Explore the Nature of Spirit - Questions & Answers

  • Thread starter M. Gaspar
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Nature
In summary: Who are we and what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? We are dreaming entities. And what are we in relationship to that which we dream about? We are the entities that are being dreamt about. And what are these other so-called "enitities" experiencing when they experience me? They are experiencing our consciousness. And what are we experiencing when we experience them? We are experiencing their consciousness.
  • #106
Originally posted by Mentat
Would you mind if I answered that (though it wasn't directed at me)?

There is an icon (above the area where you type your response) that is labelled "http://". [Broken] If you click it, a box will pop up, and allow you to first label the link that you are posting, and then (after pressing "Enter") to enter the address of the link that you have just labelled.
Also, if you want to go to a "post within a thread," you have to enter the address information under the following format: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889 ... Also note that this adress will appear up at the top of your browser in your "address window" once you post a new reply. The only thing different will be "post id" number (listed twice), which you'll need to change (both times) if you want to refer someone to a different post. If you're not sure what the post id is, then go to that post and drag your cursor across either the "edit" icon or, the "quote" icon, and the post id should be displayed within the address, which you'll then need to incorporate into the format above. Comprendar?

P.S. It's also good to check the link in the "Preview Reply" window to make sure it's working before you sumbit your reply. Got it? :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Originally posted by Mentat
If you wish to relate the brain to a bowl (considering it just a "container" of consciousness), then you must except the consequences of the analogy, one of which is that, the bigger the vessel, the more "conscious" the being.
Not exactly. It's not an issue of size. It's one of complexity. Plus my point was/is that the brain might not be the only electrochemical system that can generate and transmit thought.

Well, you've succeeded in thoroughly confusing me. What is it exactly that you are saying (forgive my mental slowness)?
It is the half-baked-ness of my ideas and my inability to express them that are the culprits here, and not any deficit on your part whatsoever. These threads are really forcing my hand...and I appreciate any corrective information that is offered.

So let me come at this from a different angel: FUNCTIONALITY.

Let us say -- for the purpose of speculation -- that the Universe is an Entity that's out to have a VERY COMPLEX EXPERIENCE.

To have an Experience, the Universe manifests -- as a natural function of Itself -- : a setting (physicality); an information processing system (consciousness); and a storage system (spirit).

These would be inherent/intrinsic ingredients that existed within (it almost HURTS not to use quotes) the Primal Singularity which "fragmented out" (I can't help it) at the moment of the Big Bang.

Then the process becomes one of ACCRETION via inherent forces (de facto, if you wish...and I'm feeling good) that operate within these three distinct -- tho interconnected -- systems.

In other words, at the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe, it is a natural process of the Entity to "shuffle the deck"...then bring physicality, consciousness and spirit back together again -- much like Humpty Dumpty, only bigger -- in new combinations to yield a completely novel Experience (from the Experiences that have gone before).

Before I go too far on this little speculative journey, what would you ask ...or suggest?
 
  • #108
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Also, if you want to go to a "post within a thread," you have to enter the address information under the following format: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889 ... Also note that this adress will appear up at the top of your browser in your "address window" once you post a new reply. The only thing different will be "post id" number (listed twice), which you'll need to change (both times) if you want to refer someone to a different post. If you're not sure what the post id is, then go to that post and drag your cursor across either the "edit" icon or, the "quote" icon, and the post id should be displayed within the address, which you'll then need to incorporate into the format above. Comprendar?

P.S. It's also good to check the link in the "Preview Reply" window to make sure it's working before you sumbit your reply. Got it? :wink:
I'm scared!

Maybe some day...
 
  • #109
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not exactly. It's not an issue of size. It's one of complexity. Plus my point was/is that the brain might not be the only electrochemical system that can generate and transmit thought.

But why does there need to be an electrochemical system to generate thought, if conscious though exists in all things?

So let me come at this from a different angel: FUNCTIONALITY.

Let us say -- for the purpose of speculation -- that the Universe is an Entity that's out to have a VERY COMPLEX EXPERIENCE.

To have an Experience, the Universe manifests -- as a natural function of Itself -- : a setting (physicality); an information processing system (consciousness); and a storage system (spirit).

These would be inherent/intrinsic ingredients that existed within (it almost HURTS not to use quotes) the Primal Singularity which "fragmented out" (I can't help it) at the moment of the Big Bang.

Then the process becomes one of ACCRETION via inherent forces (de facto, if you wish...and I'm feeling good) that operate within these three distinct -- tho interconnected -- systems.

In other words, at the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe, it is a natural process of the Entity to "shuffle the deck"...then bring physicality, consciousness and spirit back together again -- much like Humpty Dumpty, only bigger -- in new combinations to yield a completely novel Experience (from the Experiences that have gone before).

Hmm. Well, there are a couple of problems (well, you knew I'd say it, didn't you? Sometimes I really hate being me ). The problems are:

1) It is my understanding (which may be completely flawed) that you are implying the Universe chooses to bring forth consciousness (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a contradiction in terms, however, because one cannot choose, unless one is already conscious.

2) The Universe cannot exist without it's consciousness, because your definition of "Universe" includes the fact that it is a conscious entity.

Well, those are the hurdles to the new idea - please forgive me for always being the bearer (sp?) of bad news.
 
  • #110
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm scared!

Maybe some day...
Just follow Mentat's instructions if you want to just post a link then. Or, if you just want to insert a link without a description, just type it where you want it, i.e., such us ... http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html ... and the appropriate code will be inserted. Try it!
 
  • #111
M. Gaspar,
You asked a while ago what I thought. I apolagize for the late response, a lot has been going on for me and haven't had the time to spend here that I normally do. I do see that this thread has not gone so far afield that my response would now be irrelevant.
As far as the universe having consciousnes and being aware, I agree completely. This consciousness and awareness IMO goes right down to individual electrons and photons assuming that there are such things in reality and all the way to up(?) to the complexity of the human mind which IMO has its own individual as well as collective consciousness and limited awareness at least on a conscious level.
Where we differ in our thinking is that I think that that consciousness and awreness is that of the Holy spirit aspect of God.
It is God that gives will, purpose, organization, consciousness, and awareness to the universe and everything in it. I think that at least part or the purpose for all of this is for God/Universe to experience everything including and maybe primarily Life. The spirit whether of God or of the conscious aware Universe is as I have said before ubiquitous and pervasive.
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.
 
  • #112
Originally posted by Mentat
But why does there need to be an electrochemical system to generate thought, if conscious though exists in all things?

Good question. Processing...

1) It is my understanding (which may be completely flawed) that you are implying the Universe chooses to bring forth consciousness (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a contradiction in terms, however, because one cannot choose, unless one is already conscious.
Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.

2) The Universe cannot exist without it's consciousness, because your definition of "Universe" includes the fact that it is a conscious Entity.
I hope you don't mind that I capitalized "Entity" within your quote. It only seems right. Meanwhile, I suppose a Universe could exist without consciousness...but THIS one happens to include consciousness among Its features. (Whereas, a Universe without consciousness would not have a Physics Forum in which to ask these questions.)

Well, those are the hurdles to the new idea - please forgive me for always being the bearer (sp?) of bad news.
Well, except for the electrochemical question, the hurdles weren't that daunting...at least I didn't land on my face.

Your spelling is correct...except I haven't found any "bad news" so far...tho you may yet turn out to be the "BARER" of "Bad Ideas" (mine! ) We'll see.
 
  • #113
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just follow Mentat's instructions if you want to just post a link then. Or, if you just want to insert a link without a description, just type it where you want it, i.e., such us ... http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html ... and the appropriate code will be inserted. Try it!
You have no idea how intimidated I am by what you're proposing. Apparently, I can only grasp MACRO-concepts like the Secrets of the Universe. The Secrets of the Physics Forum ...is another story.

This is my answer to bunji jumping...so I'll try it in the morning. (Don't push! )
 
Last edited:
  • #114
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.
If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."
 
  • #115
Originally posted by Royce
M. Gaspar,
As far as the universe having consciousnes and being aware, I agree completely. This consciousness and awareness IMO goes right down to individual electrons and photons assuming that there are such things in reality and all the way to up(?) to the complexity of the human mind which IMO has its own individual as well as collective consciousness and limited awareness at least on a conscious level.
Where we differ in our thinking is that I think that that consciousness and awreness is that of the Holy spirit aspect of God.
It is God that gives will, purpose, organization, consciousness, and awareness to the universe and everything in it. I think that at least part or the purpose for all of this is for God/Universe to experience everything including and maybe primarily Life. The spirit whether of God or of the conscious aware Universe is as I have said before ubiquitous and pervasive.
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.
I appreciate your generosity in considering that the Universe Itself may be "the God you seek". Since all we can do is speculate anyway...we might as well make room for each others' speculations. :smile:

So what IS the "Nature of Spirit" in your estimation? Purpose? Experiencing life? Giving life meaning? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...I'm just drawing from the few things you have said.
 
  • #116
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."

I might be willing to call the Collective Mind of the Universe the Mind of God.

So what shall we solve next?
 
  • #117
i've only skimmed over the 8 pages of this thread, but i wonder: why do you believe there is a Collective Mind of the Universe? is there some deeper truth you don't feel science tackles properly? (and i don't mean to be cynical, i am truthfully currious about why you think this)
 
  • #118
Originally posted by Royce
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.


seeing posts like this gives me a little insight as to your guys possition on this subject, my mother has tried to explain this to me before. is it that you cannot see how the universe could fall together so perfectly that intelligent life could evole. that everything in the universe (from the mass of the smallest particle to the critical mass for thermonuclear reactions to take place in a star) is too perfectly coordinated to be an accident? you believe that a higher conciousness has a hand in the construction of such a system. please reply with your ideas.
 
  • #119
Purpose and Consciousness

Originally posted by maximus
i've only skimmed over the 8 pages of this thread, but i wonder: why do you believe there is a Collective Mind of the Universe? is there some deeper truth you don't feel science tackles properly? (and i don't mean to be cynical, i am truthfully currious about why you think this)
From the thread, Purpose and Consciousness ...

Where does purpose originate? Does the universe have purpose? If not, then why is man endowed with a sense of purpose? How could that be? That would be tantamount to saying the Universe created a sense of purpose outside of itself? ... And yet, who's to say mankind is not the Universe looking back at itself? ...

Is consciousness an isolated thing? Or, is it really universal? And how is it possible that mankind, through his ability of cognizance, capable of knowing all these Universal Laws pertaining to it? Are we putting the cart before the horse here? If not, then how it is it possible for a Universe without purpose, and hence cognizance, and all the laws that go with it, capable of producing such a creature that is capable of "experiencing it?" ... Are you telling me that something rises out of nothing here?

Whereas just as we all have a mother and a father in an "earthly sense," why can't we all be children of the Universe, which in fact is the origin of consciousness? While I can assure you mankind is not the origin of consciousnes, but rather "its receptacle."
 
  • #120
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I appreciate your generosity in considering that the Universe Itself may be "the God you seek". Since all we can do is speculate anyway...we might as well make room for each others' speculations. :smile:
_________________________

I may be impossiblly naive, but I thought that that was what philosphy was all about, especially this philosphy forum.

_________________________

So what IS the "Nature of Spirit" in your estimation? Purpose? Experiencing life? Giving life meaning? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...I'm just drawing from the few things you have said.

_________________________

In a word, Life, another, Knowing. Maybe experience life and/or knowing itself is it's purpose.

_________________________

seeing posts like this gives me a little insight as to your guys possition on this subject, my mother has tried to explain this to me before. is it that you cannot see how the universe could fall together so perfectly that intelligent life could evole. that everything in the universe (from the mass of the smallest particle to the critical mass for thermonuclear reactions to take place in a star) is too perfectly coordinated to be an accident? you believe that a higher conciousness has a hand in the construction of such a system. please reply with your ideas.
_________________________

Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.
 
  • #121
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Good question. Processing...

Take your time. It's actually a good quality that one doesn't just blurt out the first answer that comes them (which is a problem that I sometimes have).

Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.

Hmm. A couple of flaws here too. The first flaw is a scientific one - you cannot speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, unless the universe is really infinite, and we are just a sub-universe. I'd like to say that that would solve your problem, but it doesn', because if the Universe is infinite, then either the whole Universe is conscious, or only little subsets of it are (if the former, then the recombination that you speak of cannot occur; if the latter, then you have left Panpsychism - as I already think parts of the Universe are conscious (like me, for example)).

Another flaw would the assumption that there is a process taking place (such as the reconstitution of the Universe) without there being a Universe (and how could there both be a Universe and not a Universe at the same time?).

I hope you don't mind that I capitalized "Entity" within your quote. It only seems right. Meanwhile, I suppose a Universe could exist without consciousness...but THIS one happens to include consciousness among Its features. (Whereas, a Universe without consciousness would not have a Physics Forum in which to ask these questions.)

We have to distinguish between a Universe's having consciousness, and some particular parts of the Universe (like humans) having consciousness. If the Universe did not contain parts of it that were conscious, then no, we wouldn't have a PF. However, conscious beings are perfectly capable of existing without the Universe's being conscious altogether.

Also, as I said before, if you posit that there are some Universes that are conscious, and some that are not, then you leave Panpsychism - as all of these sub-universes would exist within one infinite Universe, and that infinite Universe would not be entirely composed of conscious things.
 
  • #122
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."

Why would the conscious nature of the Universe lead you to think that there was some "Greater Mind"?

Yes, consciousness is a faculty of the mind, but that doesn't mean that for one conscious mind to exist, there must be a greater one (if it did, then you would have an infinite regress problem, as I'm sure you're aware).
 
  • #123
Originally posted by Royce
I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.

If it is a NATURAL PROPERTY of an Entity to DO SOMETHING SPECIFIC..then that's what it DOES!

If it is a natural property of the Universe to have It's moving parts assemble and re-assemble in certain ways...then that's what it DOES!

If there are natural forces, processes and ingredients in the Universe -- NOT "bestowed upon It by a Great & Holy Outsider" -- that cause pure energy to "freeze down" into elementary particles...then to join up to form a variety of atoms...then join up to form molecules...that re-assemble to form Tiger Woods -- then that's what the Universe DOES.

AND, if a natural ingredient/process/force is INTENTION ...and if intention ACTS UPON other ingredients/processes/forces by influencing the "lynchpin" of "randomness" (causing certain things to happen and not others) ...if all these things are natural processes of the Universe , then that's what It's going to DO!

If the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang had an INTENTION to RE-CREATE sentient beings within Its "body" -- as It has in every incarnation I would venture -- then processes that seem "improbable", "mystical" or "orchestrated by an outside hand" would OCCUR because that is the INTENTION of a Being Who's INTENTION makes things happen!
 
  • #124
Originally Posted by Royce:
I may be impossiblly naive, but I thought that that was what philosphy was all about, especially this philosphy forum.

Not that it's really important to the thread at hand, but that is definitely not what Philosophy is, good buddy Royce. I started a thread on what Philosophy really is, but I don't have time to search for it right now. If you wish to search for it, it's called "What Philosophy IS and what it IS NOT".

Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.

Well, I could reply with the Scientific reasoning, and show that it is in fact very likely for this - or some very similar - series of events to take place, but I won't go into that (unless you really want to).

The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?

"Why" is not a scientific question, and thus cannot be answered in the realm of science (nor does science ever even attempt to answer "why" questions). So, you are allowed to assign whatever "reason" you wish to assign, but science (as a whole) remains agnostic on that point.

It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?

Why do you think someone needed to make them? Think of this, if spacetime is infinite, then an infinite amount of sub-universes could come into existence, so one of them was bound to be like ours is (in fact, the probability of it's coming into existence is 100%). Thus, it is no surprise that the Universe is the way it is.

btw, the Universe may not even really be logical (see my thread, "A Universe without Logic").
 
  • #125
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...then processes that seem "improbable", "mystical" or "orchestrated by an outside hand" would OCCUR because that is the INTENTION of a Being Who's INTENTION makes things happen!

It's funny that you use those exact words. Without realizing it, you've explained the meaning of the name of the God of the Bible: Jehovah (or Yahweh). It means "He causes to become", or "He makes it happen", as you put it. Whatever is His intention, is what WILL occur (according to Isaiah 55:11).

Anyway, I just thought it was a funny coincidence that you happened to use those words, while denying the need for there to have been a "Grand Creator".
 
  • #126
Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.


in responce to this i will state my position in this importance question:
The Anthropic Principle= (quite simply) the universe is the way it is becuase if it were any different, we would not exist.
First the weak anthropic principle: in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time the conditions necessary for the develpment of intelligent life can only be met in a certain regions of finite space and time. the intelligent beings in these regions would therefore not be surprised that the location in which they exist satisfies the conditions necessary for their existence. it was described to me as "a rich man living in a rich neigborhood not knowing what poverty is". we exist in a specialized zone where it obviously must have been possible for all the complex steps to take place in which intelligent life like us can evolve. (becuase we exist! :wink: )

now, the strong anthropic principle: is a theory in which there are either many different universes or many different regions in a single universe, each with its own line of events (maybe even laws of physics). in most of these scenerios the conditions would not be suitable for intelligent life to evolve. therefore the answer to the question: why is the universe so perfect and organized? is simply: if it had been any different we could not exist.

these are principle created by people asking the same questions you are, and is this scenerio any more far-fetched than a conciousness in the universe. or that it was 'planned out' by some higher being? i don't think they are.

but in either of the cases (anthropic principle or a conciousness) one would still have the question 'why exist at all?' this question (IMO) is completely out of the reach of science of any humans for that matter, so in many ways it is pointless to ask it. the fact is we exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #127
Originally posted by Mentat
Why would the conscious nature of the Universe lead you to think that there was some "Greater Mind"?

Yes, consciousness is a faculty of the mind, but that doesn't mean that for one conscious mind to exist, there must be a greater one (if it did, then you would have an infinite regress problem, as I'm sure you're aware).
Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind? And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind? And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?" Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"
 
  • #128
2 pages in 24 hours this thread is racing. will post some replies after another 24 hours. till then speculate anything you want to.
 
  • #129
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind?

I don't think it is a claim of Panpsychism that the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. That would be your add-on. However, I suppose you are correct, that the Universe would have to be a large "Mind", if all of it's constituents were conscious.

And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"

No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind?

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.

And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?

Well, that would be one speculation, but I don't think it holds much water as God is supposed to be a material entity.

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?"

Because man is a social animal, Wuliheron has already posted a lot of information on this (particularly on our being evolved from Pack Hunters).

Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"

Because they have imprinted on each other; it's a biological process.
 
  • #130
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think it is a claim of Panpsychism that the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. That would be your add-on. However, I suppose you are correct, that the Universe would have to be a large "Mind", if all of it's constituents were conscious.
Thanks for acknowledging at least that much. :wink:


No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.
So if we were all of the "same mind," it wouldn't pose a problem now would it?


A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.
And yet each brain cell must be a receptive to "metaphyisical properties" as well.


Well, that would be one speculation, but I don't think it holds much water as God is supposed to be a material entity.
Are you sure you don't mean metaphysical?


Because man is a social animal, Wuliheron has already posted a lot of information on this (particularly on our being evolved from Pack Hunters).
And yet each organization is comprised of a group of "individual cells" (people) so to speak.


Because they have imprinted on each other; it's a biological process.
A biological process of what? The mind? (or brain).
 
  • #131
Originally posted by Mentat
...you cannot speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, unless the universe is really infinite, and we are just a sub-universe. I'd like to say that that would solve your problem, but it doesn', because if the Universe is infinite, then either the whole Universe is conscious, or only little subsets of it are (if the former, then the recombination that you speak of cannot occur; if the latter, then you have left Panpsychism - as I already think parts of the Universe are conscious (like me, for example)).
Not only CAN I speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, I DO...and often.

Remember, an integral part of my proposition is that the Universe is enjoying an infinite number of Big Bangs...so whenever I refer to a "before", I am either speak of prior incarnations...or, more typically, I am speaking of the Primal Singularity...which is the Universe CONDENSED DOWN from a the PRIOR incarnation, just before It "explodes" into It's NEXt incarnation.

When you say "we are a sub-universe"...are you talking about human beings...or this incarnation of the Universe? If the former, then you are being more poetic than scientific...if the latter, then the term is not quite right. I would use the term "successive" when describing the "life cycle" of the Universe.

For the record, I think the whole Universe is a conscious SYSTEM...and there we could say that we (human beings) are "sub-SYSTEMS" of consciousness.

Also, I do not see how it follows that if the whole Universe is conscious, then recombinations cannot take place. As I have said, the Universe "reshuffles the deck" with every Big Bang...then consciousness (as well as physicality and, perhaps, spirit) re-assembled into something new.

Another flaw would the assumption that there is a process taking place (such as the reconstitution of the Universe) without there being a Universe (and how could there both be a Universe and not a Universe at the same time?).
When did I say that there is any point in time when there is NOT a Universe? If the Universe is eternal, then It always exists in some form...either expanding outward, collapsing inward, or as a momentary singularity twixt incarnations.

We have to distinguish between a Universe's having consciousness, and some particular parts of the Universe (like humans) having consciousness. If the Universe did not contain parts of it that were conscious, then no, we wouldn't have a PF. However, conscious beings are perfectly capable of existing without the Universe's being conscious altogether.
Perhaps...but I think not. I think we are conscious sub-systems of a conscious macro-system...made up of a lot of micro-systems.

Also, as I said before, if you posit that there are some Universes that are conscious, and some that are not, then you leave Panpsychism - as all of these sub-universes would exist within one infinite Universe, and that infinite Universe would not be entirely composed of conscious things.
I do not posit -- nor believe -- that there are multi-universes. There is only ONE (IMO) and this is It.
 
  • #132
Originally posted by Mentat
It's funny that you use those exact words. Without realizing it, you've explained the meaning of the name of the God of the Bible: Jehovah (or Yahweh). It means "He causes to become", or "He makes it happen", as you put it. Whatever is His intention, is what WILL occur (according to Isaiah 55:11).

Anyway, I just thought it was a funny coincidence that you happened to use those words, while denying the need for there to have been a "Grand Creator".
There is no internal contradiction in my position on this matter: IMO, the Universe -- not an "Outsider" -- has the INTENTION that MAKES THINGS HAPPEN...and also, the Universe was not "created" by an "Outsider" -- but RE-CREATES ITSELF over and over again.

Aliens didn't build the pyramids -- and "God" didn't create the Universe -- IM .
 
  • #133
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not only CAN I speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, I DO...and often.
Remember, an integral part of my proposition is that the Universe is enjoying an infinite number of Big Bangs...so whenever I refer to a "before", I am either speak of prior incarnations...or, more typically, I am speaking of the Primal Singularity...which is the Universe CONDENSED DOWN from a the PRIOR incarnation, just before It "explodes" into It's NEXt incarnation.

any speculation into the events (or rather lack of event) before the big bang is pure speculation without any scientific backing. as of now we have no reason to believe that a) anything happened before the big bang(there was a complete lack of a series of events, therefore pointless to speculate about) or b) that the 'bounce-back' theory of the universe collapse is true. we do not observe black hole singularities 'bouncing-back'.



For the record, I think the whole Universe is a conscious SYSTEM...and there we could say that we (human beings) are "sub-SYSTEMS" of consciousness.

what would be the purpose for a higher conscious (universal) to create a sub-system of conciousness (humanity). if you believe that there is a conscious in the universe, don't you imply that this conscious designed the universe for us? (i.e. made it possible for us to have evolved) surely a conscious wouldn't let us happen 'on accident'. therefore if it created us we must ask the question 'why?". do we therefore have a purpose in this conscious mind. is it like god? we're we created in its image?
 
  • #134
Originally posted by maximus
The Anthropic Principle= (quite simply) the universe is the way it is becuase if it were any different, we would not exist.
First the weak anthropic principle: in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time the conditions necessary for the develpment of intelligent life can only be met in a certain regions of finite space and time. the intelligent beings in these regions would therefore not be surprised that the location in which they exist satisfies the conditions necessary for their existence. it was described to me as "a rich man living in a rich neigborhood not knowing what poverty is". we exist in a specialized zone where it obviously must have been possible for all the complex steps to take place in which intelligent life like us can evolve. (becuase we exist! :wink: )
There is nothing "special" about this time or place...or us, for that matter...except, perhaps, that we are AMONG the "beings" that the Universe has given rise to (via Its INTENTION to do so) that has reached sufficient complexity to form languages to discuss the Source of our beingness.

now, the strong anthropic principle: is a theory in which there are either many different universes or many different regions in a single universe, each with its own line of events (maybe even laws of physics). in most of these scenerios the conditions would not be suitable for intelligent life to evolve. therefore the answer to the question: why is the universe so perfect and organized? is simply: if it had been any different we could not exist.
For some reason, I do not find this a very "satisfying" theory. Can't say why at the moment.

these are principle created by people asking the same questions you are, and is this scenerio any more far-fetched than a conciousness in the universe. or that it was 'planned out' by some higher being? i don't think they are.
Yes, we're a very imaginative species that loves to make up stories...and then BELIEVE them! Still, I think there must be a way to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to speculations.

but in either of the cases (anthropic principle or a conciousness) one would still have the question 'why exist at all?' this question (IMO) is completely out of the reach of science of any humans for that matter, so in many ways it is pointless to ask it. the fact is we exist.
Except...I've come to an anwer: we -- like the Universe Itself -- are out to have an Experience. This -- IM -- is the point/purpose/function of ALL EXISTENCE.
 
  • #135
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Except...I've come to an anwer: we -- like the Universe Itself -- are out to have an Experience. This -- IM -- is the point/purpose/function of ALL EXISTENCE.

well, know we must wonder, what is this experience? what is its significance?

there is another way to approach the subject. it is: we have no purpose. we are the byproduct of the random functioning of a machine-like universe that was created for no reasons other than chance. this, though depressing to humans, is a perfecty logical and expanitory idea. humans, for reasons i will not go into (unless you ask) wants certain things to be true. we don't want to be alone. we don't like the impersonality of such a system. but is science personal? no. an experiment will perform and perform and never once will hint to you of a greater power. there is no magic that we have found. we can find nothing in the universe that hints at anything of this power, but our imagination and natural human nature. these have other explanations though.
 
  • #136
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind? And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"
The "mind" is not a "receptacle"...its a GENERATOR.

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind? And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?
And who's to say that God is not a macaroon? LOL (I love my own jokes ) I can buy that we are each a facet of the Mind of the Universe...I just don't like to call the Universe "God". Maybe you can help me understand why I have this aversion.

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?" Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"
Now I think you might be brushing up against Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields"...and I'm not "ready" to send you to a link, despite your -- and others' -- great efforts to assist me informationally. Anyhow, a Google search will get you there.
 
  • #137
Originally posted by Mentat
No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.
Well put.

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.
ooooo...I don't like the word "metaphysical" ...and yet, when I look it up, it's EXACTLY RIGHT! "Metaphysics": The branch of philosphy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the universe (cosmology). "Metaphysical": Based on speculative or abstract reasoning...too abstract...excessively subtle...SUPERNATURAL." Ah...there's the rub! It's a loaded word...but you're using it correctly, so I bow to your verbiage!
 
  • #138
Originally posted by maximus
any speculation into the events (or rather lack of event) before the big bang is pure speculation without any scientific backing. as of now we have no reason to believe that a) anything happened before the big bang(there was a complete lack of a series of events, therefore pointless to speculate about) or b) that the 'bounce-back' theory of the universe collapse is true. we do not observe black hole singularities 'bouncing-back'.
With all due respect -- and I mean that sincerely -- there are a LOT of things we do not "observe" -- AND -- "pure speculation" is why I'm here. Meanwhile, my thinking has led me to believe that the Universe is enjoying an endless cycles of incarnations...and when "things" get DENSE enough, explosions ensue.

what would be the purpose for a higher conscious (universal) to create a sub-system of conciousness (humanity). if you believe that there is a conscious in the universe, don't you imply that this conscious designed the universe for us? (i.e. made it possible for us to have evolved) surely a conscious wouldn't let us happen 'on accident'. therefore if it created us we must ask the question 'why?". do we therefore have a purpose in this conscious mind. is it like god? we're we created in its image? [/B]
Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live. We (and other entities) are Its creations and Its agents. In fact, I once toyed with the idea of designing a T-shirt that reads:

AGENT OF THE UNIVERSE!

How many would you like?
 
  • #139
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, my thinking has led me to believe that the Universe is enjoying an endless cycles of incarnations...and when "things" get DENSE enough, explosions ensue.

your thinking in this area might be flawed. common experience in this matter may not prevail. just as virtual particle pairs in the universe rise out of nothingness and collapse back into in, so might our universe. never to be reincarnated. this is more of a hopeful philosopical view than a scientifically backed theory.

Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live. We (and other entities) are Its creations and Its agents.

you just said it: agents of the universe! agents carry out purpose or intension. what is our purpose, or the anothers purpose through us? to have an experience? again, what experience might this be? and why do you think this? and how does this fit into the earlier quote? does this entity wish to have this experience multiple times? has it already had it?
 
  • #140
Originally posted by maximus
your thinking in this area might be flawed. common experience in this matter may not prevail. just as virtual particle pairs in the universe rise out of nothingness and collapse back into in, so might our universe. never to be reincarnated. this is more of a hopeful philosopical view than a scientifically backed theory.
In my view, nothin' comes from nothin'..."there's ENERGY in them thar vacuums", bunky...from whence your baryonic matter has condensed out! "Matter" -- as you "know"? -- is "simply" BOUND-UP ENERGY.

I may be wrong, but...When stars are big enough -- and they burn up all their hydrogen -- do they not collapse in on themselves...then EXPLODE ...leaving behind a Black Hole...which, when combined/collapsed with all other Black Holes over the course of the lifetime of the Universe, MIGHT be that which causes Everything That Is to condence down into a SINGULARITY which might be HOT ENOUGH -- i.e., ENERGETIC ENOUGH -- to burst outward? Who knows? [?]

you just said it: agents of the universe! agents carry out purpose or intension. what is our purpose, or the anothers purpose through us? to have an experience? again, what experience might this be? and why do you think this? and how does this fit into the earlier quote? does this entity wish to have this experience multiple times? has it already had it? [/B]
The whole "purpose" of reincarnation -- for us and for the Universe -- is to have multiple NEW experiences...not the same one over and over. You ask "what experience might this be?" and I reply "No specifically designated experience. Just whatever experiences individuals cause via their intentions and actions ... to include falling in love, being rejected, crashing a car, building a telescope, having a baby, shooting your neighbor, clipping your toenails, and so forth."

Mostly, however, I believe it is the EMOTIONAL CONTENT of our experiences that the Universe is "interested in"...as this MIGHT be the "currency" of the "spirit"...what the spirit STORES/REMEMBERS over lifetimes.

What would YOU do, Maximus, if you were a complex and sentient Entity on the magnitude of the Universe? Just sit there knowing everything and doing nothing?

This is how I have come to postulate that the Universe is "out to have an Experience".
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • Biology and Medical
3
Replies
75
Views
8K
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
9K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
852
Back
Top