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.
::Sigh:: Not the tired "turtles all the way down" nonsense, Box. We ONLY need a "brute fact" to account for that which is within the bounds of the data we actually have evidence for. There is no need to go beyond that to your infinite regress of "brute facts" crap. The evidence cannot itself be the "brute fact" that accounts for itself . . . as is currently alleged disingenuously (because it implicitly accepts a "nothing" as the true brute fact).
It seems to me that "God" is your euphemism for "we don't know".
But you prefer not to admit that we don't know how the universe started.
So you simply prefer to call "We don't know" by the name "God", and then argue that the existence of God is self-evident but we only disagree on the specific attributes.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think your argument is much more complicated then that.
If I'm misreading you, please tell me how I can distinguish your definition of the source of everything from "we don't know."
Beyond "we don't know", could you name some of the attributes of the source of creation?
It seems to me that "God" is your euphemism for "we don't know".
But you prefer not to admit that we don't know how the universe started.
So you simply prefer to call "We don't know" by the name "God", and then argue that the existence of God is self-evident but we only disagree on the specific attributes.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think your argument is much more complicated then that.
If I'm misreading you, please tell me how I can distinguish your definition of the source of everything from "we don't know."
Beyond "we don't know", could you name some of the attributes of the source of creation?
Sorry but it is "much more complicated then that" . . . God's consciousness is (a KNOWN existing construct of reality . . . evidenced by our own paltry versions) and is the Source of the known universal field that establishes all the known structure and parameters of our reality . . . which science relies upon to investigate, measure and know more and more about God's attributes and how our reality functions. There is no "we don't know" about it . . . just we haven't the tech to test every aspect of it YET. The "how everything started" is a non-issue . . . until we discover whatever we can about it . . . but the Source definitely qualifies as God, period..
It seems to me that "God" is your euphemism for "we don't know".
But you prefer not to admit that we don't know how the universe started.
So you simply prefer to call "We don't know" by the name "God", and then argue that the existence of God is self-evident but we only disagree on the specific attributes.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think your argument is much more complicated then that.
If I'm misreading you, please tell me how I can distinguish your definition of the source of everything from "we don't know."
Beyond "we don't know", could you name some of the attributes of the source of creation?
Lucky for those that suffer from Wedon'tknowatosis...there are those that don't have that affliction to hip ya to how it really is.
Because there is absolutely no evidence or rational basis upon which to believe that qualia can exist absent an experiencer! [...] Because there is undeniable evidence of structure and order to what you want to call chaos (based entirely on our ignorance in accounting for some aspects of it) and no basis for believing it could exist without a Source.
I'm not claiming that qualia exist apart from an experiencer, I'm claiming that qualia constitute the experiencer. Thus the experiencer does not "create" qualia; the experiencer just is a given organization of qualia. The experiencer did not create the world; the experience just is the World. The experiencer is not creative; the experiencer is the essence of creativity. The experiencer is not intrinsically conscious, but it is intrinsically qualitative, which means that it is composed of exactly the kind of stuff that can be conscious, when properly organized. In its essence, a quale just is an objectified experience, which is to say, it is a constituent of the experiencer itself (the World Itself) turned into an object of perception via the good offices of a mode of qualitative organization we call "consciousness."
And what exactly is the "proper organization" essential for consciousness? I'm thinking it is a dynamic form of self-referencing in the context of self/world modeling. When a system of qualia reaches a certain level of complexity, it can potentially evolve into a metaphysical form of a "strange loop." When the experiencer seeks to perceive itself as an object of its own perception, it finds what David Hume found, namely, nothing but qualia. Why? Because the Self essentially is nothing but qualia. As the Buddhists like to say, the Self is cleverly hidden in plain sight.
You say that there is no basis for order existing without a "Source." I agree, but I'm saying that the Source is not, in itself, just a different or higher form of order, and it is almost certainly not the particular kind of order that constitutes consciousness. The Source is an asymmetrically interconnected network of qualitative elements; it is exactly the kind of thing that can spontaneously give rise to order. It is Unconsciousness.
Jung and others claim that the unconscious "seeks to become conscious." The unconscious is like steam under pressure, seeking release in the form of consciousness. On my model, this idea makes a lot of sense. With a bit of anthropomorphizing, we might say that chaos "seeks" order, which in this case is essentially the unconscious seeking consciousness. Consciousness is not what the World fundamentally is; consciousness is what the World seeks to achieve.
As for evidence, I've already explained (in some thread somewhere here, not so long ago) that 100% of our evidence suggests that consciousness always emerges from unconsciousness. I also offered a line of reasoning to explain why this is always the case. A qualitative chaos is just what the doctor ordered if you are seeking a model for the nature of the unconscious.
I'm not claiming that qualia exist apart from an experiencer, I'm claiming that qualia constitute the experiencer. Thus the experiencer does not "create" qualia; the experiencer just isa given organization of qualia. The experiencer did not create the world; the experience just is the World. The experiencer is not creative; the experiencer isthe essence of creativity. The experiencer is not intrinsically conscious, but it is intrinsically qualitative, which means that it is composed of exactly the kind of stuff that can be conscious, when properly organized. In its essence, a quale just is an objectified experience, which is to say, it is a constituent of the experiencer itself (the World Itself) turned into an object of perception via the good offices of a mode of qualitative organization we call "consciousness."
And what exactly is the "proper organization" essential for consciousness? I'm thinking it is a dynamic form of self-referencing in the context of self/world modeling. When a system of qualia reaches a certain level of complexity, it can potentially evolve into a metaphysical form of a "strange loop." When the experiencer seeks to perceive itself as an object of its own perception, it finds what David Hume found, namely, nothing but qualia. Why? Because the Self essentially is nothing but qualia. As the Buddhists like to say, the Self is cleverly hidden in plain sight.
You have got the "It just is" paradigm beautifully surrounded with your euphemisms, Gaylenwoof . . . you do get mired in them!!! I suppose to the uneducated masses this might even seem like an explanation. To simplify this jargonese for them . . . let's take one quale . . . any subjective feeling. What this jumbled prose is saying is that the "feeler" of the feeling IS just the feeling itself. So when you feel anything subjective . . . it is isn't you doing the feeling . . . it is the feeling doing the feeling.
Quote:
You say that there is no basis for order existing without a "Source." I agree, but I'm saying that the Source is not, in itself, just a different or higher form of order, and it is almost certainly not the particular kind of order that constitutes consciousness. The Source is an asymmetrically interconnected network of qualitative elements; it is exactly the kind of thing that can spontaneously give rise to order. It is Unconsciousness.
There you go with your euphemisms (spontaneously) . . . surprised you didn't use "self-organizing" again.You say it is the unconscious . . . and I agree . . . but we disagree about what that is. It is God's consciousness that is inaccessible to our own consciousness directly. Our own consciousness is the "in-process" production stage of the unconscious.
Quote:
Jung and others claim that the unconscious "seeks to become conscious." The unconscious is like steam under pressure, seeking release in the form of consciousness. On my model, this idea makes a lot of sense. With a bit of anthropomorphizing, we might say that chaos "seeks" order, which in this case is essentially the unconscious seeking consciousness. Consciousness is not what the World fundamentally is; consciousness is what the World seeks to achieve.
More euphemisms . . . why not just call it God instead of the World. That is what it is since it is "seeking" (a sentient activity). We could agree . . . but we need to change the description of the process a bit. The unconscious (God's consciousness to our consciousness) seeks to procreate itself . . . and our consciousnesses are the transient "in-process" states for achieving it.
Quote:
As for evidence, I've already explained (in some thread somewhere here, not so long ago) that 100% of our evidence suggests that consciousness always emerges from unconsciousness. I also offered a line of reasoning to explain why this is always the case. A qualitative chaos is just what the doctor ordered if you are seeking a model for the nature of the unconscious.
We agree that the unconscious (God's consciousness manifesting on this level of becoming) procreates itself through our creation of consciousness. But your "qualitative chaos" is pure euphemistic jargonese for ignorance.
God's consciousness is (a KNOWN existing construct of reality
No it isn't. Putting something in bold text doesn't make your baseless assertions any more of a fact. Evidence would - but we all know that when you get down to it your "evidence" is basically that you saw it in a hypoxia-induced vision.
Can we save time and just jump to the part where you again admit that this is just your subjective interpretation of a dream and we're all ignorant idiots for not accepting that as objective evidence? No need to derail yet another thread with this junk.
So when you feel anything subjective . . . it is isn't you doing the feeling . . . it is the feeling doing the feeling.
Yes, this is roughly what I'm saying, although the "feeling" that does the feeling in any particular instance is the culmination of a historically grounded, holistically interconnected network, so the "particular feeling" that "does the feeling" is nothing other than the World Itself, organized in a certain way. The whole of reality is, in a sense, fully present in every moment, but the actuality that is expressed in any individual moment is only a tiny fraction of the whole of reality. Or to put it another way: the "feeler" in each and every moment of reality is always the numerically one-and-same feeler in each an every instance of Being, but the qualitative character of the feeling is what it is because it is a limitation - a simplification - a tiny fraction of the Whole.
Quote:
There you go with your euphemisms (spontaneously) . . . surprised you didn't use "self-organizing" again.You say it is the unconscious . . . and I agree . . . but we disagree about what that is. It is God's consciousness that is inaccessible to our own consciousness directly.
You might be right about God's consciousness (as I've mentioned repeatedly, I cannot disprove the possibility of primordial consciousness because there is nothing logically self-contradictory in the concept), but my point is that we do not need to hypothesize the existence of a primordially conscious God who consciously created the world with a plan (which I take to be the core concept of theism) in order to have a plausible theory of consciousness.
All that we need to grant is that the world is fundamentally qualitative. Patterns emerge from chaos without prior planning or intent. Indeed, the chaotic emergence of patterns is, in principle, unpredictable, thus the concept of "prior planning" is in trouble from the very start. As I've said before: If there is a Cosmic Consciousness (aka "God"), then this God must be an existentialist. If God wants to understand her own existence, then her only option is to understand the emergence of order from chaos, and embrace: 1) the profound absurdity of Being, 2) the profound unpredictability of the future, and 3) the inevitability of existential freedom (aka "free will"). Even God cannot consciously choose to create herself, she cannot consciously choose the qualitative nature of her own conscious experience, and she cannot perfectly predict her own future. For God to understand her metaphysical roots, she would have to undertake a form of transcendental analysis - that is to say: use logic to explore the necessary preconditions for the existence of consciousness.
Since the existence of consciousness itself could not have been the result of a conscious choice, we only have two options: 1) consciousness is primordial or 2) consciousness emerged from unconsciousness. Both options are existentially absurd, which is to say, both require a brute fact. Neither option can be disproven on purely logical grounds. I prefer option #2 because 100% of our empirical evidence indicates that consciousness always emerges from unconscious systems. I'm not offering this as absolute proof of anything; I'm just offering it as a basis for my preference. And my central point throughout lo these many treads is that option #2 is a viable, rational option - or at least is no less rational than option #1.
Quote:
. . . why not just call it God instead of the World. That is what it is since it is "seeking" (a sentient activity).
As I keep saying, I am not arguing against the existence of "God" if the word 'God' is defined vaguely enough. I am specifically denying the philosophical need to hypothesize the existence of a primordially conscious designer of the world. And I used the concept of "seeking" in a somewhat anthropomorphic/metaphorical way (as in water "seeks" the lowest point). I say "somewhat" metaphorical because I do see a sort of primordial subjectivity that goes hand-in-hand with qualia. Thus water "seeking" the lowest point is an inherently qualitative process, but it is not a conscious process. There is no "water consciousness" that consciously seeks low ground. Rather, the water seeking low ground is an unconscious qualitative aspect of the whole, and as such, it contributes to some extent to "what it is like to be" conscious, whenever a conscious moment is actualized.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-13-2011 at 08:08 AM..
No it isn't. Putting something in bold text doesn't make your baseless assertions any more of a fact. Evidence would - but we all know that when you get down to it your "evidence" is basically that you saw it in a hypoxia-induced vision.
Can we save time and just jump to the part where you again admit that this is just your subjective interpretation of a dream and we're all ignorant idiots for not accepting that as objective evidence? No need to derail yet another thread with this junk.
Consciousness is a KNOWN aspect of reality (you are using it to be obnoxious) . . . not some "supernatural" or fairy tale speculation . . . THAT is the point of using it as the basis for my hypothesis of God consciousness as the universal field. No disrespect intended here, KC . . . but you seem very far out of your depth in this discussion and seem to completely miss the philosophical points in my discussion with Gaylenwoof. Besides . . . your continual misrepresentation of me and the source of my certainty about my views is at the very least disingenuous (if not outright deceit).
My certainty is meditation-based . . . but NOT my thesis about God's existence . . . which is completely science-based. My spiritual "beliefs about" God are derivative of decades of trying to make sense of the "spiritual fossil record" in light of my meditation experiences . . . and are neither a formal part of my scientific hypothesis nor a basis for it. I hope this clarifies the distinction for you and will enable you to stop misrepresenting my views.
Besides . . . your continual misrepresentation of me and the source of my certainty about my views is at the very least disingenuous (if not outright deceit).
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 suppose to the uneducated masses this might even seem like an explanation. To simplify this jargonese for them . . . let's take one quale . . . any subjective feeling. What this jumbled prose is saying is that the "feeler" of the feeling IS just the feeling itself. So when you feel anything subjective . . . it is isn't you doing the feeling . . . it is the feeling doing the feeling. 
