Leaving Jesus is not Leaving God!

[Amethyst]

You are correct, it doesn't prove that it's a god. But, isn't something keeping this energy (force) from acting in random ways?

 

Nobody's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it actually exists yet, have they? There have been a few experiments, but it's not really conclusive yet.

 

Assuming the Force does exist, then what keeps it from acting randomly is probably what keeps gravity constant on our planet, what keeps light at a constant rate, etc. -- what we know as laws of physics. Granted, there are probably exceptions to them, but for the most part, they are consistent.

[NotBlinded]

You are correct, it doesn't prove that it's a god. But, isn't something keeping this energy (force) from acting in random ways?

 

Nobody's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it actually exists yet, have they? There have been a few experiments, but it's not really conclusive yet.

 

Assuming the Force does exist, then what keeps it from acting randomly is probably what keeps gravity constant on our planet, what keeps light at a constant rate, etc. -- what we know as laws of physics. Granted, there are probably exceptions to them, but for the most part, they are consistent.

Yes, and that is what I wonder about. I don't know if it actually exists, but it appears to me that it is something (or a part of something) that keeps them constant. If the explanation is just that it's a natural order, then that still leaves me wondering what that natural order entails. It's kind of like wondering how the cells in our body know what they are supposed to form. Sure, there is a set of instructions in each cell, but how does the cell know to follow those instructions? It seems (to me) that there has to be some form of intellegence in the cells and that could logically follow that there is some intellegence that is unknown to us, doesn't it? I'm by far no expert, but it makes sense to me.

[Amethyst]

It seems (to me) that there has to be some form of intellegence in the cells and that could logically follow that there is some intellegence that is unknown to us, doesn't it?

 

Not really. There's no evidence that shows that cells are intelligent. It's like saying my gecko is intelligent. It acts on instinct. That's all they have.

 

The accepted definition of intelligent life, as far as I recall, means that you have to recognize yourself in a mirror, among other things. There are some monkeys that have done that, and I think a dolphin or two, but to the best of my knowledge, no other animals have done that. A single-celled organism (at least on earth) cannot be classified as intelligent using the scientific community's accepted definition of intelligence.

 

I'm no biology expert either, and I maybe should take the time to read up on it, but I don't have the time right now. But just because we don't know how something works, that doesn't necessarily lead to the explanation that "god did it." Isn't that the "god of the gaps" fallacy?

 

However, I did do a quick search. Here is the wikipedia article on cells.

 

Wiki

 

What I recall from my college biology classes (and the Wiki article also says) is that DNA is what tells the cells what to do. But just because something has DNA does not mean that it's intelligent life, it's just life.

[NotBlinded]

It seems (to me) that there has to be some form of intellegence in the cells and that could logically follow that there is some intellegence that is unknown to us, doesn't it?

 

Not really. There's no evidence that shows that cells are intelligent. It's like saying my gecko is intelligent. It acts on instinct. That's all they have.

 

The accepted definition of intelligent life, as far as I recall, means that you have to recognize yourself in a mirror, among other things. There are some monkeys that have done that, and I think a dolphin or two, but to the best of my knowledge, no other animals have done that. A single-celled organism (at least on earth) cannot be classified as intelligent using the scientific community's accepted definition of intelligence.

 

I'm no biology expert either, and I maybe should take the time to read up on it, but I don't have the time right now. But just because we don't know how something works, that doesn't necessarily lead to the explanation that "god did it." Isn't that the "god of the gaps" fallacy?

 

However, I did do a quick search. Here is the wikipedia article on cells.

 

Wiki

 

What I recall from my college biology classes (and the Wiki article also says) is that DNA is what tells the cells what to do. But just because something has DNA does not mean that it's intelligent life, it's just life.

I could not ever say that 'god did it' because that creates an separate entity that would have to exist outside of itself, but I might say that life itself is 'god' (I really don't like using that word ). I perfer to use the word Intellegence or Consciousness. If DNA tells the cells what to do, wouldn't it follow that it is intellegent? If intellegence is the ability to solve problems, isn't that what the DNA is doing...solving the problem of what the cell is to do?

 

Edit: I would like to revise this after thinking about it. The DNA would not be the intelligence; it would be the instructions. So, nevermind what I said!

[Asimov]

Wouldn't an infinite amount of energy just....destroy the world?

[Amethyst]

Wouldn't an infinite amount of energy just....destroy the world?

 

Probably depends on how it's applied. I could see it tearing apart the fabric of the space/time continuum, though.

[Antlerman]

Regarding self awareness: I think all animal life is self aware (as opposed to single celled or plant life). If not, it would not know to flee danger for self preservation. That of course does not mean a dog contemplates the meaning of its life. Abstractions such as considering the philosophical meaning of something seems to be a higher level of brain function. But self awareness can be seen in any animal’s awareness to protect itself.

 

On the question of Intelligence being demonstrated through the result of DNA: It could appear that way, because the end result is what we recognize as order. The chemical codes also can and do create disorder and death. They don't survive. Those which work do. Isn't it like winning the lottery? Because I won, does that mean a greater intelligence orchestrated it for my personal benefit? Emotionally, I could certainly feel that way, but it took countless millions of failures of the same process to get one hit. On a really cynical day, we could say "God" misses the mark much, much more than he hits it. (Of course the fundie’s explanation is that error is because we caused it by disobedience to their rules).

 

My feeling is that "life" is a totally natural and expected result of what has emerged as our universe as we have it. Our emotional contemplations of it expresses that wonder by ascribing "poetic" symbologies to it. You know, that's not all bad though. Life is a miracle, when you consider how many failures there were to get what we inherited! We all won the damned lottery!! Now that's reason to celebrate being alive! Make a god to hang all that on and you have a community of lottery winners, who either are happy about winning and throw rose pedals at it, or you have those who can't process the terror of almost loosing and go over the edge to emotional dysfunctionality of fundamentalist nonsense. There a near infinite number of aborted failures out there in the big universe. Praise Chance! We made it!!!

[Open_Minded]

I think non-belief is the best description of an atheist. Non-belief is the default position; such as you would be in regards to notion that the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is in fact a real being. Would your rejection of someone's offerings of evidence through various flawed methods of logic and science constitute a subjective conclusion on your part that the GFSM doesn't exist? Are you choosing to believe the GFSM doesn't exist? Does your position of de facto non-belief constitute a philosophical position? In my opinion, it does not. I don't think I have evaluated the evidence and concluded there is no God. I think I have evaluated the evidence and concluded that the evidence does not support the claims. I default back to atheism, (full of wonder of joy again!).

 

I do understand what you say about atheism being the "default position" Antlerman. And I understand that rejection of flawed methods of logic and science does not constitute a subjective decision.

 

But, I also recognize that our respective positions come to us as a result of a lifetime of subjective and objective experiences and thought processes. We can not separate our positions on these matters from our overall life journey. This is why it is so important to intentionally expose ourselves to other points of view, wouldn't you say

 

 

I'll try to spend some more time on this as I am enjoying your participation on the forums.

 

Thank you, I also enjoy being here. As I've mentioned in other posts, this forum provides a wonderful place to expose oneself to other points of view (both subjective and objective).

 

Now onto the other line of discussion in this thread - that of self-awareness and consciousness - Following is a link some may want to explore: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

 

This link is to the Quantum Consciousness website. The website is a home site of Stuart Hameroff, a physician and researcher at the The University of Arizona Medical Center. Following is an excerpt from his site explaining a bit about Stuart:

 

I spent twenty years studying how computer-like structures called microtubules inside neurons and other cells could process information related to consciousness. But when I read The emperor’s new mind by Sir Roger Penrose in 1991

I realized that consciousness may be a specific process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds. Roger and I teamed up to develop a theory of consciousness

based on quantum computation in microtubules within neurons.

Roger’s mechanism for an objective threshold for quantum state reduction connects us to the most basic, “funda-mental” level of the universe at the Planck scale, and is called objective reduction

(OR). Our suggestion for biological feedback to microtubule quantum states is orchestration (Orch), hence our model is called orchestrated objective reduction, Orch OR.

 

"Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe" - Freeman Dyson

 

In recent years I have concluded that such a connection to the basic proto-conscious level of reality where Platonic values are embedded is strikingly similar to Buddhist concepts, and may account for spirituality

.

 

Stuart Hameroff worked with Roger Penrose. For those of you who don't know - Roger Penrose worked with Stephen Hawkings.

 

Again - as you look at and discuss this site - please keep the overall line of this discussion in mind.

 

1. I fully recognize the subjectivity of my point of view.

2. Referring this site is not an attempt to "prove" the existence of God. Stuart Hameroff thinks this line of research "may account for spirituality". I believe that anything infinite is beyond full human understanding. But I accept his position as it is, recognizing point 1 above

3. I do not feel that everything on this website is fact and I fully accept that much of what Stuart and Roger are studying now and theorizing about may be disproved in the future. But, this is the whole point of inquiry -both on scientific as well as philisophical and spiritual level

4. I enjoy following this type of research because there is wonder in it. It is not something that I feel will yield any concrete results anytime soon, but it is fascinating

 

I hope you find something worth discussing here and look forward to hearing other opinions about this information.

[Skankboy]

I believe that anything infinite is beyond full human understanding.

 

You know, I've been thinking about this, and other than in mathematics (ie abstracts), I cannot think of anything that is actually infinite. The more I think about it the more I wonder if "infinite" is like "perfect", concepts we've constructed to describe things that don't actually exist in reality. Even Stephen Hawkings considers the universe to be "finite, but boundless" and that's about as big as they come...

 

[Taphophilia]

But even that wouldn't prove that the Bible was true, or that there was a god, or that the god was biblegod. For all you know, it could be just an energy force. If it were, it would disprove the Bible and most religions on earth, because they talk about god as an actual person.

 

Read the Age of Reason. You'll realize why the Bible cannot be logically true. Also read the Jesus Mysteries, and you'll understand why we realize that it's a myth.

 

Good books Amethyst!

 

I think that if there is an afterlife that it is a collective conscience or an energy form that could be considered a god that we beings are all a part of it. If this is the case than the three dimentions plus time that we live in is not all the reality there is. Ok, random thoughts.

[Vigile]

The laws of nature are not separate from its source

 

These are all interesting questions and maybe I don't have the brain power to understand this issue on a deep enough level (there is a point when studying physics that my brain just blanks out), but how do we know there is a source? Does there have to be? Could it be that we are attaching human meaning to physical properties spuriously? Maybe the laws of nature just are.

[Alice]

OK - this adds nothing to this discussion ...

 

I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying reading it - I am almost out of my depth - so I'm keeping my mouth shut to avoid taking in water!

 

I love that feeling of 'wonder' when I know I'm at the reaches of my own capacity for understanding - and that's the closest I get to my oldtime spirituality....

 

I'll be quiet again now.

[NotBlinded]

The laws of nature are not separate from its source

 

These are all interesting questions and maybe I don't have the brain power to understand this issue on a deep enough level (there is a point when studying physics that my brain just blanks out), but how do we know there is a source? Does there have to be? Could it be that we are attaching human meaning to physical properties spuriously? Maybe the laws of nature just are.

Yes,

 

I see us as saying the same thing. You say the laws of nature just are and I say the laws of nature are not separate from the source, meaning they are the same thing. It's like when we think (objectively/cause) and put that thought into action (subjectively/law) and produce a desired effect (form). It's like trying to understand what is meant by the trinity. There are not separate entities acting apart from each other. It's just the nature of the 'beast' (so to speak ). They are all attributes that constitute the whole.

 

By the way, you probably know a whole lot more about physics than I do.

 

OK - this adds nothing to this discussion ...

 

I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying reading it - I am almost out of my depth - so I'm keeping my mouth shut to avoid taking in water!

 

I love that feeling of 'wonder' when I know I'm at the reaches of my own capacity for understanding - and that's the closest I get to my oldtime spirituality....

 

I'll be quiet again now.

It is only in the last few months that I can truly understand what you are saying and I love it too! And, actually, that is the time when we know that it's okay not to know because it's a feeling beyond thinking. (I am probably going to get killed for saying that!)

[Antlerman]

OK - this adds nothing to this discussion ...

 

I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying reading it - I am almost out of my depth - so I'm keeping my mouth shut to avoid taking in water!

 

I love that feeling of 'wonder' when I know I'm at the reaches of my own capacity for understanding - and that's the closest I get to my oldtime spirituality....

 

I'll be quiet again now.

It is only in the last few months that I can truly understand what you are saying and I love it too! And, actually, that is the time when we know that it's okay not to know because it's a feeling beyond thinking. (I am probably going to get killed for saying that!)

I'll not chastize you for saying that! One of the interesting things I am seeing happening through recent discussions is the openness and sense of freedom I feel within myself to explore my spirituality as an atheist. It's been a process of getting past the dogma of religious thought to just revel in the magnificence and power of life. There is no reason that very human quality has to be tied to religious ideas. For me it's finding that place where I can get past that association in my mind, drilled into me from my exposures and history.

 

People like Open Minded and others provide some interesting ideas, but more than that, permission to not feel beholden to some ideas bound between two leather covers. Whatever way it goes, whether it incorporates a god symbol, some mystical metaphysical conceptualizations, or just plain human expressiveness issuing forth from our deepest emotions and perceptions, it is us extending ourselves beyond ourselves. It is an an emotional reach into the univerise within us and surrounding us. That is spirituality, in contrast to religion.

 

Ok, enough of that. Back to the discussions at hand....

[NotBlinded]

It is only in the last few months that I can truly understand what you are saying and I love it too! And, actually, that is the time when we know that it's okay not to know because it's a feeling beyond thinking. (I am probably going to get killed for saying that!)

I'll not chastize you for saying that! One of the interesting things I am seeing happening through recent discussions is the openness and sense of freedom I feel within myself to explore my spirituality as an atheist. It's been a process of getting past the dogma of religious thought to just revel in the magnificence and power of life. There is no reason that very human quality has to be tied to religious ideas. For me it's finding that place where I can get past that association in my mind, drilled into me from my exposures and history.

 

People like Open Minded and others provide some interesting ideas, but more than that, permission to not feel beholden to some ideas bound between two leather covers. Whatever way it goes, whether it incorporates a god symbol, some mystical metaphysical conceptualizations, or just plain human expressiveness issuing forth from our deepest emotions and perceptions, it is us extending ourselves beyond ourselves. It is an an emotional reach into the univerise within us and surrounding us. That is spirituality, in contrast to religion.

 

Ok, enough of that. Back to the discussions at hand....

That was wonderfully said and thanks for not jumping on me. My worst fear about coming back here with my new understandings is that I will be taken for a christian. The fear is about being seen as what the word chrisitian brings to mind. I have found great freedom in looking at the bible as a way to do exactly what you mention in your last paragraph.

 

Maybe enlightenment comes in waves. The time when the bible was written was during a wave; it just happened to be worked into a book that proclaimed literal truths that squelched (killed...literally) the wave. So, I am not a christian in any modern understanding of the word. I think there are truths in there just as there are truths in any writings that deal with putting into words something that cannot be described.

[Open_Minded]

OK - this adds nothing to this discussion ...

 

I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying reading it - I am almost out of my depth - so I'm keeping my mouth shut to avoid taking in water!

 

I love that feeling of 'wonder' when I know I'm at the reaches of my own capacity for understanding - and that's the closest I get to my oldtime spirituality....

 

I'll be quiet again now.

 

Hesitent:

 

Thank you for your thoughts.... actually it adds much to the discussion

 

Since concrete facts in these areas are so limited, it has always seemed to me that it's not necessarily the answers one should seek, but the questions.

 

Sometimes the questions are themselves a type of answer - as long as the questioning is done in a well-rounded way .... ie realizing our own subjective positions and intentionally seeking out other individuals who will have a different point of view.

 

Does this make any sense????

 

Sometimes I feel as though I'm talking in circles, but like you - and so many others here - the "wonder" is too much to pass by

 

People like Open Minded and others provide some interesting ideas, but more than that, permission to not feel beholden to some ideas bound between two leather covers. Whatever way it goes, whether it incorporates a god symbol, some mystical metaphysical conceptualizations, or just plain human expressiveness issuing forth from our deepest emotions and perceptions, it is us extending ourselves beyond ourselves. It is an an emotional reach into the univerise within us and surrounding us. That is spirituality, in contrast to religion.

 

Ok, enough of that. Back to the discussions at hand....

 

Thanks Antlerman... trust me it goes both ways.

 

Contemplative Christianity is a good fit for me - spiritually. But those of us following this path of Christianity are in a distinct minority - we are in mainstream churches right alongside people from a more traditional point of view. Within my church there is a very small group of us who can participate in this type of a discussion ... and I am extremely grateful for this group. Most contemplative Christians don't even have that.

 

But, the long and short of it is that these types of discussions are far too rare for me. I enjoy this forum. It's good to be here

[Open_Minded]

I see us as saying the same thing. You say the laws of nature just are and I say the laws of nature are not separate from the source, meaning they are the same thing. It's like when we think (objectively/cause) and put that thought into action (subjectively/law) and produce a desired effect (form). It's like trying to understand what is meant by the trinity. There are not separate entities acting apart from each other. It's just the nature of the 'beast' (so to speak ). They are all attributes that constitute the whole.

 

By the way, you probably know a whole lot more about physics than I do.

 

Hello just jumping in here again. Remember the website that I suggested you all check out... ?http://www.quantumconsciousness.org

 

On this website is a newsarticle about their work, following is a quote from this article...

 

But few thinkers purport to understand how all of these brain functions supposedly give rise to the reality inside our noggins.

 

Chalmers

, a steely-eyed rationalist when the need arises, is not above indulging in a little speculation on the matter. And surprise, surprise he suggests that perhaps consciousness is a bit too complicated to be invested exclusively in our puny, palpitating brain tissues.

 

"You know, we have physicists who want to build a so-called Theory of Everything using just a few basics, such as spacetime, mass and charge," Chalmers notes. "They want to explain everything in terms of a few reductionist components. And they can certainly explain a whole lot of complicated stuff that way maybe even chemistry, life and behavior.

 

"But consciousness seems to be left out. And so what I tend to think is that if we're reasoning consistently about these things, if we've got something that these fundamentals can't explain, then we need something else which is new and fundamental.

So I've argued that perhaps we need to view consciousness as a kind of fundamental constituent of reality."

 

You heard right:

 

The world's foremost thinker on the Hard Problem is speculating -- and Chalmers would be the first to stress it's only speculation, mind you that consciousness may one day very well turn out to be a basic building block of the universe. Like photons are to light, or cream filling is to Twinkies, consciousness may prove to be an inherent requirement of all that surrounds and composes us.

 

That would be a hard problem indeed for the common Western mind to comprehend, floating as it is in a thin broth of cause-and-effect, seeing-is-believing scientific rationalism.

 

"Chalmers" is David Chalmers - he recently turned down an offer from Oxford University to assume its prestigious Wilde Professorship of Mental Philosophy. He will be staying at the University of Arizona because of the work they are doing in this area.

 

As I've said before ... I'm not trying to prove anything here ... but this is fascinating stuff. Lately I can't get enough of it

 

Like the article says - this type of thinking is very difficult for the "western" mind to comprehend. In the west we are used to thinking in terms of black/white - very concrete. We are very leary of subjective reasoning - not knowing that so much of existence is subjective - even our rational sciences are impacted by the subjectivity of humans involved in them.

 

It has taken me years of meditative practices to put the black/white thinking in perspective - alongside and of equal value to subjective processing of information

 

Well... back to work

[Alice]

OK - this adds nothing to this discussion ...

 

I just wanted to say that I am really enjoying reading it - I am almost out of my depth - so I'm keeping my mouth shut to avoid taking in water!

 

I love that feeling of 'wonder' when I know I'm at the reaches of my own capacity for understanding - and that's the closest I get to my oldtime spirituality....

 

I'll be quiet again now.

 

Hesitent:

 

Thank you for your thoughts.... actually it adds much to the discussion

 

Since concrete facts in these areas are so limited, it has always seemed to me that it's not necessarily the answers one should seek, but the questions.

 

Sometimes the questions are themselves a type of answer - as long as the questioning is done in a well-rounded way .... ie realizing our own subjective positions and intentionally seeking out other individuals who will have a different point of view.

 

 

I guess that's another way of saying that the journey is more important than the destination . I think as a christian alot of my desire for discovery was directed into bible study, I did used to get this 'tingle' when I thought I understood something about grace or human nature - and feeling illuminated or enlightened in some way was a good feeling for me. I get the same feeling when I think I have grasped something about the human psyche, or what makes someone tick, or certain philosophical ideas. I also get the same feeling sometimes from poetry or music, like my brain is actually enjoying the workout.

 

I was worried that somehow this sense would be lost to me when I deconverted - because for so long I'd believed it was a by product of my 'faith'.

 

I'm feeling really edgy at the moment and uncharacteristically irritated by silly literal beliefs ~ and it is a real relief to hang about here listening to something more positive than my current state of mind.

[Amethyst]

Regarding self awareness: I think all animal life is self aware (as opposed to single celled or plant life). If not, it would not know to flee danger for self preservation.

 

That's instinct. There is a huge difference between having instincts and being self-aware.

 

Can you explain why, when you put most animals in front of a mirror, they immediately think it's another animal? This is what most scientists use to prove that a creature has self-awareness. If you know you are looking at yourself, you are self-aware.

 

On the question of Intelligence being demonstrated through the result of DNA: It could appear that way, because the end result is what we recognize as order. The chemical codes also can and do create disorder and death. They don't survive. Those which work do. Isn't it like winning the lottery? Because I won, does that mean a greater intelligence orchestrated it for my personal benefit? Emotionally, I could certainly feel that way, but it took countless millions of failures of the same process to get one hit. On a really cynical day, we could say "God" misses the mark much, much more than he hits it. (Of course the fundie’s explanation is that error is because we caused it by disobedience to their rules).

 

So just because there's a small chance it evolved that way, that automatically proves there is a god? I don't think so. (Others have given much more eloquent arguments on this subject than I, and I will admit that this is not my area of expertise.)

 

But anyway, it's no proof that there is a deity.

 

Make a god to hang all that on and you have a community of lottery winners, who either are happy about winning and throw rose pedals at it, or you have those who can't process the terror of almost loosing and go over the edge to emotional dysfunctionality of fundamentalist nonsense.

 

Heh...good point.

[Antlerman]

Regarding self awareness: I think all animal life is self aware (as opposed to single celled or plant life). If not, it would not know to flee danger for self preservation.

 

That's instinct. There is a huge difference between having instincts and being self-aware.

 

Can you explain why, when you put most animals in front of a mirror, they immediately think it's another animal? This is what most scientists use to prove that a creature has self-awareness. If you know you are looking at yourself, you are self-aware.

I'm familiar with that particular look at the question of self awareness, but understanding what an animal may be seeing in a mirror is simply that, not self-awareness. Here's a brief blurb from one site that addresses this same question I have hear spoken of by other scientists:

Having a sense of self is being able to be aware of one's self. When an animal grooms it self, it is aware of it self been groomed.

 

<snip>

 

Some animal behaviorists try to find out which animals have a sense of self, by placing each animal in front of a mirror to find out if it can recognize its own mirror image. This test also involves a mark which is placed on the body or the forehead of the animal. If the animal sees itself in the mirror and understands that such image is itself, it will try to take the stain off while looking at the mirror. This will show if such a being is aware of itself since it has understood its own reflection.

 

Although this is not a good way of finding whether that animal has a sense of self, it is a good way to understand whether particular animals are intelligent enough in the area of understanding reflections.

 

As we shall learn, recognizing one's self in the mirror is the act of certain types of intelligent thinking processes, not self awareness.

 

It is very difficult for some animals to understand that their image could be someplace else, other than within themselves. Because of this, a lot of animals can not understand their mirror image.

see whole article at http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm

On the question of Intelligence being demonstrated through the result of DNA: It could appear that way, because the end result is what we recognize as order. The chemical codes also can and do create disorder and death. They don't survive. Those which work do. Isn't it like winning the lottery? Because I won, does that mean a greater intelligence orchestrated it for my personal benefit? Emotionally, I could certainly feel that way, but it took countless millions of failures of the same process to get one hit. On a really cynical day, we could say "God" misses the mark much, much more than he hits it. (Of course the fundie’s explanation is that error is because we caused it by disobedience to their rules).

So just because there's a small chance it evolved that way, that automatically proves there is a god? I don't think so. (Others have given much more eloquent arguments on this subject than I, and I will admit that this is not my area of expertise.)

 

But anyway, it's no proof that there is a deity.

I certainly don't think it proves a diety. I was referencing what somebody else said in this thread that DNA may demonstrate a possible intellegence behind it. My words were simply to offer a reasonable alternative way of percieving this.

 

Just to clarify, not challenge

[Mythra]

Can you explain why, when you put most animals in front of a mirror, they immediately think it's another animal? This is what most scientists use to prove that a creature has self-awareness. If you know you are looking at yourself, you are self-aware.

 

Well, I don't buy that argument for a second. That just proves that the animal doesn't understand what a mirror is.

 

Step on a dog's foot and see how self-aware they are.

[Antlerman]

I guess that's another way of saying that the journey is more important than the destination . I think as a christian alot of my desire for discovery was directed into bible study, I did used to get this 'tingle' when I thought I understood something about grace or human nature - and feeling illuminated or enlightened in some way was a good feeling for me. I get the same feeling when I think I have grasped something about the human psyche, or what makes someone tick, or certain philosophical ideas. I also get the same feeling sometimes from poetry or music, like my brain is actually enjoying the workout.

 

I was worried that somehow this sense would be lost to me when I deconverted - because for so long I'd believed it was a by product of my 'faith'.

 

I'm feeling really edgy at the moment and uncharacteristically irritated by silly literal beliefs ~ and it is a real relief to hang about here listening to something more positive than my current state of mind.

Wow, you certainly do have a lot to contribute here. I'm glad you are. I really appreciate your candor and very much understand that struggle. I was saying to someone recently, that I sometimes I still feel that longing when I'm outside under a beautiful sky, for instance, to just open myself up to life and breath it in deeply and say "thank you". I feel a little twinge of being hypocritical since I am an avowed atheist now, that I should express myself like this; how I did when I was part of religion. But my expression of "thanks" is just being extremely pleased at being alive and being able to take in all this! It's not thank you Jesus.

 

The truth is I felt this way BEFORE Christianity. I just took all their symbols and applied those feelings to them. The insidiousness of it all is that the doctrines of the symbols took over the sprit of being spiritual! It's only now, more years than I care to confess, after leaving all of that, that I am being able to accept that I am a spiritual being without having to have all those "teachings" of supposed meaning. It's not about doctrine. It's not about "Truth". It's about Life.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Everyone:

 

So many subconversations within this thread and where to go with it all... that is the question :wink:

 

Notbliinded, Hesitent and Antlerman ... how wonderful it is that you're having discussions about the wonder in your life again. I really do feel joy for you. Wonder is such a fascinating thing if we truly give ourselves permission to explore it.

 

Take what is happening in this thread - for instance...

 

A discussion about self-awareness, consciousness, infinite energy, etc... and what impact these possiblities have on the search for an ultimate reality that we in the west could call "God".

 

It is a discussion in wonder, in pure possibilities and nothing less. See some would say, "nothing more". But to me pure possibility is so far beyond the grasp of humanity. We are limited to our physical senses and confined to the demension of space/time. So any discussion about possibility outside the sphere of our physical limitations HAS to be a discussion in wonder and pure possibility.

 

See, one of the things getting in the way of scientists/physists/mathmaticians these days is the limitations of the human brain to conceptualize all that is being studied. You may want to check out the following: http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm - excerpts from The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose.

 

Some interesting statements in this vein occur in a book called The Matter Myth, by Paul Davies (a physicist in Australia) and John Gribbin (a writer who was trained in astrophysics at Cambridge). For instance, Davies and Gribbin say on pages 110-111:

 

I believe that the reality exposed by modern physics is fundamentally alien to the human mind, and defies all power of direct visualization...

 

The realization that not everything that is so in the world can be grasped by the human imagination is tremendously liberating...

 

Eddington's implicit boast of being the only person other than Einstein able to understand the general theory of relativity did not mean, I believe, that he and Einstein alone could visualize the revolutionary new concepts such as curved spacetime. But he may well have been among the first physicists to appreciate that in this subject true understanding comes only by relinquishing the need to visualize.

 

If the reality grasped by modern physics is "fundamentally alien to the human mind," then it is not clear how "true understanding" could ever be possible! However, Davies and Gribbin seem to be doing the very thing that Kant had allowed for: that something could be abstractly understood through reason (Euclidean postulates can be denied without creating a contradiction) without our being able to supply an object from our imagination that would correspond to it.

 

So, again in regard to our thread involving God and subjective/objective processing of possibilities.

 

We know that the highest minds in science have reached a point where they are now having to grasp concepts so abstract that the human cannot "supply an object from our imagination that would correspond to it".

 

So.. for purposes of discussing the possibility of a God, as humans one thing we can do is release every conceptualization of God we've ever been given and start from scratch, so-to-speak.

 

And if we were to start from scratch...with the concrete knowns of the universe as we can grasp it today... what would we look for? What are the basics that must exist within and through something for it to warrant a title such as "God"?

 

Over the years I've come to a few conclusions.... they follow: Whatever it is it would have to be - and these are subjective conclusions - I recognize that:

 

1. Some sort of energy

2. Display self-awareness - otherwise we would just call it energy.

3. The energy would have to pervade the entire universe - be the very "stuff" out of which the universe flows and through which the universe is "carried" for lack of a better word. It would have to be the "building block of the universe" so to speak.

4. The energy would have to be such that it brings "order" out of "chaos" for lack of better language.

 

Since we are talking about something so far beyond humanity's ability to grasp.... these are just offerings. Feel free to add more possibilities. What would you add to the list of "basics that must exist within and through something for it to warrant a title such as 'God'"?

 

Your response can be completely subjective, it just needs to be logically subjective within the current knowns of our universe today. Don't worry about whether your mind can conceptualize the possibility - as mentioned above... "The realization that not everything that is so in the world can be grasped by the human imagination is tremendously liberating". It is here that wonder enters the picture

[Amethyst]

Well, I don't buy that argument for a second. That just proves that the animal doesn't understand what a mirror is.

 

That is what scientists use as an experiment. Tell them, not me.

 

Step on a dog's foot and see how self-aware they are.

 

Feeling pain does not necessarily denote intelligence and isn't proof of it. That is an emotional argument, not scientific evidence. Would you say that my gecko is an intelligent life form? I wouldn't. It has instincts, sure, but instincts are not the same as intelligence. I take it you are a vegan then?

 

Here is a good article on intelligence that was posted in the Scientific American back in 98. This is what I mean by self-awareness.

 

Intelligence Considered

 

Do Animals Think?

 

That's not to say that animals aren't intelligent. In "Reasoning in Animals," James L. Gould and Carol Grant Gould make a persuasive case that animals have some ability to solve problems. The examples they cite and the studies they describe make it unlikely that strict behaviorism--that animals' actions are dictated by conditioned responses--can explain it all. Of course, not everything an animal does is an act of cognition: many of the actions of animals are accomplished and restricted by instinct and genes.

 

Language plays a role in the development of cognitive abilities, too, as suggested by Irene M. Pepperberg's article, "Talking with Alex: Logic and Speech in Parrots." Alex is the famous Grey parrot that can make requests and provide answers in a seemingly reasoned way. Alex is unique in part because he's a bird: other communicating animals have been primates, such as the chimpanzees Washoe and Kanzi and the gorilla Koko. Rigorously speaking, these animals are communicating through learned symbols and sounds; whether they are truly engaging in language, which permits planning and abstraction, remains to be proved.

 

Besides language, another hallmark of intelligence may be self-awareness. Many investigators have grappled with human consciousness from a scientific perspective [see "The Puzzle of Conscious Experience," by David J. Chalmers; Scientific American, December 1995; and "The Problem of Consciousness," by Francis Crick and Christof Koch; Scientific American, September 1992]. But how can you tell if an animal is self-aware? In the late 1960s Gordon G. Gallup, Jr., devised a now classic test using mirrors. Gallup painted a red dot on the faces of anesthetized animals and then observed them when they awoke and noticed themselves in the mirror. An animal that would start poking at the red spot on its face seemingly indicated an awareness that it was seeing itself in the mirror, not another creature. Of all the animals tested in this way, only humans, chimpanzees and orangutans pass.

 

With self-awareness comes the ability to take into account another creature's feelings--at least, that's the way it works in humans. Taking the pro side of the debate, "Can Animals Empathize?", Gallup reasons that chimps and orangutans have a sense of self, which they might use to model other creature's mental states.

 

Daniel J. Povinelli, however, remains skeptical (in the best traditions of scientific open-mindedness, he adopts the "maybe not" view). He tells how he tested chimpanzees under a variety of clever conditions to see if they understand that another creature cannot see them. It turns out that chimps will beg for food from a blindfolded person (who does not see the chimps) as well as from a sighted individual. Such results suggest that chimps do not reason about another animal's state of mind--or even their own. That they pass the mirror test suggests to Povinelli that they are not necessarily self-aware. Instead they learn that the mirror images are the same as themselves.

 

[Antlerman]

Well, I don't buy that argument for a second. That just proves that the animal doesn't understand what a mirror is.

 

That is what scientists use as an experiment. Tell them, not me.

 

Other scientists disagree with this experiment as being valid to proving anything about self awareness. I watched a special on PBS not long ago on this very discussion. Many chimpanzees at first don't know what they are seeing and view it as another animal, just like a lot of other animals do. In fact some get angry at it, thinking the "other animal" is provoking them by imitating their movements that way and try to attack it. Then after time, they figure it out that it's themselves. Now the big question based on this: Prior to them figuring out the mirror image was in fact themselves, were they not self aware? This is a test of cognitive reasoning, not self awareness. The other side of the argument, from scientists, is that all animals are aware of themselves otherwise they wouldn't survive by eating and protecting themselves. It's all about self. That requires self awareness, on some very simplistic level. I would not call that instinct. Instincts are non-reasoned, programmed behaviors. But if we were to use instinct as a way to look at it, then I would say all animals are instinctually geared to become self aware, in the same way we are. A child put's it hand to it's mouth in self disovery. So do other animals, etc.

 

Survival is a trait of instinct, just as it is in us. But these animals, outside primates, are also able to reason and adapt, to learn how to use tools, etc. I think what you're trying to get it is that they can't self-reflect philosophically, and that may well be. That is definitely a higher brain function that they are likely not wired for. I believe there is a consciousness in all of them, but it is not the level of reasoning that we take things to!

 

 

I'll leave it at this.