discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[russell jones]

I have something to say. I was intrigued by Chalmers and crook making their claims for God. Let me make my own...

 

God is work. The only thing that all the different conceptions of God share in this thread is that people write about them, or talk about them, or build churches to them or spend money for them or whatever. I don't think I am too far-fetched. It reminds me of the Zen monk Dogon who said that one is enlightened when they sit in a za-zen position. I have also seen his statement translated that sitting in the za-zen pose is enlightenment. In other words, its not the transcendent, but the trancedence, its not the thought, but the action. If I am going to lay God on any concept, it is doing.

 

Without talking about God, or writing about God, or making art or temples for God, God would not exist to anyone. Thus I contend that God is the doing not the being done for. Stop doing, and God disappears, forever. So get off your asses and do something and you will touch the divine.

 

I will make no more posts to this thread except to defend this thesis.

[Module X]

If I am going to lay God on any concept, it is doing.

 

Being is by definition doing. Everything, even nonaction, is an action. Sitting on a bench you are exchanging heat with the surrounding environment, breathing air, metabolizing, absorbing photons, etc. If you believe the idea that everything is an interconnected process then this is all just one big doing, or equivalently one big being. That is god. I agree.

[the.crooked]

Chalmers and Russel:

 

 

 

Spinoza, and Bergson, read them. both of you.

[blindone]

i think this would be fun and appropriate to throw this in here...question: is there an absolute right and absolute wrong?(morality) if so, where do you get your basis of your belief in right and wrong?(eg-God, yourself, parents, etc.)

[the.crooked]

as;lkjalvkalwknv...

 

 

 

thats the basis of my moral standards...

 

read the thread.

[russell jones]

Chalmers and Russel:

 

 

 

Spinoza, and Bergson, read them. both of you.

 

I've read a little Spinoza as an undergraduate. Bergson I haven't heard of... I'll let you know.

[Module X]

Yeah, I'll check them out once my finals are over.

[J B Suspecto]

I'm not religous. But it's hard not to find religion fascinating simply for the impact it has had on our world throughout history. As for the subject of God, I think the Bahá'í are right on the money:

 

"The Bahá'í Concept of God-

 

The Bahá'í belief in one God means that the universe and all creatures and forces within it have been created by a single supernatural Being. This Being, Whom we call God, has absolute control over His creation (omnipotence) as well as perfect and complete knowledge of it (omniscience). Although we may have different concepts of God's nature, although we may pray to Him in different languages and call Him by different names--Allah or Yahweh, God or Brahma--nevertheless, we are speaking about the same unique Being.

 

According to Bahá'í teachings, God is so far beyond His creation that, throughout all eternity, human beings will never be able to formulate any clear image of Him or attain to anything but the most remote appreciation of His superior nature. Even if we say that God is the All-Powerful, the All-Loving, the Infinitely Just, such terms are derived from a very limited human experience of power, love, or justice. Indeed, our knowledge of anything is limited to our knowledge of those attributes or qualities perceptible to us."

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html

 

Or basically: We are Germs. World is Petri-dish. God is Scientist. Germs may develop ability to explore and understand Petri-dish. Not Scientist.

 

But the Bahá'í forbid drinking and premarital-sex so I passed...

 

See this is a perfect example of where any religious idea can be quite sound but its failure is the political structure formulated around it.

[Dawood]

Bump, because Allah is great.

[Auragod]

Being is by definition doing. Everything, even nonaction, is an action. Sitting on a bench you are exchanging heat with the surrounding environment, breathing air, metabolizing, absorbing photons, etc. If you believe the idea that everything is an interconnected process then this is all just one big doing, or equivalently one big being. That is god. I agree.

^^^^^

thats it right there. everyone is connected with no end or beginning. we separate and define our world to understand it which moves away from what 'god' is. it is everything. a creator in it self of itself.

[Auragod]

religion moves in the wrong direction because it divides and sets rules or guidelines. but its mostly the fault of those who follow it and misconstrue it

[Auragod]

just my two cents...

[amongst]

i like to think of it like this:

 

take yourself. you are made up of what? organs, bones, and blood. all of which are made up of small cells, which are made of organelles, which are made of smaller parts, and so on and so forth. even within atoms, there are smaller things than atoms and nuetrons and electrons. get the picture? it doesn't end.

 

now look at it this way:

 

you, along with your neighbors and community, make up a society. that society makes up the population of the earth. and everything and everyone make up our earth. earth, along with the other planets of our solar system, is just a small system/network/"functioning being" (being, defined by doing) within a larger galaxy within the universe, etc.

 

so by this theory, we could be like blood cells pumping through the veins of a larger super being (or something along those lines).

 

might be kind of farfetched. but its something that came across my mind.

[the.crooked]

^^ not at all. That is a great way of looking at ourselves as only part of a larger system. We do what we are supposed to to make things work in humanity. We drive to our seperate specified jobs along arteries of concrete in cells of steel and electronics.

[El Mamerro]

Ants and bees go around their lives doing their very limited and specific functions. This guy goes find food in a certain direction. This other guy takes care of exactly 3 larvae. This other dude adds one pebble at a time to the wall. None of them have any idea how the hell what they are doing contributes to the whole. Meanwhile, the hive/colony takes on characteristics of a single organism, reacting to problems, adjusting to the environment, and regulating itself in order to survive. It can keep track of time and can navigate accurately across the environment, yet no single ant has the ability to asses the global situation.

 

It's not farfetched to believe higher intelligences arise from the interactions of unknowing agents. Our economic and societal development could be part of some "intelligence", but we may be unable to observe the patterns we have come to associate with it.

[the.crooked]

I have totally been on this collective systems kick the last year or so.

 

Think about how we act out abstract concepts as living entities. Take corporations for example. A collection of autonomous agents who together comprise a single abstract identity.

[the.crooked]

mams- have you ever read any giles deleuze. you might dig it. a little rediculously worded and uneedingly verbose in most places but very interesting, and has strong corrolates to what we are talking about here.

[Dawood]

Ants and bees go around their lives doing their very limited and specific functions. This guy goes find food in a certain direction. This other guy takes care of exactly 3 larvae. This other dude adds one pebble at a time to the wall. None of them have any idea how the hell what they are doing contributes to the whole. Meanwhile, the hive/colony takes on characteristics of a single organism, reacting to problems, adjusting to the environment, and regulating itself in order to survive. It can keep track of time and can navigate accurately across the environment, yet no single ant has the ability to asses the global situation.

 

It's not farfetched to believe higher intelligences arise from the interactions of unknowing agents. Our economic and societal development could be part of some "intelligence", but we may be unable to observe the patterns we have come to associate with it.

 

 

this excellent observation you made here is enough to point me toward an all knowing, omnipitent creator......it's the bees knees.

[Dawood]

Poetry on the most merciful.

 

He governs the affairs of the various kingdoms and He commands and forbids, creates, sustains, gives death, gives life, gives power, strips power (to and from whom He wills) and alternates the night and day. He gives varying fortunes to people and alternates governments (and states), destroying some and bringing some into existence. His Command and Power are dominant in the heavens and their zones, the earth and all that which is on and in it, in the seas and in the air. His Knowledge has encompassed everything and He counted everything. He hears all types of voices and they do not confuse Him. Rather, He hears each voice in its distinct language and need, and no voice will make Him busy from fulfilling the need of another, and no need will ever escape His Perfect Knowledge (and His Power to deliver). He does not become bored because of the many needs of those who need. His Sight encompasses all that which there is. He sees the movement of a black ant on a barren rock during a dark night. To Him, the Unseen is uncovered end the secret is secret no more, "Whosoever is in the heavens and on Earth begs of Him (its needs from Him). Every day He has a matter to bring Forth (such as giving honor to some, disgrace to some, life to (some, death to some, etc.)." [55:29] He forgives an evil deed, makes depression vanish and brings reprieve from disasters, relief for whoever needs it, wealth for the poor, guidance for the misguided, light for the lost, help for he who is desperate, fullness for the hungry, cover for the barely clothed, cure for the ill and ease for he who suffers. He accepts he who repents, gives reward for he who does good, gives aid for he who was dealt with injustice, destroys an arrogant person, covers mistakes, gives safety after fear end elevates some people and humiliates others. If those who inhabit His heavens and His earth and all those whom He created, whether mankind or the Jinns, had hearts similar to the most pious heart, His Kingdom will not increase. If all His creation, whether mankind or the Jinns, had hearts similar to the heart of the most wicked heart, this will not decrease from His Kingdom. Also, if all those who inhabit His heavens and His earth, all mankind and all the Jinns, the dead and the living, stand up on one strip of land and each asks Him for his need, and He then fulfils their needs, this will not decrease from what He has a bit. He is the First, nothing is before Him, the Last, nothing is after Him, the Most High, nothing is above Him, and the Most Near, nothing is nearer than Him. He, Exalted and Ever High as He is, is the Best Whom one can and should remember, the only One Who deserves to be worshiped and thanked, the Kindest of all those who own and the Most generous of all those who are asked to give. He is the King Who has no partner, the One Who has no competitor, the Samad (Self-Sufficient) Who has no offspring, and the Ever High, none like unto Him. Everything perishes save His Face and every kingship is bound to perish except His. He will only be obeyed by His Leave, and His Knowledge uncovers all disobedience to Him. When He is obeyed, He thanks for it, and when He is disobeyed, He grants forgiveness (for those who truly repent to Him). Every punishment from Him is just and every bounty is a grace. He is the Closest Witness and the Nearest One with His Perfect Care. He controls the forelocks of everything and has the full records of all deeds end the books of all ages. The hearts are unmasked to Him and the secret is unveiled. His giving and punishing is merely a Command, "Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, ‘Be, and it is!’" [36:82].

 

 

Ibn Al Qayyim Al Jawziyah.

[Module X]

It's not farfetched to believe higher intelligences arise from the interactions of unknowing agents. Our economic and societal development could be part of some "intelligence", but we may be unable to observe the patterns we have come to associate with it.

 

Word, and on a lower level this is how human beings are made up as well. The cells in our bodies aren't aware of the system of which they're a part.

 

I took an astrophysics course last year, and the one thing that stuck with me the most was a digital model we were shown depicting a gradual zoom-out from a solar system to the large-scale galactic superbubbles that form the largest known structures in the universe. For some reason it struck me as very purposeful, like a network of neurons or something.

[the.crooked]

Think about what we are creating with the internet. What is its infrastructure but an associative structure of knowledge.... hmmmm sound like something else we know?

[El Mamerro]

^Ding ding. I've been on this tip for a minute now... I believe the Internet will be the first "artificial" intelligence, before any one robot or single computer. It may already be, we just need to figure out how this consciousness thing works so we can make it self-aware.

[WORDISM45]

the internet would be one stupid being if it was self aware

[amongst]

sounds like terminator!!!

[the.crooked]

It is amazing that there is emperical research and subsequent philosophical positions based on such research which gives a susbstantial theoretical basis to this idea of consciousness as an emergent property of a collective of systems which function in parallel.

 

I suggest anyone interested in these concepts read the works of Danniel Dennet, Giles Deleuze, some other names I can't remember right now. I will put up some pdf's as attachments if people would like. Jstor is an amazing thing.

 

Whats more amazing is that these sorts of conclusions are ranging all the way from philosophies of mathematics (Brouwer, Touring, Benacerraf, Quine) to philosophies of mind (Searle, Skinner, Dennet, Kinsbourne), philosophies of language (Quine, Davidson, Rorty), even out of the analytic mode and into the more metaphysical texts (Deleuze, Heidegger, Spinoza, Bergson).

 

Contemporary cognitive theory is broken down into understanding the systems which comprise our aesthetics and perceptual modes (read: the senses, and their correlated structures in the brain). What more are we doing but coming to an extremely pragmatic and systemically explicit mode of thinking about our own construction of reality. Rather, we are begining to understand why and how we do what we do mentally and its relation to our experiential world.

 

The only reasonable conclusion considering these conclusions of rational western thought, which equally rational eastern philosophy came to centuries before, is that everything are merely infinite collections of systems. Certain levels of bound complexity emerge as what we seem to deem conscious. That is to consider what we have already discussed about our own organism as such.

 

What all these fields need to be concerned with in some respects is to look to inform each other as to the ever diverse and complicated ways in which these epistemological/ontological conclusions develope within each other and are dependent in their developement to each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a seperate note about all this stuff.

 

 

I am fairly certain this is what I want to work on in grad school. But I need to justify my claim that all these fields say the same thing. Which will be the aim of my senior thesis for my next final year of undergrad. I hope I can do something with all this bullshit I spew out. I know a few people on here gave me their thoughts when I switched my concentration from physics to philosophy, but I am curious what some of them think about the path I have taken at this point. Rather, I wonder if people think the ideas I am having are sound and not complete bullshit. Was my switch worth it?

 

A nice existential question to put out there.

[Knim_One]

i like to keep my mind open to all possibility.

[Module X]

Was my switch worth it?

 

Well first of all, that really remains to be seen, and kind of depends on whether or not you're personally satisfied with the switch. But what you're saying sounds interesting, though fairly ambitious. To me it sounds like you're treading the boundary between philosophy and physics, specifically some kind of statistical physics applied to human behavior. I'm not sure whether you're speaking in terms of individual conscious or collective culture, but in the case of the latter this reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Foundation, which postulates the existence of a science called "psychohistory" that predicts the actions of human society with mathematical precision. Not a particularly profound book though. In any case a good qualitative treatment of the idea of collective systems creating consciousness and civilization would be pretty interesting, at least to me. In my opinion, though, it begs some kind of eventual mathematical expression.

 

Ironically, after giving you a little shit for switching to philosophy, I'm kind of reconsidering my own choice of physics. I'm not sure what I would switch too, possibly a life science, but definitely not philosophy. All the math I have to do for physics has kind of fucked with my head; I'm starting to wish I had gone to art school or something.

[the.crooked]

I know what you mean. Once you get to a certain point in trying to understand the foundations of existence, it gets a bit hard to look at things sometimes.

 

Sometimes I wonder what I am doing to the actual structure of my brain by reading all this stuff. How my perceptions of the terms reality, etc have necessarily become tied to such outlandish conceptions. Makes the world pretty interesting.

 

Absolutely right on the yet to be seen part. We will see if I get into grad school, and where it goes from there.

[the.crooked]

bump a lump

[Porcelain]

I know what you mean. Once you get to a certain point in trying to understand the foundations of existence, it gets a bit hard to look at things sometimes.

 

Sometimes I wonder what I am doing to the actual structure of my brain by reading all this stuff. How my perceptions of the terms reality, etc have necessarily become tied to such outlandish conceptions. Makes the world pretty interesting.

 

Absolutely right on the yet to be seen part. We will see if I get into grad school, and where it goes from there.

 

it makes me think too