

Not a bad summary. I like Einstein's god, and the fact that he refused to be orthodox. However, his idea of God was very distant, and of little help in finding a life of Eudaimonia.

I don't see the connectedness, but do think the golden rule is worthwhile.

Isn't the golden rule applicable because you recognise a similarity to yourself in other people? That's part of what I mean by connectedness.

Then it won't be "me" will it?

Only if you think that "me" is a certain body with a name, personality and set of memories etc. I think I could lose all that and still be "me".

I think "me" is the "I" that perceives. The latest thinking is that "I" is the process of perception rather than a thing, in which case, that process is going on in all conscious entities. "I" am therefore a far more universal process than just this body/identity.

Another dimension... er, verging slightly into Reiku territory, if you remember him.
But you never know.

LOL! It sounds a bit sci-fi. I mean by dimension a set of co-ordinates that identify an event site. So, the old problem of "does a tree falling in the forest make a noise when no-one is around?" is a meaningless question, because it is missing one vital co-ordinate (the observer). It's like asking "what is the time at the tip of the hour hand of Big Ben?" i.e. you miss out the relevant co-ordinate (when).

At each point of consciousness, the other dimensions equal zero: time=0 and distance in length,depth,width=0. It's always here and now where I am. Just an idea. :m:

Your analysis/rationale is not quite clear to me: Just because one variable (God) is infinite does not preclude another variable from also being infinite and, moreover, mutually exclusive/distinct from the other.

Yes, you are right Sarkus, and I deserve a slap on the wrist for sloppy use of language. I mean 'omnipresent', rather than 'infinite'. As you say, there are many infinite series, and some are larger than others. Omnipresence however includes everything.

Using set analogy, if you're defining God as "the set of all sets", then surely this is merely saying nothing other than "God is everything", and we are therefore by definition a part of "God".

Yes, it's not rocket science is it... I am refuting those who would say 'yes' to both statements:
1) that God is omnipresent, and
2) that God is a separate entity from us.

They contradict by definition.

But it says nothing else of God and says nothing of the interaction between the parts, nor whether there is any interaction at all between them. And is not "God" therefore a redundant label, given that we already have "everything" to cover what is meant?

No, because (as I said earlier), the word "God" says something about the properties of "everything" not covered in the word "everything" (see previous post).

But of what value is a single life if it is merely part of a whole that will continue regardless. Unless you are somehow singling out Humanity as being of additional importance, and that our survival is not a given and should be striven toward?

If you identify with that 'single life', you will die, being finite - humans are the same as animals.

However, if you identify with all consciousness, you are everywhere. Consciousness keeps on occurring, and that consciousness is "me". This 'single life' is but one of the many, all "me", all convinced that they are but a single life. It's not a very comforting thought, but a challenging one. I am me here, but "I" am also the me of the starving child on the news being butchered in Darfur (or wherever).

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Ah, theists and rationality...
We have one SciForumer who claims apply logic and can't see that his his logic is predicated on his beliefs rather than the other way round...

You see only 1???

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ There are those who claim that pain and happiness etc. are also illusions... ”

There's certainly those (like Dennett or before him Ryle) who argue the self is an illusion. Do some argue pain etc. is too? Like Dr Johnson, I'd refute that argument with sharp kick (to somewhere vulnerable) and the words "I refute your argument thus".

That doesn't refute it.

 

[swarm]

so IOW you have recourse to a set of "rules" for determining the "fact" of a situation, yes?

Nope. "rules" are after the fact.

at the moment I am just trying to help you use the word "real" in an intelligible manner.

Liar.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
It is that we don't know yet. Consciousness does not fit existing concepts because we don't yet understand it. We may find you are right & we may find you are wrong in the long run yet presently you are wrong because we simply do not know & have no way of knowing. The Flu didn't fit existing concepts so people thought it must be caused by an influence from the stars. They didn't know what caused it & would've been better off saying "I don't know".
Rocks falling from the sky didn't fit Thomas Jefferson's existing concepts so he knew it was a hoax. ”

meh
more post-dated cheques from radical reductionism

More ignoring of truth & logic.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

“ There are those who claim that pain and happiness etc. are also illusions... ”

Like Dr Johnson, I'd refute that argument with sharp kick (to somewhere vulnerable) and the words "I refute your argument thus".

That doesn't refute it.

Say more?

I'm intrigued as to your reasoning StrangerInAStrangeLa!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Ah, theists and rationality...
We have one SciForumer who claims apply logic and can't see that his his logic is predicated on his beliefs rather than the other way round...

You see only 1???

Isn't that always the case... we all select the evidence to support our beliefs. Atheists do it too.

One method much used by secularists is the 'post dated IOU' explanation that lightgigantic commented on.

 

[Oli]

I thought Social Scientists invented the Strong programme - the "Science of Science" (or at least the anthropology of Science). It sounds like you side with the Realists though?

I was thinking more along the lines of psychologists and the the statisticians (particularly): they have lots of numbers but no actual methodology.
"Physics envy" as Feynman said.
And the "science of science" so far hasn't produced any science AS science.

There's certainly those (like Dennett or before him Ryle) who argue the self is an illusion. Do some argue pain etc. is too? Like Dr Johnson, I'd refute that argument with sharp kick (to somewhere vulnerable) and the words "I refute your argument thus".

Ah, I meant the Eastern "mystics" and their like: some of those seem pretty impervious to a swift lick in the goolies.

Not a bad summary. I like Einstein's god, and the fact that he refused to be orthodox. However, his idea of God was very distant, and of little help in finding a life of Eudaimonia.

Why should you expect any help from the universe?

Isn't the golden rule applicable because you recognise a similarity to yourself in other people? That's part of what I mean by connectedness.

Not to me: I have to operate within a society of people, therefore I accord them certain courtesies in the hopes that they'll reciprocate.

Only if you think that "me" is a certain body with a name, personality and set of memories etc. I think I could lose all that and still be "me".
I think "me" is the "I" that perceives. The latest thinking is that "I" is the process of perception rather than a thing, in which case, that process is going on in all conscious entities. "I" am therefore a far more universal process than just this body/identity.

The me is what I consider to me be me.
With different memories etc I'd be a different me, no?
No continuity of (self-)identity.

LOL! It sounds a bit sci-fi. I mean by dimension a set of co-ordinates that identify an event site. So, the old problem of "does a tree falling in the forest make a noise when no-one is around?" is a meaningless question, because it is missing one vital co-ordinate (the observer). It's like asking "what is the time at the tip of the hour hand of Big Ben?" i.e. you miss out the relevant co-ordinate (when).
At each point of consciousness, the other dimensions equal zero: time=0 and distance in length,depth,width=0. It's always here and now where I am. Just an idea. :m:

I can sort of see what you mean.
Unfortunately (?) we'll need some very smart "crackpot" to make that sort of breakthrough, I think.