The Mind of God (The nature of a \'Creator\')
We mortals are never going to get the answers, but that won't (and shouldn't) stop us speculating. David has supplied us with many posts detailing the enormous complexities of the genome, and we remain ignorant of the origin of the universe, of life, and of the nature of consciousness. For those of us who have no gut feeling, or have had no divine revelation, all of that in a nutshell comprises the case for a Universal Intelligence, which solves all the mysteries at a stroke. However, a UI creates mysteries of its own, not the least of which is its origin. That problem is obvious, but there are some that are not so obvious, and they involve trying to read the mind of God. Well, why not? Let's make a start with evolution. -Most of us agree that evolution took place one way or another, with a progression from simple to complex. David, who believes in a UI that created life, writes that "life started with unicellular forms, one type, the Archaea, and advanced after 3.2 billion years." The advance, shortly before the Cambrian Explosion, was to "multicellular forms...with different body parts". Maybe this theory, and the one concerning the dramatic increase in oxygen leading to the Cambrian Explosion, will change in the next ten or a thousand years, but let's just assume for argument's sake that they're true. What do they tell us about the mind of God? For 3.2 billion years, he left his bacteria to do their own thing. Evolutionary stasis. And so we come to a series of ifs. If the mechanism for evolution was already present in those unicellular forms, why didn't they evolve earlier? When the increase in oxygen (or whatever else led to multicellular forms) occurred, either he caused it, or he didn't. If he caused it, again, why didn't he do it earlier? If he didn't cause it, then evolution came about by chance. (Maybe it started before the increase in oxygen, but my focus is on the long period of stasis.) If God created life, it seems fair to assume he had a reason for doing so. If the ultimate aim was to create conscious beings (us), why bother with bacteria for 3.2 billion years? After them, why bother with all the dumb animals he created and then discarded?-Alternative explanations: 1)	He didn't have an ultimate aim. Things just happened that way. 2)	He did have an aim (us), but had to keep experimenting, like any designer with a purpose. 3)	He has some other aim, and is still experimenting.-If 1) is correct, things will simply carry on "just happening". Maybe he could control events but doesn't want to, or maybe he has no control. Either way, is there any reason why he should care about us as individuals, when we are constantly being replaced by more and more individuals? Is there in fact any sign in this apparently randomly rich, poor, happy, miserable world that he cares about us as individuals? If he doesn't, he is irrelevant to us.-If 2) is correct, WHY did he want to create us? Out of boredom / loneliness / curiosity? Whichever, is there any reason why he should care about us as individuals...etc.?-If 3) is correct, we are just another phase in his long experiment, so why should he care about us any more than he cares about any other extinct or will-be extinct species? Is there in fact any sign that he cares...etc.?-Some folk say we shouldn't try to read the mind of God ... often those who believe in a loving God but can't explain the signs of a non-loving God ... and of course all this is speculation, but we have the power of reason, and I hope my questions aren't unreasonable. -With regard to links between a UI and ourselves, please see my next post in response to BBella.
The Mind of God
BBELLA: [...] The exchange / play between what IS; light matter (that which we can see) and dark matter (that which we cannot). Both hold the keys to all our unanswered questions. As long as science focus only on the light they will always get only half the story. [...] Perchance one day they will stumble in the darkness and name what they stumbled upon with their own language, calling something already named long ago something else.-Dark matter and dark energy are just expressions for the 95% of the universe that science knows nothing about, but scientists are still thinking of them in material terms, in which case they may not hold the key. Your "something already named long ago" is of course connected with what you refer to as "spirit/chi", and these by definition are not material, so science, as you say, can't cope with them. Scientists need to have a kind of split personality if they are to embrace non-material concepts (but I don't mean that pejoratively).-I'm putting this response on the "Mind of God" thread, because I would like ... tentatively ... to develop your thought in a slightly different direction. The only consciousness we know of for sure is our own, although other animals have a less developed form. You have consistently maintained that there is a kind of universal life force (chi) to which humans can tune in, and that life was not deliberately created as such, but has always been present through this life force. (I hope I've got that right.) Bearing in mind the astonishing creative powers of human consciousness, is it not equally conceivable that we ourselves are making the force we "tune into"? Just as a writer can conjure up a whole world of characters that are not himself, anyone can conjure up a kind of energy that appears to be outside himself. If our particular world was not deliberately created (i.e. by the conventional God figure), it came about by chance, as did our consciousness, and so we don't need any other explanation for the origin of life. The life force is then relevant only in so far as it affects us in the here and now, so why should it not be our consciousness that creates both it and the supposed links between it and ourselves? That doesn't make it unreal, because our consciousness can create all kinds of realities, non-fictional as well as fictional ... for instance love, aesthetic appreciation, the placebo effect ... but these are individual (or at best intersubjective) realities that do not exist outside of ourselves as humans. If this were so, the mind of God we "tune into" would be our mind.
The Mind of God
by BBella 
, Thursday, October 14, 2010, 05:51 (5153 days ago) @ dhw
The only consciousness we know of for sure is our own, although other animals have a less developed form. You have consistently maintained that there is a kind of universal life force (chi) to which humans can tune in, and that life was not deliberately created as such, but has always been present through this life force. (I hope I've got that right.) Bearing in mind the astonishing creative powers of human consciousness, is it not equally conceivable that we ourselves are making the force we "tune into"? Just as a writer can conjure up a whole world of characters that are not himself, anyone can conjure up a kind of energy that appears to be outside himself. It definitely is conceivable and a possibility that we ourselves make(up) the force (conscious force) we tune into. Most all agree there is a life force that all is created by and from. No matter what we choose to call this life force, most agree 95% of it we know nothing about. But what we do know of what we can see and study, we know it does not die, it evolves/changes. So, with that in mind, it seems to me a possibility that human consciousness does not die as well but only evolves/changes. I assume the life force that works within matter as a constant changing force works in the same way within the 95% of what we can't see. Consciousness, like matter, always IS. -Of course it is a possibility we create these ideas of tuning into God or our higher selves/consciousness or our connections to others consciousness. But it seems to me, if consciousness does not die, just as matter does not, we would find the evidence. Some accept what might be considered the evidence and some do not. This is something science could look closer into (and probably is). ->If our particular world was not deliberately created (i.e. by the conventional God figure), it came about by chance, as did our consciousness, and so we don't need any other explanation for the origin of life. The life force is then relevant only in so far as it affects us in the here and now, so why should it not be our consciousness that creates both it and the supposed links between it and ourselves? That doesn't make it unreal, because our consciousness can create all kinds of realities, non-fictional as well as fictional ... for instance love, aesthetic appreciation, the placebo effect ... but these are individual (or at best intersubjective) realities that do not exist outside of ourselves as humans. If this were so, the mind of God we "tune into" would be our mind.-It's not that far out for me to think that, either way, whether a conventional God created all that IS, or if everything came about by chance, that the conscious part of what is called God could be called our conscious mind as well. Consciousness is consciousness just like dirt is dirt, whether it be God, man or animal. All evolved and is now in it's present form as we see and know it. No telling what all will eventually become as everything is ever changing. But, I personally do not think God is one huge thinking conscious mind, but is an ever evolving life force within all that IS. Consciousness is but a part of the life force in all that IS and all we are.
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Thursday, October 14, 2010, 15:42 (5153 days ago) @ BBella
> It's not that far out for me to think that, either way, whether a conventional God created all that IS, or if everything came about by chance, that the conscious part of what is called God could be called our conscious mind as well. Consciousness is consciousness just like dirt is dirt, whether it be God, man or animal. All evolved and is now in it's present form as we see and know it. No telling what all will eventually become as everything is ever changing. But, I personally do not think God is one huge thinking conscious mind, but is an ever evolving life force within all that IS. Consciousness is but a part of the life force in all that IS and all we are.-Studies in species consciousness has been down by several groups. Look up Rupert Sheldrake, an English mathematician; the PEAR study at Prinston U.; the Kaballah mentions species consciousness; and Brother Wayne Robert Teasdale.
The Mind of God
BBELLA: Of course it is a possibility we create these ideas of tuning into God or our higher selves/consciousness or our connections to others consciousness.-BBELLA: All evolved and is now in its present form as we see and know it. No telling what all will eventually become as everything is ever changing. I personally do not think God is one huge thinking conscious mind, but is an ever evolving life force within all that IS.-If we strip the term "life force" of its religious associations, this may well be as close as we shall ever get to any sort of consensus, but perhaps that's because it can fit in with any belief or non-belief. I'm not sure that your concept actually contains the alternative implied by the "but". One could argue that "all that IS" is one huge thinking conscious mind that is ever evolving. It would not be difficult to equate this with the God of most religions. Alternatively, one could say "all that IS" is one huge unconscious body that is ever evolving, which = atheism. The "life force" (without its religious attributes) would be present in both.-Consciousness seems to be the key to all our concepts, and I think you have experienced levels of it that most of us haven't. What seems a long time ago now, you very kindly and bravely told us about your own ordeal, as well as certain inexplicable events relating to other members of your family. I certainly don't want to press you into revealing more than you wish to, and the first statement I've quoted above shows that you remain open-minded at least intellectually. However, I just wonder to what extent your experiences have actually made you FEEL that there is a form of consciousness beyond our own, and how you would describe it. I hope that's not an intrusion, and if it is, please don't feel obliged to reply.
The Mind of God
by BBella , Sunday, October 17, 2010, 23:11 (5149 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Sunday, October 17, 2010, 23:23
BBELLA: Of course it is a possibility we create these ideas of tuning into God or our higher selves/consciousness or our connections to others consciousness. > > DHW: Consciousness seems to be the key to all our concepts... and the first statement I've quoted above shows that you remain open-minded at least intellectually. However, I just wonder to what extent your experiences have actually made you FEEL that there is a form of consciousness beyond our own, and how you would describe it. I hope that's not an intrusion, and if it is, please don't feel obliged to reply. To preface my response: No, I am not on drugs. I will take your question literally and try and answer it with a literal response, in a simplistic fashion, as if I were trying to relate my experience about consciousness to a 'conscious' being, though not of my own planet, and then sum it all up at the end. To answer your question, to what extent my experiences has made me feel there is a form of consciousness beyond my own: I've observed consciousness everywhere, all around me, beyond myself, all the time. For example, I am at this moment writing to a form of consciousness beyond my own, you. Everyday, I observe and consciously relate to consciousness beyond my own in many ways. Of course, I'm still not absolutely convinced these other conscious forms truly exist outside my own, but, as a conscious observer, I do feel confident I myself am conscious. So, taking for granted what I see and relate to outside myself is real, for the most part, it seems to me, other forms of consciousness around me seem more to relate with me than me with them/it. People, animals, even plants at times, as well as inanimate objects appear to be trying to relate to me on a conscious level at various times in my experience. Even in my dreams it seems some form of consciousness is always trying to communicate with me or get my attention. But that should be no surprise because other conscious beings have related similar occurances and some ended up in the looney bins while others have made reports and studies on what they have observed in these (literal) matters and even written books. This might seem to need more explaining in detail, but something even more facinating, and in the beginning, more inexplicable, began to happen to me after my "frozen in time" experience sometime ago. I began to observe patterns and numbers appearing to vy for my attention as well, as if seemingly to relate some kind of conscious message to me I have yet to decipher (other than it appears to be done consciously). Eventually, I heard of others having the same experience - which is another part of these patterns and the way they seem to go. What I experience, I eventually hear of others on a wide scale experiencing, then a book gets written about it. Fractals seem to elude to if not possibily explain some of these pattern phenomenon (if not all?) which is why it attracted my attention. But I do try and not follow any supposed answer too long for fear of getting lost from focusing on my own ability to continue to observe my own environment for myself and to relate with it and it's uncanny ability to relate to me. Again, it is possible my conscious mind is playing tricks on me, making me think there is something out there (other consciousness) other than myself trying to get my attention. But on the other hand, like the planets surrounding mankind giving them something to reach for, maybe what my consciousness is really doing is what it does best. Giving it's young growing self food for thought, something to expand to or reach for instead of a circuitous life circling between my ears. After all, consciousness, just like everything else in our univserse is ever evolving. To sum it all up - Possibly, it is mankinds natural evolution to eventually relate in a conscious way to everything in its surroundings. Maybe as mankind loves, cares and appreciate ourselves (and each other), our abilities, our evironment as well as grow more appreciation for the arts and the beauty of life and what we have been given, we will all eveuntually recognize we are the directors of our own path of evolution and are able to relate with all of it in a conscious way. Whether or not this is my own ideas or the thoughts and purpose of an Ultimate Maestro, it is but a small insight into my own short span of experience with consciousness "outside" myself.
The Mind of God
I had asked BBella if she could describe the consciousness she feels all around her.-BBELLA: To preface my response: No, I am not on drugs.-I never for one minute thought you were!-BBELLA: [...] it seems to me, other forms of consciousness around me seem more to relate with me than me with them/it. People, animals, even plants at times, as well as inanimate objects [...] Something even more fascinating [...] began to happen to me after my "frozen in time" experience sometime ago. I began to observe patterns and numbers appearing to vy for my attention as well. [...] Whether or not this is my own ideas or the thoughts and purpose of an Ultimate Maestro, it is but a small insight into my own short span of experience with consciousness "outside" myself.-I've extracted these salient points from your fascinating post, as they sum up your experiences and your attitude towards them rather neatly. Once more, thank you for sharing them with us. It all ties in with Matt's thread on the immateriality of consciousness, and I can understand more readily now why you feel there may be a kind of universal, evolving consciousness of which we are just a part. There's one other passage in your post which struck me as being quite extraordinary:-"I do try and not follow any supposed answer too long for fear of getting lost from focusing on my own ability to continue to observe my own environment for myself and to relate with it and its uncanny ability to relate to me." -This process is obviously vital for your own balanced existence, but at the same time it involves amazingly complex levels of observation and consciousness. You observe yourself observing other forms of consciousness relating to you, you look for explanations, but you also observe yourself looking for explanations, and from some kind of overall position you can actually switch off those two levels in order to focus just on the observation level. However, I presume you can switch off these levels too, so that you can look at your environment on an ordinary everyday level. Otherwise you could never pick a flower, eat an apple, or peel a potato. So just what is it that exercises all those different levels of control? If you know the answer to that question, get ready for a trip to Stockholm!
The Mind of God
by BBella , Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 09:17 (5147 days ago) @ dhw
There's one other passage in your post which struck me as being quite extraordinary:-When I reread it, it seemed very confusing, even for me who wrote it, so cannot see how it would seem extraordinary unless it was extraordinarily confusing! > > "[BBella] I do try and not follow any supposed answer too long for fear of getting lost from focusing on my own ability to continue to observe my own environment for myself and to relate with it and its uncanny ability to relate to me." > > This process is obviously vital for your own balanced existence,-Yes, absolutely vital! But! I want to restate the above and express it in a more clearer way (for me anyway), if I may. -I do try and not focus too long on any (other persons) supposed explanation of what I am observing, for fear of forgetting that it's not my observation but someone elses - so, I can continue observing and relating with 'my' own environment and its uncanny ability to relate to me. Afterall, someone may tell me what they have observed, but unless it's my own observation, it's really only hearsay (to me).->but at the same time it involves amazingly complex levels of observation and consciousness. -I would say it is just the opposite. I think I see in a more simplistic and unamazing way of viewing myself and my surroundings, possibly less complex than most. By observation, that's the way it seems to me.->You observe yourself observing other forms of consciousness relating to you, you look for explanations, but you also observe yourself looking for explanations, and from some kind of overall position you can actually switch off those two levels -If I observe and begin to focus on something, I wouldnt say I "switch" my observation off but more bring my focus back to central position (observation deck so to speak). This is only my focus, it's not me. Like using a camera lense to focus more closely on something, my focus is like a tool. ->in order to focus just on the observation level. -I pull back my focus and resume observation from my center not "in order to focus on the observation level" as it's more like I'm the light coming from a central position and my observation is the shine outward on all things in my surrounding, including my body. I might use a camera lense/focus to follow an idea, but I myself do not move from my center. If anything obstructs my view or vies for my attention (which is what I was talking about with numbers and patterns), I then mught use my focus on something that sounds like a promising explanation, for a bit, but I do not confuse that explanation as being something I myself have observed. ->However, I presume you can switch off these levels too, so that you can look at your environment on an ordinary everyday level. Otherwise you could never pick a flower, eat an apple, or peel a potato. -I would say that I observe all of life (that includes my body) from a center of being with no problem in carrying out my everyday life. I would even say I am more able now than before to carry out my life more efficiently than when I didn't know where my center was and followed everything I focused on like an addiction. Like I was trying to find my center (myself) in what I focused on. ->So just what is it that exercises all those different levels of control? If you know the answer to that question, get ready for a trip to Stockholm!-I would say, there are no levels. There is only me and my comfortable place of observation. Just like you are in yours, and so forth. Our observation center (hypothetically) may look to others like light shining outward from our being. Like stars in the night, we never leave our place, but sometimes we forget our place when we focus excessively on other stars and their place. -Just curious. What's in Stockholm?
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 15:32 (5147 days ago) @ BBella
> Just curious. What's in Stockholm?-The Nobel Prize, and I'm sure he didn't mean the 'Stockholm Syndrome'
The Mind of God
I had commented on the complexity of BBella's levels of consciousness, but she found her own statement confusing and has rewritten it: "I do try and not focus too long on any (other person's) supposed explanation of what I am observing."-Ah! In your original post, I misunderstood the provenance of the explanation, and thought you were switching off your OWN explanatory processes. It is, of course, far easier to switch off those of other people ... politicians, for instance, do it all the time!-The rest of your post is clear enough to me, but slightly misses the point that I was trying to make at the end, because your experiences had shifted my own line of inquiry. You compare the process of focusing to using a camera, but "this is only my focus, it's not me." You later say: "there are no levels. There is only me and my comfortable place of observation." The great question is: WHAT IS "ME"? Materialists will tell you that all your mental activities are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. If we follow your simple camera analogy, the camera is part of your brain, so what is the "ME" that focuses the camera? What is the "ME" that decides to focus the camera, and then decides to focus elsewhere? I'm asking what "ME" is made of. Does your brain tell "you" what to do, or do "you" tell your brain what to do? Consciousness itself is a complete mystery, but there is also a "ME" that directs consciousness, and we have no idea what it is, or how it works. That was what I meant when I asked: "what is it that exercises all those different levels of control?" And as David has explained, I promised you a Nobel Prize (in Stockholm) if you could come up with the answer!
The Mind of God
by BBella , Sunday, October 24, 2010, 07:27 (5143 days ago) @ dhw
I had commented on the complexity of BBella's levels of consciousness, but she found her own statement confusing and has rewritten it: "I do try and not focus too long on any (other person's) supposed explanation of what I am observing." > > Ah! In your original post, I misunderstood the provenance of the explanation, and thought you were switching off your OWN explanatory processes. It is, of course, far easier to switch off those of other people ... politicians, for instance, do it all the time!-To clarify (what doesn't really need clarification but for some dogged reason I will anyway), I found, in the beginning, I had an addictive need to follow any thought that came to mind about the mysteries of life, until exhausted, seeking to uncover just what IS. But then I'd find a book already written on what I was seeking to discover/uncover. Then when the internet came into my life, I became convinced that pretty much any thought I had was nothing new, only a reused idea from someone else. So I gave up following thoughts altogether that was looking to uncover the mysterious things of life. I realized, no thought I had is really my own, so why follow others thoughts? I figure whatever IS, just IS. And, whatever it IS, I will know after I pass from here to there. Or not. Either way, why waste my time and energy? I decided to just live on observe mode not seeking to understand - and that's when it seemed outside me became more conscious, seemingly to vie for my attention to relay some message. But by that time, I'd learned the comforts of observe mode and the discomfort of getting too far into explanations. (forgive me for my redundancy) >You later say: "there are no levels. There is only me and my comfortable place of observation." The great question is: WHAT IS "ME"? -If your question had ended here, I would have answered: "me" is the conscious/awake/aware I that was I before I became me and will be I when I am no longer me.->Materialists will tell you that all your mental activities are caused by electrical impulses in the brain. If we follow your simple camera analogy, the camera is part of your brain, so what is the "ME" that focuses the camera? -My explanation of the camera was given as a hypothetical of me being the camera. But that seemed to become complicated when you assumed (understandably so) me as the body and not the light/energy of how I meant me. -So, for a more realistic explanation, I will go back to the materialists explanation (to leave a not so good camera analogy) and say that I am the electrical impulses that causes the mental activity of the brain. But, once I, as energy, entered the brain/body of "ME", I became the totally new "ME" of who the body is or represents in this life. ->...I'm asking what "ME" is made of.-Me = I/energy + body/matter. When I, as energy, leaves me, the body, the body dies, and I, as energy, continue on. Whether as a conscious aware energy or just abstract energy, regardless, I, as energy, continue. ->Does your brain tell "you" what to do, or do "you" tell your brain what to do? -I would think that without the (I) energy that makes the body alive, the brain is just physical matter, like dirt. So I would say the body/brain is like a puppet. Once the (I) energy enters the puppet body, the energy takes on the puppets life. So it would seem to me, I, as energy, do not necessarily tell the brain/body (me) what to do, but enable the brain/body (me) to live a life.-Hope this wasn't even more confusing. I know you've heard this all before in some sense, as we all have, and is nothing new. So no trip to Stockholm for "ME" - and I was so looking forward to it.
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Sunday, October 24, 2010, 14:59 (5143 days ago) @ BBella
> Me = I/energy + body/matter. When I, as energy, leaves me, the body, the body dies, and I, as energy, continue on. Whether as a conscious aware energy or just abstract energy, regardless, I, as energy, continue. > > >Does your brain tell "you" what to do, or do "you" tell your brain what to do? > > I would think that without the (I) energy that makes the body alive, the brain is just physical matter, like dirt. So I would say the body/brain is like a puppet. Once the (I) energy enters the puppet body, the energy takes on the puppets life. So it would seem to me, I, as energy, do not necessarily tell the brain/body (me) what to do, but enable the brain/body (me) to live a life. > > Hope this wasn't even more confusing. I know you've heard this all before in some sense, as we all have, and is nothing new. So no trip to Stockholm for "ME" - and I was so looking forward to it.-This sounds just like the primary statement of my philosophy professor who said in 1949: "mind is energy on the inside and matter is energy on the outside". Bella's entire discussion sounds like the theologic discussion of 'ensoulment'in Genesis.
The Mind of God
BBELLA: [...] I became convinced that pretty much any thought I had was nothing new, only a reused idea from someone else.-I'm pretty sure that's true for all of us, but I don't think it matters. We just have to find out what clicks for us, which is clearly what you've done, and in some ways it's quite gratifying to know that you worked it all out for yourself. The exchange of ideas, whether original or not, is also extremely useful to others like me who may not have thought in such terms. We all have our different ways of expressing things, and even an unusual use of words can create new insights.-BBELLA: I would say the body/brain is like a puppet. Once the (I) energy enters the puppet body, the energy takes on the puppet's life. So it would seem to me, I, as energy, do not necessarily tell the brain/body (me) what to do, but enable the brain/body (me) to live a life.-But that still leaves open the question of what DOES tell the brain/body what to do. If the energy does nothing but bring the puppet to life and keep it alive, is the puppet's identity/will/ imagination/consciousness only present in the body/brain? If so, the energy is merely like an electricity supply, and when it's switched off, the puppet is no more than a lump of material (which, of course, it may well be).-BBELLA: Me = I/energy + body/matter. When I, as energy, leaves me, the body, the body dies, and I, as energy, continue on. Whether as a conscious aware energy or just abstract energy, regardless, I, as energy, continue.-The same problem. If that energy is not conscious, then it makes no difference to us whether it continues or not. To be "I" without awareness of being "I" is no better than being dead matter. But that is what we used to call the $64,000 question, and nobody knows the answer.-BBELLA: Hope this wasn't even more confusing. I know you've heard this all before in some sense, as we all have, and is nothing new. So no trip to Stockholm for "ME" ... and I was so looking forward to it.-No, it's not confusing at all, and I think your post takes us as far as we can go. As you said earlier, "whatever it IS, I will know after I pass from here to there. Or not." Beautifully put. You deserve your trip to Stockholm, but I fear the committee won't invite you (or me) on the strength of a wait-and-see!
The Mind of God
by BBella , Friday, October 29, 2010, 07:06 (5138 days ago) @ dhw
BBELLA: Me = I/energy + body/matter. When I, as energy, leaves me, the body, the body dies, and I, as energy, continue on. Whether as a conscious aware energy or just abstract energy, regardless, I, as energy, continue. > > The same problem. If that energy is not conscious, then it makes no difference to us whether it continues or not. To be "I" without awareness of being "I" is no better than being dead matter. But that is what we used to call the $64,000 question, and nobody knows the answer... and I think your post takes us as far as we can go. As you said earlier, "whatever it IS, I will know after I pass from here to there. Or not." -I'm not sure if it's really as far as we can go. We can look around and look for evidence of an afterlife in our own lives, the lives of people we know, or other credible witnesses or studies. We don't have to believe the evidence, even if it's something we ourselves experience. But that there is anything in our surroundings that even remotely suggest there might be an afterlife, should give us a step toward the possibility. -Of course, as we've said before, there is a possibility our minds are making us think these things are so, but it's just as true that my mind could be making me think I am writing this post to someone called dhw as well. My mind is open to both being true.
The Mind of God
DHW: I think your post takes us as far as we can go. -BBELLA: I'm not sure if it's really as far as we can go. We can look around and look for evidence of an afterlife in our own lives, the lives of people we know, or other credible witnesses or studies. We don't have to believe the evidence, even if it's something we ourselves experience. But that there is anything in our surroundings that even remotely suggest there might be an afterlife, should give us a step toward the possibility. Of course, as we've said before, there is a possibility our minds are making us think these things are so, but it's just as true that my mind could be making me think I am writing this post to someone called dhw as well. My mind is open to both being true.-I must confess that gullible though I may seem, I'm convinced that BBella exists. Not only does she respond in a manner of which I am incapable (which suggests that she is not a projection of my mind), but I also have evidence of her responses in tangible form that can be verified by others. I have no doubt either that Dr Parnia's patients exist (see David's post under OOB revisited), and if some of them pass his ceiling test, I will trust that he's not deceiving us unless proved to the contrary. But there's still a big difference between believing that BBella exists, and believing in an afterlife because of experiences that might possibly have other explanations. Nevertheless, like yourself, I keep an open mind, and my remark that you had taken us "as far as we can go" was not meant as an injunction to stop searching, listening, discussing etc. It's just that no matter what theories and evidence we come up with, we still won't know until, as that wise lady BBella put it when convincing me of her existence, we "pass from here to there. Or not".
The Mind of God
A fascinating article in today's Guardian: Scientists have made a new discovery about viruses and antibodies. For the benefit of non-scientists like myself, I'll reproduce parts of the article that David and others will already know about, but bear with me as I have a theological point to make.-"The body tackles infections by unleashing biological foot soldiers called antibodies that stick to viruses as they circulate in the bloodstream. For the past 100 years, scientists working on immunity generally believed this made it harder for viruses to get inside healthy cells and so spread illness around the body.-But the new study has shown that [...] instead of preventing viruses from infecting cells, the antibodies follow the invader inside and co-ordinate an immune attack from within. A virus is a microscopic bundle of genetic material that is wrapped in a protective protein coat. Viruses cannot multiply by themselves, but instead must hijack cells and replicate inside them. [...] -James's group found that in many cases, antibodies do very little to stop viruses from infecting cells. Instead the antibodies cling to the viruses when they invade cells and use the cells' own biological machinery to kill the virus.-James showed that once inside an infected cell, antibodies attract a protein called TRIM21. This in turn signals to the cell's equivalent of a waste disposal machine, a large cluster of proteins called a proteasome. When the proteasome arrives, it latches on to TRIM21 and goes to work, dismantling the virus piece by piece."-This doesn't apply to all viruses, but the discovery should bring about the development of new drugs to assist in those cases where viruses do not shed their protective coats before entering healthy cells.-I could have put this article under Ain't nature wonderful, because yet again the mind boggles at the sheer complexity of living things. But if people haven't already cottoned onto that message by now, they never will. What occurred to me as I read the article was that this was a great image for the battle between good and evil. Of course viruses would disagree, and we all know that such terms are highly subjective, but I would use the image to criticize those theologians who insist with their interpretation of life's history that man is the origin of evil. If God exists and we are to understand how his mind works (pure speculation, of course), we can hardly ignore the fact that the live forces of destruction, like the live forces of creation and of healing, existed long before man came on the scene. If it wasn't those cold-hearted killers the carnivores, it was those vicious invaders the viruses that set God's pattern for the world.
The Mind of God
by BBella , Sunday, November 07, 2010, 19:29 (5129 days ago) @ dhw
What occurred to me as I read the article was that this was a great image for the battle between good and evil. Of course viruses would disagree, and we all know that such terms are highly subjective, but I would use the image to criticize those theologians who insist with their interpretation of life's history that man is the origin of evil. If God exists and we are to understand how his mind works (pure speculation, of course), we can hardly ignore the fact that the live forces of destruction, like the live forces of creation and of healing, existed long before man came on the scene. If it wasn't those cold-hearted killers the carnivores, it was those vicious invaders the viruses that set God's pattern for the world.-I completely agree with your subjective perspective above dhw. "If" God exists we can certainly get a good idea of how his mind works by what we can see. The biblical scriptures says the same in Romans 1:20 [NKJV]: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." -Like with the spectrum of colors, all mathematical possibilities, the space between yin and yang, the many personalities of man, etc., everything we see, is as much variety as this world of matter has to offer. Nothing is new under the sun, only reconstituted, rehashed, recreated, retrofitted, reincarnated, decaying matter. Yet, if we look longer and deeper at what we can't see, we might catch a glimpse of the eternal vision for it all.
The Mind of God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 12, 2010, 02:52 (5124 days ago) @ BBella
Well said Bella, much better than my previous attempts to express the same sentiment.
The Mind of God
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, November 12, 2010, 03:13 (5124 days ago) @ BBella
What occurred to me as I read the article was that this was a great image for the battle between good and evil. Of course viruses would disagree, and we all know that such terms are highly subjective, but I would use the image to criticize those theologians who insist with their interpretation of life's history that man is the origin of evil. If God exists and we are to understand how his mind works (pure speculation, of course), we can hardly ignore the fact that the live forces of destruction, like the live forces of creation and of healing, existed long before man came on the scene. If it wasn't those cold-hearted killers the carnivores, it was those vicious invaders the viruses that set God's pattern for the world. > > I completely agree with your subjective perspective above dhw. "If" God exists we can certainly get a good idea of how his mind works by what we can see. The biblical scriptures says the same in Romans 1:20 [NKJV]: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." > > Like with the spectrum of colors, all mathematical possibilities, the space between yin and yang, the many personalities of man, etc., everything we see, is as much variety as this world of matter has to offer. Nothing is new under the sun, only reconstituted, rehashed, recreated, retrofitted, reincarnated, decaying matter. Yet, if we look longer and deeper at what we can't see, we might catch a glimpse of the eternal vision for it all.-BBella resurrects the spectre of Process theology; God isn't present in the individual states of things, but in the process itself... God is formless because it never pauses, like an ocean without boundaries.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Friday, November 12, 2010, 18:01 (5124 days ago) @ xeno6696
> BBella resurrects the spectre of Process theology; God isn't present in the individual states of things, but in the process itself... God is formless because it never pauses, like an ocean without boundaries.-Why 'spectre'. Is process theology a 'bad' or a 'good' theology? Or am I picking up the wrong meaning for 'spectre'?
The Mind of God
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 14, 2010, 19:28 (5122 days ago) @ David Turell
> > BBella resurrects the spectre of Process theology; God isn't present in the individual states of things, but in the process itself... God is formless because it never pauses, like an ocean without boundaries. > > Why 'spectre'. Is process theology a 'bad' or a 'good' theology? Or am I picking up the wrong meaning for 'spectre'?-"Spectre" as in "ghost" or "shadow." No negative connotation is intended; it just happens to be a very unexplored set of ideas. -Process theology is becoming more and more of interest to me as of late; in hardware design I was recently introduced to a graph-theoretic technique called "finite-state machines." It's significance to our discussions is this: the technique calls for creating nodes (circles) that represent "finite states." The inputs to the machine initiates a process from which the overall machine moves from one state to the next. -During these transitions, the only thing we can have 'proof' of in regards to the state of the machine, is its initial conditions, and it's final state. Without having a complete schematic of the circuits, we will always have a large degree of uncertainty, no matter how much we have tested the machine as to the actual nature or design of the machine. -Process theology would roughly state that God has no 'finite state,' and that its interface with the world is firmly rooted within that process of change; from state 'A' to state 'B.' All of our languages deal with states; we don't have a good language or vocabulary for processes. So if we don't have a good language to deal with processes, it makes it less likely that we would be able to truly understand God as a Process. Which, if you've read Whitehead, this is exactly the problem he decided to try and solve; he created an entire vocabulary to try and deal with it. -To me, process theology is the only hope theology has if it wishes to be relevant over the next two thousand years.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Mind of God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 11, 2010, 17:51 (5156 days ago) @ dhw
I would have to say that the question goes further back than evolution, but we can get to that later. I think the answer to what evolution reveals about the mind of God is that:-a) The UI is aware of what is needed for life more than we could possibly imagine. b) The UI is patient c) The UI has personality, creativity, and an eye for beauty.-The reason I annotate these in particular is because if you look at the end result and try to understand what is necessary for life to work even in the time frame immediately after the Cambrian explosion, you realize that the microbes were absolutely necessary for preparing the earth for what was to come. -Everything, from the lowliest plant to the mightiest living creature is dependent upon the microbial ecosystem for survival. The plants that are believed to have formed prior to the Cambrian explosion would have required the nutrients nutrients deposited by microbes(sulfur, for one)in the soil. Higher life forms need the nutrients from plants to survive(herbivores by necessity would have been the first of the larger organisms as there were no other sources of meat at that point). -In order to contain the right balance of nutrients to support even microbial life, the earth would have had to go through a long period where the elements of the earth were repeatedly mixed until the concentration was right to support the microbes. In other words, even if the perfect chemical soup were available, without the proper earth/water/mineral concentrations those original microbes would have starved, which means no plants, which means no animals, etc..-The very process of micro-evolution is the best evidence of a UI's intrinsic sense of beauty. Everything about it is beautiful, from its deceptively simple mechanism, its efficiency, its variety, and its unquestionable ability to produce beauty no matter where you look. Even the most terrible events on Earth have a strange wondrous beauty to them. If you don't agree, watch a long video of a volcanic eruption with its arcing fiery ballistics and creeping magma flows, or a Hurricane hitting a beach with its high winds and waves. Gorgeous.
The Mind of God
TONY: I would have to say that the question goes further back than evolution, but we can get to that later.-I did say "let's make a start with evolution"!-TONY: I think the answer to what evolution reveals about the mind of God is that: a) The UI is aware of what is needed for life more than we could possibly imagine. b) The UI is patient c) The UI has personality, creativity, and an eye for beauty.-No disagreement here.-TONY: The reason I annotate these in particular is because if you look at the end result and try to understand what is necessary for life to work even in the time frame immediately after the Cambrian explosion, you realize that the microbes were absolutely necessary for preparing the earth for what was to come. -No disagreement here either, and it's an important and productive point (see under "Evolution"). But it doesn't answer my question why ... if the mechanism for evolution was already present in the unicellular forms of life ... it took 3.2.billion years to proceed from unicellular to multicellular, or whether God was responsible or not for the increase in oxygen leading to the Cambrian Explosion, with the various questions related to that. Of course you can't answer, and I don't expect you to, but these are all preparatory questions for those that follow, concerning God's aim (if he has one), why he bothered with all the animals that preceded us and were later made extinct (incidentally,it was they who set the tone for most of the social evils subsequently attributed to man), and the all-important implications for our relationship with him. TONY: The very process of micro-evolution is the best evidence of a UI's intrinsic sense of beauty. Everything about it is beautiful, from its deceptively simple mechanism, its efficiency, its variety, and its unquestionable ability to produce beauty no matter where you look. Even the most terrible events on Earth have a strange wondrous beauty to them. If you don't agree, watch a long video of a volcanic eruption with its arcing fiery ballistics and creeping magma flows, or a Hurricane hitting a beach with its high winds and waves. Gorgeous.-Agreed again. But I suspect the inhabitants of Pompeii would have found little consolation in the beauty of an erupting Vesuvius; the 2000 or so men, women and children killed by Hurricane Katrina would not have regarded the waves that engulfed them as "gorgeous"; and the 230,000 men, women and children killed in the 2004 tsunami would not have thanked God for creating such strange wondrous beauty. If you want to praise the UI's intrinsic sense of beauty, you cannot ignore his intrinsic sense of destructive ugliness. My point, as I tried to make clear in my original post, is that even if we accept the concept of a creator God, and whether or not he has a master plan, there is no sign that he cares about us as individuals. And if he doesn't, what is his relevance to us?
The Mind of God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 06:00 (5154 days ago) @ dhw
> Agreed again. But I suspect the inhabitants of Pompeii would have found little consolation in the beauty of an erupting Vesuvius; the 2000 or so men, women and children killed by Hurricane Katrina would not have regarded the waves that engulfed them as "gorgeous"; and the 230,000 men, women and children killed in the 2004 tsunami would not have thanked God for creating such strange wondrous beauty. If you want to praise the UI's intrinsic sense of beauty, you cannot ignore his intrinsic sense of destructive ugliness. My point, as I tried to make clear in my original post, is that even if we accept the concept of a creator God, and whether or not he has a master plan, there is no sign that he cares about us as individuals. And if he doesn't, what is his relevance to us?- Isn't it strange how nearly everything in nature gives warnings before it strikes, normally multiple warnings. Lightening creates a charged field that raises your hair if you were foolish enough to ignore the storm. Volcanoes rumble and smoke and have minor ejections. Earthquakes normally are preceded by temperature variations and minor tremors. Tsunamis are preceded by earthquakes, odd wave patterns, and the dead giveaway of a rapidly receding waterline. Tornado are preceded by heavy storm clouds with particular coloration and formations. Animals have quite clearly threatening body language or battle cries. It is not up to the UI to make people pay attention to the warning signs. Humans are notorious for not taking responsibility for their own lives. Or, more poignantly, they take responsibility for their successes, but not their failures. They have a tendency to blame everything bad in their life on the UI. -As for whether the UI cares personally, that is a hard question, and all I can offer is my perspective. When you raise a child, you teach them to look for the warning signs of danger, you teach them how to be a good person, strong, courageous, honest, all things that you consider virtues you try to instill in them, while hedging the things you consider non-virtuous. You also provide them with food, clothing, and shelter. That is the innate role of a parent. -The UI gave us earth, and (supposedly) provided us with scores of texts outlining the ways of being virtuous, which basically boil down to 'love your neighbor, love yourself, be honest in all things, do not be afraid to live or die, and do your best at anything you do'. But like any good parent, you have to take a hands off approach. Let your child stumble, fall, get scraped up and bruised, and dust themselves off. You hope that they will learn from your lessons, but failing that, you hope that they learn from their mistakes. Ultimately, you hope that they learn that it is all their choice. Their successes and failures; Their good and bad judgment. And while you may hope that they love you and care for you and respect you, all that matters at the end of the day is that they learn their own potential and find the peace that is available to every person.
The Mind of God
by jclinch , Friday, October 15, 2010, 12:54 (5152 days ago) @ dhw
Hi, dhw. It's been a while since I visited this site and I'm delighted to see that the old controversies are still very much alive.-I couldn't help but think that your posting on the mind of God commits the mistake of considering as a literal reality an expression that was always intended to be a metaphor. It derives, after all, from the concluding passage of Hawking's A Brief History of Time and is the title of a rather excellent book by Paul Davies (which, it is no exaggeration to say, changed my life but that's another story). -Of course, if you accept that "God" is a being with a "mind" situated in time (though, conspicuously, not in space it seems) then you are forced to consider all sorts of anthropocentic notions like "what was He doing before creation?" and "why didn't He speed up evolution?" Which, of course, leads to absurd paradoxes. The very use of a personal pronoun at all is, in my view, revealing since it demonstrates an unstated premise that that God is a bit like us. Religious people often take this thinking much further and then commit a more extreme blasphemy by supposing that God agrees with them. -The fundamental error, in my respectful view, is anthropomorphism. If God can be said to exist in any meaningful way, the only thing of we can be sure is that God is nothing like us and is beyond anything that we can conceivably imagine. Moreover, God is surely beyond any human notion of volition, morality, goodness, justice, mercy or any of the other attributes that the world's monotheisms typically ascribe to God. And "He" certainly can't get bored!-By the way, since last year, on the recommendation of people on this blog, I read Anthony Flew's "There is a God" and found it disappointingly unconvincing. A good enough read but essentially a rehash of the cosmological and teleological arguments. I was kind of left wondering why, when he was a renowned atheist, he was not better acquainted with Aquinas.
The Mind of God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 15, 2010, 15:08 (5152 days ago) @ jclinch
Of course, if you accept that "God" is a being with a "mind" situated in time (though, conspicuously, not in space it seems) then you are forced to consider all sorts of anthropocentic notions like "what was He doing before creation?" and "why didn't He speed up evolution?" Which, of course, leads to absurd paradoxes. The very use of a personal pronoun at all is, in my view, revealing since it demonstrates an unstated premise that that God is a bit like us. Religious people often take this thinking much further and then commit a more extreme blasphemy by supposing that God agrees with them. > > The fundamental error, in my respectful view, is anthropomorphism. If God can be said to exist in any meaningful way, the only thing of we can be sure is that God is nothing like us and is beyond anything that we can conceivably imagine. Moreover, God is surely beyond any human notion of volition, morality, goodness, justice, mercy or any of the other attributes that the world's monotheisms typically ascribe to God. And "He" certainly can't get bored! > -JC, -We are in the same situation that I ascribe to ancient civilizations that appear to be writing about aircraft an missiles, namely that we are trying to discuss something without a frame of reference and within the confines of a woefully inadequate language. How do you discuss something that impossibly infinite? How do you discuss something 'intelligent' without referring to 'mind'? -If we were saying god was a satyr that created all of nature and liked chasing young nubile women around the woods, I would agree with your statements above. However, while I agree that the mind of God is certainly beyond the feeble comprehension of man, I do think that we can garner some insight into it by studying 'His/Her/Its' creation. -Some things are obvious, like that there is order order and structure, yet flexibility. We may not understand all about God, but I do not consider the attempt to be anthropomorphism. It is simply working within the confines of our frame of reference and the limitations of our language.
The Mind of God
JOHN CLINCH: Hi, dhw. It's been a while since I visited this site and I'm delighted to see that the old controversies are still very much alive.-Hi John, it's good to hear from you again. The controversies will never end, but there's a lot to be learned as we keep circling round the big blank space!-JOHN: Of course, if you accept that "God" is a being with a "mind" situated in time (though, conspicuously, not in space it seems) then you are forced to consider all sorts of anthropocentic notions like "what was He doing before creation?" and "why didn't He speed up evolution?" Which, of course, leads to absurd paradoxes. The very use of a personal pronoun at all is, in my view, revealing since it demonstrates an unstated premise that that God is a bit like us. [...] The fundamental error, in my respectful view, is anthropomorphism. If God can be said to exist in any meaningful way, the only thing of we can be sure is that God is nothing like us and is beyond anything that we can conceivably imagine. Moreover, God is surely beyond any human notion of volition, morality, goodness, justice, mercy or any of the other attributes that the world's monotheisms typically ascribe to God. And "He" certainly can't get bored!-As you've seen, this particular thread is devoted not to the question of whether God exists, but what he might be like if he does. I haven't really bothered to differentiate between God/he and a UI/it because we all know what we're talking about, so it's just a matter of convenience.-I think it's a perfectly valid argument to say we haven't a clue and so there's no point in speculating, which I presume is the bottom line of your post. But it seems to me equally valid to build on certain premises. If life is the product of a deliberate act of creation, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the creator had a purpose. Nor does it seem unreasonable to suppose that whatever has been created may well in some way reflect the creator, e.g. that a deliberate act of creation leading to consciousness might indicate a similar form of consciousness in the creator. Just as a computer's ability to remember, store, calculate, process and use information would be unthinkable if humans did not possess those abilities, it seems reasonable to suppose that a designer of humans would also have them. This line of reasoning leads to questions you consider to be "absurd paradoxes". They are if you begin with the premise of which you are so sure, i.e. that God is nothing like us. But you have no more grounds for your premise than conventional monotheists have for theirs. How do you know God can't get bored? How do you know he's beyond any of the attributes ascribed to him by monotheists? -This particular discussion, though, is only indirectly about attributes. I'm questioning the relevance of God to us as individuals. To do that, we have to try to read his mind, to fathom his purpose and his nature. If he has no mind/purpose/nature, then he has no relevance to us ... end of discussion. If it's pointless trying to find any common ground between him and us ... also end of discussion. If there is a possibility of common ground, we can only speculate on what it might be ... beginning of discussion.
The Mind of God
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 01:57 (5148 days ago) @ dhw
dhw > This particular discussion, though, is only indirectly about attributes. I'm questioning the relevance of God to us as individuals. To do that, we have to try to read his mind, to fathom his purpose and his nature. If he has no mind/purpose/nature, then he has no relevance to us ... end of discussion. If it's pointless trying to find any common ground between him and us ... also end of discussion. If there is a possibility of common ground, we can only speculate on what it might be ... beginning of discussion.-Wow. My dog made me hit "submit." -Your post here reminds me of a burning question I've had for David for quite some time: Why believe in a God if you can't fathom anything about it? -David?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 04:52 (5148 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Your post here reminds me of a burning question I've had for David for quite some time: Why believe in a God if you can't fathom anything about it? > > David?-If the presence of a UI is very obvious to me, I have no problem. Religious desriptions do not help me. I cannot get beyond my initial decision to recognize there is a UI. What should I look for, recognize, anthropomorphize? There is a UI. I am a tiny part of it. I can mentally communicate with it. Does it respond? Perhaps. My life has been guided, beyond my control. I know that. I know my guardian angel,without question. What more do I need? If this isn't analytical enough, too bad. I'm comfortable. Is this all emotional. It dosn't feel that way. It feels right. I know I love my wife. How do I know? Same question as you asked me. I know.
The Mind of God
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 22:58 (5147 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Your post here reminds me of a burning question I've had for David for quite some time: Why believe in a God if you can't fathom anything about it? > > > > David? > > If the presence of a UI is very obvious to me, I have no problem. Religious desriptions do not help me. I cannot get beyond my initial decision to recognize there is a UI. What should I look for, recognize, anthropomorphize? There is a UI. I am a tiny part of it. I can mentally communicate with it. Does it respond? Perhaps. My life has been guided, beyond my control. I know that. I know my guardian angel,without question. What more do I need? If this isn't analytical enough, too bad. I'm comfortable. Is this all emotional. It dosn't feel that way. It feels right. I know I love my wife. How do I know? Same question as you asked me. I know.-Let's explore this a little more... how do you think you can communicate with it?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Mind of God
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 02:19 (5147 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Let's explore this a little more... how do you think you can communicate with it?-I talk to IT, or Him, but only to give thanks. I have never asked for anything in my entire life. I have enjoyed my life very much, and feel very blessed.