Does The Universe Have An Ego?

[Guest end3]

Thanks Blake,.....seems reasonable to me.

 

But what about fasting?  Isn't this a sacrifice of manifestation just short of dying?  A sacrifice of the flesh in the flesh, maybe more than praying?  In other words fasting would agree with my philosophy that God is in the manifestation inherently.

 

Why do we lose our appetite when we are depressed, separated, etc?

[Blake]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, end3. Are you saying that fasting and ego/consciousness have something to do with one another? In that case, yes, absolutely -- we fast in guilt and depression and sickness, people fast in protest to certain perceived (or obvious) evils committed around them. Ayahuasqueros in Peru fast before drinking their sacrament. Christians fast to humble the body in order to exalt the spirit (more or less). There are plenty of other examples of Christian fasting as well, such as prayer intentions, et. al. Many artists and writers have been known to fast during creative inspiration to keep the juices flowing.

 

Fasting has been going on for centuries, across many cultures and belief systems. Today, there could be any large number of reasons why an individual may fast.

 

We lose our appetite when we're depressed/separated/etc because the brain is under-producing serotonin during that phase. Serotonin regulates sleep, moods, and hunger. We may "ascribe" the phenomena to our feelings, but those too are at the whims of our neurotransmitters. lol. We eat less during depression as a result of the chemical change upstairs. It seems more of a biological, evolutionary trait than it is divine intervention.

 

 

 

Just saying life and pure existance, i.e, the natural, has an ego/self preservation aspect....it has to.

 

No, not at all. "Life and pure existence" doesn't have the ability to rationalize, comprehend, perceive or deduce anything whatsoever at any time. Only humans and animals have a self-preservation aspect, and it's hardwired to the brain. Totally separate from ego, though. Ego is not hardwired to the brain in the same manner that self-preservation is -- self-preservation is instinctual and primal, in a sense, while ego is learned, adapted and cultivated through perception, which is limited to human beings.

 

 

 

If we are all just starstuff, then I can't see that everything else is not just as living as am I.

 

Everything is just as living as you are. The only difference between us and everything else is our level of perception and awareness.

 

 

So essentially, we see God in nature, and in the Universe,  and internally to us, and externally to us, and also satisfies the Bible references to God having these human qualities.....specifically by unassigning qualities to certain manifestations per a lack of insight.

 

No, I disagree. I don't see God in nature or in the universe, I simply see nature, and I perceive the universe. The Biblical God may have human qualities, but that doesn't help to prove anything. Primates have human qualities also.

[florduh]

Everything is just as living as you are.

 

 

 

Uhhhhh. Living things are able to reproduce, take nourishment, etc.

 

I realize there is great debate among the great thinkers regarding the definition of life - particularly in the area of computers, but I think simply defining "everything" as living doesn't help us get anywhere. The differences between living things and inert materials are rather obvious, at least outside the realm of philosophical cud chewing.

[bornagainathiest]

Fyi End,

 

Acts 17:28 shouldn't be taken to mean that we are somehow 'inside' the God of the Bible.   Nor is it implying that the Christian God is the physical Universe, thru and in which we move and exist.  That's not at all what the Apostle Paul meant.

 

Acts 17 : 28, NIV.

'For in him we live and move and have our being'. As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

 

Paul was quoting two pagan philosopher-poets (Epimenides of Crete and Aratus of Soli), when he spoke to the Areopagus.  After all, the learned Areopagites would have been thoroughly familiar with these writings. So Paul was using pagan ideas to help them understand Christianity, which was new and strange to them.  (See verse 18.)

 

Anyway, this site explains it all nicely.

 

http://spindleworks.com/library/rfaber/aratus.htm

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Blake]

 

Everything is just as living as you are.

 

 

 

Uhhhhh. Living things are able to reproduce, take nourishment, etc.

 

I realize there is great debate among the great thinkers regarding the definition of life - particularly in the area of computers, but I think simply defining "everything" as living doesn't help us get anywhere. The differences between living things and inert materials are rather obvious, at least outside the realm of philosophical cud chewing.

 

 

I guess we just see it a little differently. Alive, to me, is about consciousness -- not reproduction or sustenance. Sorry if my philosophy strikes a nerve with you. It might not help us get anywhere, but it certainly isn't limiting anyone in any regard.

[skepticalme]

Thanks Blake,.....seems reasonable to me.

 

But what about fasting?  Isn't this a sacrifice of manifestation just short of dying?  A sacrifice of the flesh in the flesh, maybe more than praying?  In other words fasting would agree with my philosophy that God is in the manifestation inherently.

 

Why do we lose our appetite when we are depressed, separated, etc?

Some people over-eat when they are depressed, causing them to gain weight and become more depressed.

[sdelsolray]

"Oneness", peace, God, would imo, be found internally on this atomic level, and by default at any scale.  Unity and separation, bonding and dissassociation and distance suggest a dichotomy, or moral absolute, or life and death defined by chemistry and physics, Our own sense of peace and wellness appear to confirm this as well in that when we are joined and associated, we are at peace, unity, etc., and when we are dissassoicated, separate, we are not well and likened to "death".

 

So at the minute, I am holding that a rock might have more lasting love than I do... 

 

So essentially, we see God in nature, and in the Universe,  and internally to us, and externally to us, and also satisfies the Bible references to God having these human qualities.....specifically by unassigning qualities to certain manifestations per a lack of insight.

 

Word salad.  No offense, but word salad is word salad.

[Guest end3]

Ok, so let's back up and proceed stepwise possibly.  Step one is this question please:  True or false, everything in our reality, i.e., the Universe is in a relationship.at the atomic level.

[mymistake]

Ok, so let's back up and proceed stepwise possibly.  Step one is this question please:  True or false, everything in our reality, i.e., the Universe is in a relationship.at the atomic level.

 

If you want to call gravity a "relationship" then sure.  Everything is bound by gravity.

[Guest end3]

I am talking about electrons running into each other.....from here to the edge of outer space.  I know or am known by the furthest particle in outer space, i.e. in a relationship.  Do you agree?

[JamesG]

End3 I think we get what your trying to say and there is no real need to back it up a step I think what you are doing is applying words like "Relationship" and "ego" to make it fit in with your idea of what the universe should be. You are in essence personifying the universe to suit your needs. A rock has no more of an ego than the sun. Can certain conscious entities possess an ego sure. Also to say that the universe is striving to survive is a bit of a stretch as our best look into the future is that of a cold death where particles become so far apart they can no longer reach each other and everything just essentially stops/dies i.e. no more stars. So the universe is striving for its end at this point. I would also have to agree with earlier posts pointing out the fact that the old testament and the new testament do not support you in a god is the universe idea. I think you are as others pointed out leaning towards a pantheistic belief set or that of a deist or agnostic belief set. You are really leaving the realm of Christianity at this point. And lets just call god God and the universe the universe no sense applying labels to things where they don't belong.

[mymistake]

I am talking about electrons running into each other.....from here to the edge of outer space.  I know or am known by the furthest particle in outer space, i.e. in a relationship.  Do you agree?

 

Not by electrons.  By gravity yes.  The atoms on Earth are connected by gravity to all the other mass in the universe.  If you are looking for something profound then gravity shapes and drives our universe.  However it doesn't seem to have a mind.

[RankStranger]

Yes, I do have an ego.

[Guest end3]

End3 I think we get what your trying to say and there is no real need to back it up a step I think what you are doing is applying words like "Relationship" and "ego" to make it fit in with your idea of what the universe should be. You are in essence personifying the universe to suit your needs. A rock has no more of an ego than the sun. Can certain conscious entities possess an ego sure. Also to say that the universe is striving to survive is a bit of a stretch as our best look into the future is that of a cold death where particles become so far apart they can no longer reach each other and everything just essentially stops/dies i.e. no more stars. So the universe is striving for its end at this point. I would also have to agree with earlier posts pointing out the fact that the old testament and the new testament do not support you in a god is the universe idea. I think you are as others pointed out leaning towards a pantheistic belief set or that of a deist or agnostic belief set. You are really leaving the realm of Christianity at this point. And lets just call god God and the universe the universe no sense applying labels to things where they don't belong.

My particular arragangement of atoms is the universe personified.  No?

[JamesG]

 

End3 I think we get what your trying to say and there is no real need to back it up a step I think what you are doing is applying words like "Relationship" and "ego" to make it fit in with your idea of what the universe should be. You are in essence personifying the universe to suit your needs. A rock has no more of an ego than the sun. Can certain conscious entities possess an ego sure. Also to say that the universe is striving to survive is a bit of a stretch as our best look into the future is that of a cold death where particles become so far apart they can no longer reach each other and everything just essentially stops/dies i.e. no more stars. So the universe is striving for its end at this point. I would also have to agree with earlier posts pointing out the fact that the old testament and the new testament do not support you in a god is the universe idea. I think you are as others pointed out leaning towards a pantheistic belief set or that of a deist or agnostic belief set. You are really leaving the realm of Christianity at this point. And lets just call god God and the universe the universe no sense applying labels to things where they don't belong.

My particular arragangement of atoms is the universe personified.  No?

 

 

 

No because you are not the universe you are a portion of the universe. We are talking about the universe as a whole not the individual parts in it. If you want me to grant you that much then fine a less than microscopically small portion of the universe has an ego but the entirety of the universe as a whole does not. if that is the case you are trying to argue then the universe is also a virus parasite etc. etc. so if god is the universe it cant be a perfect being because you would have to include the vast and cruel realities of a horribly imperfect system bound to fail.

[JamesG]

a better question for you does my hair have an ego?

[bornagainathiest]

I am talking about electrons running into each other.....from here to the edge of outer space.  I know or am known by the furthest particle in outer space, i.e. in a relationship.  Do you agree?

 

End,

 

You are using the words 'relationship', 'know' and 'known' incorrectly.  Please let me help you out.

 

 

The Moon can be said to be in a gravitational 'relationship' with the Earth, the Sun and everything else in the solar system...but, there are no personalities involved here.  This kind of relationship is not a personal one and neither the Moon, the Earth, the Sun or any of the other planets are alive, in any sense of that word.  Nothing in the solar system except for human beings and animals has an ego.  Nothing in space knows anything or is known by anything else.

 

Our Moon is affected by the gravitational pull of the Earth and the Sun and it has no choice but to be affected in this way.  Only living beings with minds and egos have the ability to choose how they exist.  Only living beings have the ability to know (comprehend and understand) who and what they are.  The Moon cannot know what it is.  It's just a rock.  So, the best way of describing our Moon's 'relationship' with the rest of the solar system is to say that it's a purely inanimate interaction between unliving matter and the unliving forces that permeate the universe. 

 

Heat, light, gravity, the nuclear forces binding atoms together and the quantum forces affecting electrons are just that - unliving and unthinking forces. They don't know anything. Rocks, water, stars, planets and galaxies aren't alive and don't have egos.  They aren't aware of themselves and they aren't aware of anything else. They don't know anything.  Neither do protons, neutrons, electrons, the Higgs boson or any other kind of nuclear particle.  None of these things, from the very smallest, up to the very largest, have any awareness, any knowledge and any choice in how they exist.  Choice is only for living, intelligent beings with the ability to make that choice and act upon it.  Electrons don't have the awareness, knowledge and capacity to make choices and have no ability to carry out such decisions, even if they could make them.

 

But, if they did, then our tv's and our computers could simply refuse to work, even though they're fully functioning and powered up.  When our machines don't work, there's always a valid physical and material (but non-living) reason for this. It's never the hairdryer getting an attitude, the lawnmower choosing to take a day off or the telephone deciding that it'll only work for you if you promise to talk to your cousin Bob nicely, ok?

 

Anyway, here are some links that should help you understand the difference between living and unliving things.

 

Living beings. (That have egos and the ability to make choices.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Forms_of_activity_and_interpersonal_relationships

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self

 

Non-living matter, energy and forces.  (No egos and no ability to choose.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

.

.

.

.

.

p.s.

The usual terms and conditions apply, End.  You'll probably choose not to acknowledge me or respond to me.  However, others may well be reading this and I owe it to them to correctly define the words, 'know', 'known' and 'relationship'.

[boftx]

BAA, do I dare say "quantum entanglement"?

[JamesG]

BAA, do I dare say "quantum entanglement"?

in that sense yes I suppose it is possible lol. But lets examine the electrons in my body change their state and lets see if they electrons in your body do the same .

[boftx]

I was thinking that if quantum entanglement is real then a particle can "know" or be "aware" in some sense of the state of its partner. But that is an entirely different discussion.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

I was thinking that if quantum entanglement is real then a particle can "know" or be "aware" in some sense of the state of its partner. But that is an entirely different discussion.

 

If a thread is created on the topic, it would certainly be an interesting one.

[JamesG]

I got it was just trying to point out the difference between potential to know and actually knowing in the terms of entanglement. I am glad you brought this up though my wife would be really good at pointing out the intricacies of this as that's what she got her degree in. i'll try to sum up my point as best I can.

 

Lets assume all particles became entangled during the big bang bounce or whatever you ascribe to that is the only way in which the entanglement premise could support End3's idea that all particles have a relationship with each other. This is easily testable though as we can simply look at two particles apply a change in their spin and see if the other particle corresponds. If not then the answer is no or at the very least these relationships are impossible to maintain over any length of time so if one particle was known to another at some point does not necessarily mean it is known now.

[boftx]

This is decidedly outside my area, I'm a programmer by trade who happened to get a degree in philosophy when studying logic. I am always interested in what those actually in the field have to say about my philosophical musings (since they are only that.) On the other hand, it is surprising how often one can arrive at paths that others have gone down just by using simple "reason" alone.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, do I dare say "quantum entanglement"?

 

You don't need my say so to say so, Botfx. 

 

But what do you think of this?

 

I wonder if End's tripping up over the language used to describe some aspects of quantum science?

 

Maybe he thinks that if a quantum particle instantly 'knows' about changes in it's entangled partner, both particles must therefore be 'aware' and therefore must possess egos as well?  And if he takes that idea further, the entire universe must therefore be 'aware' and have an ego too?  And such a self-aware universe isn't so very different from an all-powerful, all-seeing, omnipresent God, is it?

 

Whaddaya think?

 

BAA

[boftx]

I give end3 more credit than that, but you probably just gave OC some cud to chew on.

 

I've always been uncomfortable with the Copenhagen view, it just feels "messy" to me. So I've toyed with the idea of formulating God as that which collapses the wave function for Schrodinger's cat. But as always, I never come to a point that would require a creator "God." Instead, I usually arrive at a point where God is indistinguishable from the fundamental laws of logic.