Science has much better answers than "God did it" (Satan, Adam and Eve)

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Then it would be best if God didn't publish holy books that contradict science and throw reason out the window.

This certainly would be helpful!! But......that would be like asking a non-existent god to make sense.

[Boxcar Overkill]

I think intelligence is simply how we experience the sensation of the electro-chemical process that occurs in our brain.

[rifleman]

[quote=Gaylenwoof;18284768]Common sense suggests that there is plenty of disorder in reality. The fact that something fits with common sense does not count as a knock-down argument in its favor, but it does nevertheless carry some weight, and any argument contrary to common sense needs to explain why the seemingly obvious truths are misleading or delusional in some way. The entire edifice of physics is infused with the concept of entropy, thanks to the second law of thermodynamics - which is a heavyweight fundamental law. If you're going to claim there is no disorder in our reality, then you have some explaining to do. I know I don't have to spell out the details for you, but I will point out that the concept of order is based on the idea of patterns. We see patterns arise and disintegrate on all levels of ordinary reality every day.

Originally Posted by rifle

As well, it's the limited structures of our own intellectual systemics that provides a convenient structure for us to overlay and assume some perceived organization. It may simply be nothing at all; we persist, some of us, in assuming some sort of necessary organization, or organizer, to begin with, and then, having gained some intellectual momentum on that front, we charge on further to the self-serving assumption that we have found it in an entity. When, in fact, possible or probably none is present nor required.

Reasonable speculation: The universe may well be some sort of crystal structure, one that only exists in toto in that form, some of it visible, some not, but a distinct, repeating structure nonetheless. We are simply outgrowths of it when conditions are right, like sugar crystals growing on on a suspended string. Such "organization" hardly requires an overseer, nor is it worthy of the time of some ultra-being who can, by our convenient definition, order and conduct the entirety of the universe simultaneously.

As I've stated so many times, such a Grande Vitara is simply not required. He's the answer to a question only the lonely need ask or seek.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

Perhaps you mean only that there is no disorder at the most fundamental level? An atom is not disordered - only collections of atoms are disordered? Do you want to say that disorder is only a higher-level emergent phenomena?(etc, etc...)

I'm guessing you will say that any order at all at the fundamental will essentially count as the presence of God?

Without some definition of God - some assignment of attributes - any discussion of the existence of God is utterly meaningless. You can't intelligibly argue for or against the existence of something that you cannot - even just for the sake of arguement - define in some way. My concern is only for the loose notion of God as an Intelligent Designer who created the world in accordance with some plan, or for some reason. THIS is specifically what I do not believe exists, and this is the concept of God that leads me call myself an atheist or agnostic.

Nicely summarized, and essentially inarguable, in fact.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

In my theory, intelligence ultimately derives from the asymmetric interconnectedness of primordial qualia. You can roughly think of the cosmos in its primordial form as a sort of "dreamless sleeper" – where "sleeper" in this case is not referring to a "person" in the sense of a coherently organized self who has a set of memories, interests, knowledge, etc., but rather, the "sleeper" is a primordial form of "Subjectivity" – it is the qualitative ground of all possible individual perspectives. The "mind" of the "sleeper" is a form of chaos - meaning that it is not ordered; there are no meaningful patterns of activity that could be called coherent experience.

(etc, etc.)

So far as we can see, intelligence always emerges from systems that were not previously intelligent. If God exists, and if God is intelligent, then this theory gives us some idea of how God came to be intelligent.

It may well also be simply the confluence of some more basic structural formality, as I've theorized, coupled with some random transversion and the motility of focused energy en-route to nowhere in particular, but intersected by our thinking and our godly overlays. The unnecessary ones.

We are likely just transient energy pathways and imaginations, with very little true value, despite our fervent hopes to be "meaningful" and "relevant". That's just arrogance and neediness, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I think intelligence is simply how we experience the sensation of the electro-chemical process that occurs in our brain.

Quite so, Boxcar: nothing but transient and occasionally organized "noise" that we focus and grant far greater significance than is reasonably deserved or required. Some even claim to have "more" of it than others, simply because of what they have persisted in thinking about, and nothing more, for years to the exclusion of other productive avenues of thoughtful direction. Alternate Intellectual Vectors, I call them.

"Meaning"? "Life's Purpose"? "Godly advice and personal interaction".

Pipe dream concepts with no necessity or direction.

ces finis.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

In my theory, intelligence ultimately derives from the asymmetric interconnectedness of primordial qualia. You can roughly think of the cosmos in its primordial form as a sort of "dreamless sleeper" – where "sleeper" in this case is not referring to a "person" in the sense of a coherently organized self who has a set of memories, interests, knowledge, etc., but rather, the "sleeper" is a primordial form of "Subjectivity" – it is the qualitative ground of all possible individual perspectives. The "mind" of the "sleeper" is a form of chaos - meaning that it is not ordered; there are no meaningful patterns of activity that could be called coherent experience. The sleeper is not conscious, and not (yet) intelligent; it has no plans for creating anything. On my theory, "dream images" (jumbled, partially-coherent experiential events) were probably the first forms of "actualized" reality, and our mysterious need for dream sleep may ultimately be grounded in the spontaneous nature of these initial processes. In our case (as fully-formed individuals), however, these spontaneous processes would be mixed with memories, thus tending toward the attempted creation of narratives that are partially coherent with the narrative of our waking lives.

Systems composed of asymmetrically interconnected elements are, shall we say, "metaphysically unstable" – which may be thought of as the metaphysical grounds for what we know as "thermodynamic instability" aka "potential energy" in physics. Just as a thermodynamic system in equilibrium has no potential energy, a qualitative system composed of purely symmetrical elements would be experientially impotent. But we know on the basis of direct experience that qualia are asymmetrically related. A qualitative chaos is, therefore, intrinsically energetic/unstable. Most self-organizing systems require an external energy source (e.g., the sun drives such systems on earth), but in this case the metaphysical elements themselves are intrinsically energetic, thanks to their asymmetrical qualitative/interconnected nature. (BTW: If "God" does not need an "external source" of energy, there is no reason to think that Natural Reality needs an "external source.")

The energy is not external . . . it is intrinsic to the very existence of everything (Life of God) . . . and "Natural" is a euphemistic nonsense word . . . as are your others (self-organizing, emergent, etc.)

So far as we can see, intelligence always emerges from systems that were not previously intelligent. If God exists, and if God is intelligent, then this theory gives us some idea of how God came to be intelligent. As for why Reality is the sort of thing that has the potential for intelligence, this is a mystery "deeper than God," which is to suggest that even God would have to be an existentialist. If you want to talk about fundamentals (whether "God" or natural reality), you need to accept certain brute facts. Theists choose the existence of God (a necessarily-existing primordial intelligent consciousness) as their brute fact, whereas I choose the qualitative chaos (a pre-conscious, pre-intelligent, intrinsically energetic system of interconnected qualitative elements – suggesting that God might evolve into existence, but does not necessarily exist) as the brute fact because, as I see it, this metaphysics fits with the processes we always see in the world. Consciousness and intelligence don't just pop out of nowhere – they gradually emerge in the context of highly complex, interconnected systems of physical elements. (BTW, I see qualia as being physical in roughly the same way that the non-actualized events of quantum physics are physical. These non-actualized possibilities do not "actually exist" in our world, but they are nevertheless real, physical aspects of reality insofar as we must take them into account if we want an empirically valid theory. Events that "do not actually happen" have statistical/causal implications for events that do actually happen. This is the "mind-boggling" core of quantum theory.)

Your major confusion emanates from our perspective as "differentiated internal components" of the Living God (what you call "subjective islands of causation." For us . . . God's myriad ongoing life processes are seen as "emerging" from "that which is not life (or us)" . . . but as you seem to understand from your other ideas . . . existence is all part of one and the same reality . . . the Living God. The "creations" we see "emerging" or growing and manifesting are simply the ongoing regenerative "cellular" life processes of God.

As for why intelligent agents can communicate, you would need to study the creation of "islands" of patterns in dynamical systems. Communication requires both sameness and difference. Without difference, "communication" would be meaningless; without sameness communication would be impossible. On my theory the possibility of communication would rest on 2 primary factors. 1) The interconnectedness of all fundamental elements (implying that we are all, ultimately, the one and same "Subject," and 2) The emergence of subjective (notice the lower-case 's') islands of causation within Subjectivity. Each island of subjectivity has its own experiential narrative (relatively isolated streams of memories), but ultimately all subjects are "One" in the sense that they are all manifestations of the single "Subject" – the "sleeper." Thus we have the grounds for both sameness and difference.

You truly suffer from "Mother-in-law-itis", Gaylen . . . you have just reiterated what I have been saying and have described God in every way but name (Subject, sleeper, etc.). It is like never mentioning or acknowledging your Mother-in-law's existence and only referring to what she does. Of course . . . the prevailing bias in the academic community forces that on you . . . given your goals.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes

This certainly would be helpful!! But......that would be like asking a non-existent god to make sense.

You have no basis whatsoever to assert non-existence, Dusty . . . except preference.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

I think intelligence is simply how we experience the sensation of the electro-chemical process that occurs in our brain.

I have always been dismayed by the lack of self-esteem fostered among the Fundies by their . . . "God thinks we are filthy rags" nonsense . . . but this is far and away more incomprehensible. How does a human being become so divorced from any sense of self-worth to imagine they don't even exist . . . beyond a deterministic set of chemical reactions within a mechanistic reality?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You have no basis whatsoever to assert non-existence, Dusty . . . except preference.

And your sound inarguable basis for a preferential affirmation of an equally implausible entity, Mystic?

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have always been dismayed by the lack of self-esteem fostered among the Fundies by their . . . "God thinks we are filthy rags" nonsense . . . but this is far and away more incomprehensible. How does a human being become so divorced from any sense of self-worth to imagine they don't even exist . . . beyond a deterministic set of chemical reactions within a mechanistic reality?

{Perhaps you meant not Christian fundies but rather us godless theists? I for one will take this on: I see that Christian fundies place far too much emphasis on their position and ultimate value in this world, extending it to the thought that we're some special one-off design, made in his Glorious Image. You even know one of my pet peeve phrases, Mystic: "and they shall have dominion over the lessr beasts...", which REA:lL:Y irks my stew, because firmly attached to that one is the idea that it's true because we're so much better than they are, and arrived here via some alternate route, one reserved for the chosen ones.

Since I know you accept the fact of Evolution, you also know this is not so. We're just another in a long line of transitionals, which pretty dependably end up in more or less the same predicament. and you also know the prime driver in that final state: arrogance and hubris.

Part of that complex is, of course, the determination that God "is", and put us here to fulfill his holy desires. You of all people here must realize how self-centered that sounds to those of us who see things a little "differenty".

IM eyes, there's simply no absolute necessity nor good argument for a Godly force. It all happens effortlessly without one/him/her/it.

Sorry for th typos! I've gotta go right now to pick up t5he wife from church! (irony...). Later!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

And your sound inarguable basis for a preferential affirmation of an equally implausible entity, Mystic?

you cannot blame me for your failure to engage with me and Gaylen and many others in the more intellectual and philosophical discussions that might have made that basis clear to you, rifle.

{Perhaps you meant not Christian fundies but rather us godless theists? I for one will take this on: I see that Christian fundies place far too much emphasis on their position and ultimate value in this world, extending it to the thought that we're some special one-off design, made in his Glorious Image. You even know one of my pet peeve phrases, Mystic: "and they shall have dominion over the lessr beasts...", which REA:lL:Y irks my stew, because firmly attached to that one is the idea that it's true because we're so much better than they are, and arrived here via some alternate route, one reserved for the chosen ones.

Actually most Fundy Christiians buy into the worthlessness of humanity UNLESS they accept Jesus, etc. etc. . . . so they do believe they are "filthy rags" in God's eyes.

Since I know you accept the fact of Evolution, you also know this is not so. We're just another in a long line of transitionals, which pretty dependably end up in more or less the same predicament. and you also know the prime driver in that final state: arrogance and hubris.

Part of that complex is, of course, the determination that God "is", and put us here to fulfill his holy desires. You of all people here must realize how self-centered that sounds to those of us who see things a little "differenty".

IM eyes, there's simply no absolute necessity nor good argument for a Godly force. It all happens effortlessly without one/him/her/it.

You simply have not looked deeply enough into what you think is our reality, rifle. If you had . . . your certainty about the automaticity of reality as intrinsic and without Source would have been undermined considerably. Shallow thinking using the excuse of ignorance and acceptance of the unknown as irrelevant is the culprit. It is a pragmatic and viable stance for easing one's mind in our daily life . . . but hardly intelligent or wise IMO.

[rifleman]

And the predictability of your defensive onslaughts is also tiring my friend. (BTW: This is just a friendly word to the wise. There's still time for you to recant and seek salvation! ) Otherwise, your verbally oily side-slipping techniques would make a politician proud.

I've avoided this thread in the past because, predictably, it proves nothing, has defined nothing other than a stump for your obfuscations, and has provided no compelling further evidence nor argument for your cause. You cannot dismiss someone simply because they have chosen to avoid it's obvious pitfalls in the past (...and yet, you do. ). You do not own a thread, so sad for you. This is City-Data, not "Mystic's PoV".

Does it not strike you odd that the entirety of the loyal intelligent opposition here agrees with my perspective, or has an equally valid but structurally variant one that still goes to the heart of the matter: to wit: you have no essential argument, just a lot of big words that attempt to prop up some imagined self-validity and enhanced intellect? Further, you are consistent in putting down the intelligence of any you do not agree with.

Must be a lonely world for you, Mystic! Or do your "friends" (at least the ones you allow into the glow of your person), by definition, all fawn over your every word? Of all the posters here, you have, by far, garnered the most votes as the most pompous, arrogant, demeaning and self-congratulatory. Way to win arguments! And nice "reputation!".

The best ideas are not advanced by pompous self-aggrandizement and combative denigration and outright dismissal of any who might choose to take you on. My point remains unattended yet straightforward: there is neither evidence nor rationale for the God you claim exists. No need, no first cause, nothing that approaches the larger argument other than your personal experiences which are of a type that many of the spiritually delusional insist they have experienced. Hardly convincing.

Well all-righty then. I rest my case, and you have rested yours. Let the best idea win.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You truly suffer from "Mother-in-law-itis", Gaylen . . . you have just reiterated what I have been saying and have described God in every way but name (Subject, sleeper, etc.). It is like never mentioning or acknowledging your Mother-in-law's existence and only referring to what she does. Of course . . . the prevailing bias in the academic community forces that on you . . . given your goals.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

If, for you, the term 'God' references a concept equivalent to my notions of a "primordial qualitative chaos"/"Primordial Subjectivity"/"Sleeper" - then we really have nothing to argue about. But I sense we are not really on the same page because, for me, these concepts imply that "God" (in this purely primordial sense) is unconscious and not intelligent.

The key point, for me, is that reality - at its most fundamental level - is not the result of any sort of prior plan or design. If there is any meaning or purpose, these qualities apply "after the fact" - i.e., after the development of consciousness/intelligence via natural means (by "natural" in this case I mean processes that are not guided by a pre-existing intelligence). This does not rule out the possibility that the cosmos has developed into a conscious personality - in which case our individual subjective lives may indeed be "the microscopic cells of God's Being" as you like to say, or "God's neurons" in some sense. But I take the metaphor further. If we compare this Cosmos/God to a physical brain, and we are the neurons, then the extended metaphor suggests that this brain was not always a fully formed intelligent system. All of the biological brains that we've been able to empirically study developed from unconscious material via dynamical processes.

I take the cosmos/brain metaphor back to this level and ask: How can we characterize this primordial unconscious/pre-intelligent aspect of reality in such a way that we can understand how the cosmos/brain developed? Without a prior intelligence outside of the system to design the system, the only option must be that the intelligent system somehow unconsciously "designed itself." How is that possible? That is exactly where the principles of self-organization become important. If reality is intrinsically qualitative and chaotic (in the mathematical sense), then we would expect patterns to spontaneously emerge, and from this point it is not too big of a conceptual leap to suppose that these qualitative patterns might serve as the ontological basis for what we call consciousness. (This is what I call the "chewy" problem, which seems somewhat more metaphysically digestible than the materialist's "hard problem.")

If, on the basis of this, I could logically show the inevitable development of some sort of top-level "Cosmic Mind" (within which we serve as the functional "neurons"), then I would be a very happy camper. At the moment I can only suggest the possibility of a "Cosmic Mind" of this sort. What I think I can do, however, is offer good arguments for the primordial Unity of Subjectivity - basically the notion that, at a fundamental level, we all share the one-and-same Subjective Essence - something sorta like a mystical "One Self" idea. This "One Self" would be the one who endlessly "awakens" in each conscious moment of being.