Mind and Consciousness

dhw recently wrote to David, speaking that he believes that the universe has, as fundamental components, mind and consciousness.-I would ask that he gives more fruit to the tree...

--
\"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.\"

Post reply

4086 views

MATT: dhw recently wrote to David, speaking that he believes that the universe has, as fundamental components, mind and consciousness.
I would ask that he gives more fruit to the tree...-So far, Matt, you have told David that he is a pantheist, which he is not, that he might be a Vaishnava Hindu, which he is not, and that you have caught panentheism in its logical trap, which you have not. Now you tell me that I believe mind and consciousness to be fundamental components of the universe, which I do not. That is David's belief. Do please reread my post of 30 April at 14.19 under "Panentheism", where in response to David I state my view that energy transmutes itself into matter, that theists believe it is conscious, that atheists believe it is not conscious, and that agnostics (like me) sit on the fence.-Perhaps it would be helpful if you would respond to the arguments against your various assertions (or withdraw them) rather than zooming away to make another one. But it serves me right for trying to act as what David has called "sitting referee"!

Post reply

4046 views

The whole pantheism thing is done. Regardless of how I was inspired by a sect of Hinduism is irrelevant when faced with the very fact that panentheism is a logically impossible position. -David's free to call himself whatever he wishes, but Panenthesm is saying 2 + 2 = 5. Panentheism's distinction between God and universe is false by definition. -Panentheism is dead. The next step up is pantheism. the only other alternative is Monism.

Post reply

4063 views

MATT: If God is part of the universe, then God IS the universe. If God is separate from the universe, then God is not part of the universe. These are the only two possible distinctions.-As I wrote earlier, the first part of this statement is clearly illogical. My big toe is part of me, but my big toe is not me. I went on to explain in my own words what I thought was David's concept of panentheism: "If God exists, he IS the universe in the sense that he is the primal energy that has always existed and that consciously transforms itself into the matter which we call the universe. Atheists believe that the primal energy is not conscious, and that is the difference between theists and atheists." David has confirmed that this is precisely what he means by panentheism.-MATT: The whole pantheism [panentheism?] thing is done. Regardless of how I was inspired by a sect of Hinduism is irrelevant when faced with the very fact that panentheism is a logically impossible position.
 
David's free to call himself whatever he wishes, but Panenthesm is saying 2 + 2 = 5. Panentheism's distinction between God and universe is false by definition.-Since you have addressed your post to me, please humour me and explain 1) how your definition of panentheism differs from the above, 2) why your definition, if different, carries more authority than David's, and 3) why the above is a logically impossible position.
 
MATT: Panentheism is dead. The next step up is pantheism. The only other alternative is Monism.-I think this is an important subject, and I would like to discuss it ... but I need your response to the above questions first.

Post reply

3993 views

MATT: If God is part of the universe, then God IS the universe. If God is separate from the universe, then God is not part of the universe. These are the only two possible distinctions.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, the first part of this statement is clearly illogical. My big toe is part of me, but my big toe is not me. I went on to explain in my own words what I thought was David's concept of panentheism: "If God exists, he IS the universe in the sense that he is the primal energy that has always existed and that consciously transforms itself into the matter which we call the universe. Atheists believe that the primal energy is not conscious, and that is the difference between theists and atheists." David has confirmed that this is precisely what he means by panentheism.
> -It all comes back to the discussion of existence/nonexistence. The short of it is, something either exists or it doesn't. If it does, it's part of God, end of story. That makes it conform to a pantheistic view. Panentheism attempts to separate something from God... in David's case the universe. My exposure to eastern thought leads me inexorably to the conclusion that there is no way, if a God exists, that it would be possible logically or otherwise to declare a separation. -I point you back to my discussion of "nonexistence" and "existence" that you so poignantly posted a modern version of Leibniz's argument. I KNOW you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with it. -My answer in regards to the toe: the toe exists. End of story. Same existence. The world looks different, albeit quite dark from the perspective of the toe, but it exists, so does the foot and body of the one who carries it, as well as the ground that pushes against it. --> MATT: The whole pantheism [panentheism?] thing is done. Regardless of how I was inspired by a sect of Hinduism is irrelevant when faced with the very fact that panentheism is a logically impossible position.
> 
> David's free to call himself whatever he wishes, but Panenthesm is saying 2 + 2 = 5. Panentheism's distinction between God and universe is false by definition.
> 
> Since you have addressed your post to me, please humour me and explain 1) how your definition of panentheism differs from the above, 2) why your definition, if different, carries more authority than David's, and 3) why the above is a logically impossible position.
> -Panentheism asserts that there is a God that is somehow distinct from but existing within the universe. There is no way in the rules of logic that it is possible to make this kind of claim. -Assert God exists. Therefore God is the universe. Any feature you try to bring about the universe, is ultimately STILL a part of the same existence. -As to why it carries more weight: The universe exists within the same "space" as our asserted God. Therefore its part of the same singular whole of existence. I get that you're arguing that you can certainly take some portion of the whole, and investigate it, but I'm arguing that by reducing the issue to existence and nonexistence, there is no longer any choice to be made: All is God. God is All. -The idea of a separate God is a uniquely Abrahamic trait. When you investigate arguments against pantheism, they all take on a very moral tone, and I think that panentheism was invented as a way to be a pantheist without being pantheist, if you catch my drift. (The critical argument against pantheism is that it means that God is equally responsible for evil as well as good... which is anathema to Christianity, though interestingly tolerated in Islam and in in some Judaism I've read about.)-> MATT: Panentheism is dead. The next step up is pantheism. The only other alternative is Monism.
> 
> I think this is an important subject, and I would like to discuss it ... but I need your response to the above questions first.-I tend to use Monist in the Catholic sense. Since you challenged me I forced myself to find a "good" antonym for pantheist, and Monist is an extremely bad choice because it's used in far too many contexts to be relevant. -I will define Monist in our case to refer specifically to the theology that God exists as an entirely separate entity from our universe. To me this is as false a distinction as the one panentheism tries to make, because it forces an extra layer of explanation upon the proponent. (Dualism, all over again.)

Post reply

4086 views

MATT: If God is part of the universe, then God IS the universe. If God is separate from the universe, then God is not part of the universe. These are the only two possible distinctions.
> > 
> 
> It all comes back to the discussion of existence/nonexistence. The short of it is, something either exists or it doesn't. If it does, it's part of God, end of story. That makes it conform to a pantheistic view. Panentheism attempts to separate something from God... in David's case the universe. My exposure to eastern thought leads me inexorably to the conclusion that there is no way, if a God exists, that it would be possible logically or otherwise to declare a separation. -I am a panentheist in the Peacocke sense"-"Peacocke identifies his understanding of God's relation to the world as panentheism because of its rejection of dualism and external interactions by God in favor of God always working from inside the universe. At the same time, God transcends the universe because God is infinitely more than the universe. This panentheistic model combines a stronger emphasis upon God's immanence with God's ultimate transcendence over the universe by using a model of personal agency (Peacocke 2004)-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/-Matt: Please read and learn. thank you dhw.

Post reply

4000 views

MATT: It all comes back to the discussion of existence/nonexistence. The short of it is, something either exists or it doesn't. If it does, it's part of God, end of story. That makes it conform to a pantheistic view. -First of all, thank you for your comprehensive and extremely interesting response. We are entering into deep waters. Secondly, I shall have to stop pretending to be David's defence attorney just for a moment (not that he needs one!), because if Peacocke rejects dualism (see David's post of 04 May at 01.56) we could initially be in trouble. Thirdly, the website he has referred us to makes it clear that there are umpteen forms of panentheism, and so we should discuss the form I have already outlined and to which David originally agreed: "God is the primal energy that has always existed and that consciously transforms itself into the matter which we call the universe. Atheists believe that the primal energy is not conscious, and that is the difference between theists and atheists."-You are therefore right: whatever exists is part of God, if he himself exists. Otherwise, whatever exists is part of the universe. But the panentheist discussion, in my view, does not come back to existence/nonexistence. It was you yourself, Matt, who initiated this thread under "Mind and Consciousness", and I see that as the key to the whole argument. Bringing in pantheism only muddies the waters, because there are umpteen forms of pantheism too, one of which is that God = Nature and need not be a conscious force.
 
MATT: Panentheism asserts that there is a God that is somehow distinct from but existing within the universe. There is no way in the rules of logic that it is possible to make this kind of claim.-And this is where it gets tricky, and this is why I'm about to grapple with David's/Peacocke's rejection of dualism. On 29 April at 07.43, David wrote: "It fits my idea that the universe is really mind and consciousness. I don't believe that inorganic material can become alive and invent consciousness, unless consciousness already exists." So what follows is in answer to your comment above, to the rest of your post, and also to David's post ... not as an expression of belief on my part, but purely as an explanation of what I see as the logic behind this form of panentheism.
 
The basic argument can be directly related to NDEs and OBEs, in which consciousness/the mind appears to be separated from the body, even though prior to the experience it was integrated within the body. Dualism is the theory that "mind and matter are two distinct things" (dictionary definition). In my own definition of panentheism, as above, I laid the emphasis on "energy" as the link between mind and matter, and I defined God as the primal energy that consciously transforms itself into matter. That makes it ... like the human mind (if we believe in NDEs and OBEs) ... "within and without" the body (which = matter). And so once we identify energy as the primal source, we can actually "dualize" our concepts: 1) mind is a form of energy different from matter (= dualism); 2) mind and matter are both forms of energy (= what I believe some philosophers have called "neutral monism"). If by "universe" we mean all that is, we lump mind and matter together: God and the universe are one. If we mean the material world as we know it, God/mind and universe/matter are distinct.
 
And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is how panentheism can have its cake and eat it.

Post reply

4171 views

If by "universe" we mean all that is, we lump mind and matter together: God and the universe are one. If we mean the material world as we know it, God/mind and universe/matter are distinct.
> 
> And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is how panentheism can have its cake and eat it.-Yes, I can defend myself and Peacocke is close enough to my way of handling the issue. I'm not worried about dualism. The wbole thing is forms of energy and all of which is in the mind of God. God is intelligent energy. Everyting runs on information which can only be handled by intellect or mind.

Post reply

4037 views

Michael Shermer on consciousness:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-to-consciousness-when-we-die

Post reply

4033 views

DAVID: Michael Shermer on consciousness:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-to-consciousness-when-we-die-The heading actually reads: "What happens to consciousness when we die" ... no question mark, so it's a statement. The subheading is: "The death of the brain means subjective experiences are neurochemistry". That's settled, then! -We all know that drugs, diseases and accidents can affect the brain and thus cause distortions of perception and character. And if we're very lucky, the doctor can put things right. It seems fair enough to take this as possible evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness. On the other hand, we all know that when the TV set goes wrong, the picture and sound are distorted, and if we're very lucky, the TV doctor can put them right. But the TV set is not the source of the pictures and sound. So what is our conclusion? Not, in my opinion, the conclusion Shermer draws:-"No one denies that consciousness is a hard problem. But before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let's give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. Because we know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies, until proved otherwise, the default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness. I am, therefore I think."-Of course he may be right, but a fact? Since when did we call an unproven hypothesis a fact? What does he mean by "measurable" consciousness? Could he possibly be referring to instruments that measure electrical activity in the brain? Surely not. That would simply mean that the brain is dead when the brain is dead. Hardly earth-shattering. But what else could it mean? I'll tell you something, though. If consciousness is independent of the brain, we would expect people who have been resuscitated after clinical death (with no activity in the brain) to report on conscious experiences after that death. We would expect countless tales of consciousness breaking the barriers of the physical senses and obtaining information otherwise unobtainable. And we would expect at least some of the information to be corroborated by third parties. And oh good heavens, that's just what we've got, but let's not bother to mention them.-On the other hand, if consciousness arises out of globules of matter, we would expect our brilliant scientists to find out how, and to explain how these bits of matter can come up with theories, inventions, novels, symphonies, emotions, imaginings, memories...Ah, says Michael Shermer, give us more time. At the moment we haven't a clue, but we "know for a fact that measurable consciousness dies when the brain dies." It's a fact IF we can ignore any evidence against our beliefs. Or it's a fact, and THEREFORE we can ignore any evidence against our beliefs. "The default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness." Why must there be a default hypothesis? If Shermer wants more time, let him have more time. What's the hurry? Meanwhile, why not simply keep an open mind (or brain)?

Post reply

4006 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Mind and Consciousness (Religion)