Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My brute fact is that our reality IS the intelligent designer whose life processes and consciousness define the composition, purpose and parameters of our reality as individual "consciousness cells." The mandates of God's life processes establish the organizing principles (you keep euphemistically wanting to call "self" organizing) and establish the underlying design possibilities for procreating His consciousness in organic creatures.
Everything we see (and don't see) is God . . . there is nothing else. We seem to be the dominant consciousness producers in our little backwater cellular locale . . . but it is unlikely that we are the only or even the most important such cellular locale within God.
ClearNight thinks :
Firstly, (with respect) the word used "establish" applied in context understood (websters) implies..."set up, secure, settle.
Where we attach, Godhead, to be understood as intelligent designer, the thought provided
must conclude , the creation was a direct intention of intelligent designer.
I... in opinion, believe this is a mistake in pressumtive thought. There is no reason to my knowledge
why....the creation cannnot be considered a consequence rather than a direct intention or... need.
If I follow you correctly . . . we agree. My use of "mandates" implies that the organizing principles are a direct consequence of the life processes necessary to produce and sustain God's existence and consciousness.
Quote:
Mysticphd quote may be subject to limitation on Godhead in......."State of Being"
I believe its possible that we can put limitations on the probable Godhead.
Also, the analogy creates a suggestion of ,need to God, in combined "intelligence and establish"
in application of nature of prob God.
Creation by "consequence" of Godhead (state-love ?) .......is forwarded in opinion of possibility.
I believe there is an important distinction. A huge distinction. In all that is, including ourselves.
( We all know how to love, what we did not intentionally create .....out of love...... In this, we may understand , to be created, in the image of God)
Again . . . if I understand you . . . we agree.
Quote:
I think "everything we see and don't see is God" analogy from quote, seems a generalization
extending itself from a possible assumption.
Most of all , I would like to express my deepest appreciation for the inspiration of this thread.
The search provided is truly admirable, and its with delight that theres company along the way.
You are welcome and I am pleased that you are enjoying the discussion. I find your posts difficult (but not impossible) to decipher because of the language barrier (translation program?). Be well, Mystic
Thats great, thanks for taking time.....the posts are prob difficult because, I find this medium difficult . Subject seems to have words with many different meanings to many different personalities. Trying to be clear , so will follow along.
Feel relieved with post recieved, almost like maybe I can take a break.
Last edited by ClearNight; 11-14-2010 at 02:13 PM..
Hey Mystic, you still out there? I'm not slacking, just busy at work. I'm trying to find time to post up a few of my thoughts for your input. Continued thanks for the interesting discussion thus far.
Side note: This past weekend, a group of my friends and I were having a lively discussion regarding religion (the usual favorite) when the idea of 'the nature of conciousness' was introduced. Shortly thereafter, I was informed that I 'need a goddamm hobby'. We all had a great laugh. Although, admittedly, it was at my expense.
Hey Orestes . . . I accepted your explanation of the hiatus in responding . . . but since you have repeatedly responded to several other threads elsewhere since . . . I begin to suspect there are other reasons.
Hey Orestes . . . I accepted your explanation of the hiatus in responding . . . but since you have repeatedly responded to several other threads elsewhere since . . . I begin to suspect there are other reasons.
No sir, I would assume you'd grant that a fair response would require some time. I've read and re-read your synthesis (up to a certain point) several times. I've also had to do some subsequent reading to flesh out my understanding and establish a starting-point perspective on a few things.
The threads i've 'played' in haven't been too taxing on my time. They've not required any corollary research. It's not hard to pop in and out during the day for those. I promised to be fair, and am a man of my word. I'm also up to an extremely large document at this point. My working document is 40+ pages as of right now (your synthesis with my notes).
Honestly, once I get to the point I'm comfortable, I'm going to have to pick a single starting discussion point, from which, to resume. I have a good place in mind and will see if I can put together a succinct post about it soon.
Bear with me, and please do feel free to chastise me about it as the mood hits.
No sir, I would assume you'd grant that a fair response would require some time. I've read and re-read your synthesis (up to a certain point) several times. I've also had to do some subsequent reading to flesh out my understanding and establish a starting-point perspective on a few things.
The threads i've 'played' in haven't been too taxing on my time. They've not required any corollary research. It's not hard to pop in and out during the day for those. I promised to be fair, and am a man of my word. I'm also up to an extremely large document at this point. My working document is 40+ pages as of right now (your synthesis with my notes).
Honestly, once I get to the point I'm comfortable, I'm going to have to pick a single starting discussion point, from which, to resume. I have a good place in mind and will see if I can put together a succinct post about it soon.
Bear with me, and please do feel free to chastise me about it as the mood hits.
Believe me I understand . . . but you know I just had to . . . don't you?
No sir, I would assume you'd grant that a fair response would require some time. I've read and re-read your synthesis (up to a certain point) several times. I've also had to do some subsequent reading to flesh out my understanding and establish a starting-point perspective on a few things.
The threads i've 'played' in haven't been too taxing on my time. They've not required any corollary research. It's not hard to pop in and out during the day for those. I promised to be fair, and am a man of my word. I'm also up to an extremely large document at this point. My working document is 40+ pages as of right now (your synthesis with my notes).
Honestly, once I get to the point I'm comfortable, I'm going to have to pick a single starting discussion point, from which, to resume. I have a good place in mind and will see if I can put together a succinct post about it soon.
Bear with me, and please do feel free to chastise me about it as the mood hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Believe me I understand . . . but you know I just had to . . . don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orestes
I totally get it.
Just a reminder to keep it in the queue . . . Orestes!
Mystic, if I understand your theory correctly you might say that a functioning brain is not sufficient to explain sentience, in that you are not a complete materialist. But do you believe a functioning brain is necessary for sentience?
For example, imagine three brothers were in the hospital. Brother Adam was to be operated on. For a day he was in a deep state of unconsciousness induced from chemicals given to him by an anesthesiologist. Adam would later awake and state that he wasn't aware of the passage of time, had no thoughts, and had no sensory input while he was unconscious.
Brother Bob had been in a bad motorcycle wreck. From this wreck he received a traumatic brain injury. Upon physical examination, the doctors could find no clinical evidence of brain functioning and the EEG was flat. He's survives on life support.
Brother Charlie was also riding on Bob's motorcycle. He was decapitated in the accident, and pronounced dead at the scene.
From my understanding of the way conscious thought works, all three of these brothers would have been deprived of conscious sapient thought due to interference with the proper functioning of the brain.
If we desire to know what brother Charlie's experience with death was like, we need only ask brother Adam, because his experience would be identical. Whether or not a brain is sufficient to produce sentience, it certainly is necessary, (Adam can tell us that.)
Do you think the three brothers had a different experience? Does brother Charlie somehow gain a consciousness at death that brother Adam doesn't experience while in surgery? How and why do you think the three brothers experiences would be different?
Mystic, if I understand your theory correctly you might say that a functioning brain is not sufficient to explain sentience, in that you are not a complete materialist.
Correct.
Quote:
But do you believe a functioning brain is necessary for sentience?
Of course the brain is necessary to produce consciousness (transformation) and record its "transmission" for future access (memory) and to communicate it to others (replay) in this time space.
Quote:
For example, imagine three brothers were in the hospital. Brother Adam was to be operated on. For a day he was in a deep state of unconsciousness induced from chemicals given to him by an anesthesiologist. Adam would later awake and state that he wasn't aware of the passage of time, had no thoughts, and had no sensory input while he was unconscious.
Access to the "production studio" was blocked (as in sleep) . . . so no consciousness was produced (broadcast or recorded) . . . so he had nothing to access in this time space (except perhaps his dreams if any). All prior production is untouched and all current production is adding to it.
Quote:
Brother Bob had been in a bad motorcycle wreck. From this wreck he received a traumatic brain injury. Upon physical examination, the doctors could find no clinical evidence of brain functioning and the EEG was flat. He's survives on life support.
Brother Charlie was also riding on Bob's motorcycle. He was decapitated in the accident, and pronounced dead at the scene.
No consciousness is produced for the same reason. But all prior production is untouched.
Quote:
From my understanding of the way conscious thought works, all three of these brothers would have been deprived of conscious sapient thought due to interference with the proper functioning of the brain.
If we desire to know what brother Charlie's experience with death was like, we need only ask brother Adam, because his experience would be identical. Whether or not a brain is sufficient to produce sentience, it certainly is necessary, (Adam can tell us that.)
Do you think the three brothers had a different experience? Does brother Charlie somehow gain a consciousness at death that brother Adam doesn't experience while in surgery? How and why do you think the three brothers experiences would be different?
In all three cases current production while in this time space was interrupted and did not exist . . . but all prior cumulative production was untouched. Bob and Charlie are no longer adding to or modifying their consciousness inventory(Soul) . . . Adam is.
Correct. Of course the brain is necessary to produce consciousness (transformation) and record its "transmission" for future access (memory) and to communicate it to others (replay) in this time space. Access to the "production studio" was blocked (as in sleep) . . . so no consciousness was produced (broadcast or recorded) . . . so he had nothing to access in this time space (except perhaps his dreams if any). All prior production is untouched and all current production is adding to it. No consciousness is produced for the same reason. But all prior production is untouched.In all three cases current production while in this time space was interrupted and did not exist . . . but all prior cumulative production was untouched. Bob and Charlie are no longer adding to or modifying their consciousness inventory(Soul) . . . Adam is.
What benefit did Adam receive from his prior productions while he was unconscious?
What benefit will Charlie get from his prior productions while he is dead?
Is there any reason to believe Charlie's experience of being dead will be significantly different than Adam's experience while being unconscious?
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 11-29-2010 at 12:20 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I totally get it. 
