Yes, you can use inductive reasoning to leap to that as a possibility. Inductive reasoning is analogical reasoning; it doesn't prove that your concept is correct, it just shows it to be possible/plausible.
As a writer, I've already had the same thought myself; I am capable of creating an entire world with characters that feel very real and almost seem to write themselves, but they spawn out of me as a reflection of who I am.
So I have thought about how that suggests the possibility of a being above me from whom all the things that seem to be the "real world" could spawn in turn. Just as the writer has omnisicent and omnipotent control over the contents of the story and the characters who appear, "God" could potentially do the same thing except that instead of writing us down in a book, we are projected into 3D space and 4D reality... meaning "God" would be higher up in the dimensional level. But just as my most "alive" characters seem to have a life of their own, so would we...we might be generated as a reflection of the author but we still also act under our own volition within these dimensions.
Thank you. Just...thanks.
I agree with the concept, but I do not like you referring to people as "drones" due to the negative connotation. Yes, in a practical sense, "drones" exist in a hive and might all seem to just be about accomplishing a certain practical task without needing to imagine or consider in a "higher plane"... but the entire hive would collapse without the drones' existence and efforts. EVERYONE serves a purpose that is valued and necessary. You might not have meant to suggest a negative connotation, but unfortunately in American culture, the negative connotation is nowadays the standard definition of drone.
I understand full well the importance of such people, and I meant no offense. I didn't mean "drones" in the sense that a lot of people are them, but in the sense that everyone has a little "drone" in them. Everyone is individual, yet also interconnected, and when you get right down to it (and take the body away), where one person ends and another begins becomes a very vague line. What are we, but a governing force over a collection of thoughts, memories, and ideas, many of which remain relatively similar, regardless of who they belong to. You see that chair, and I see that chair; it's the same sensation. It's what we as individuals
do with that sensation that counts.
Yeah, you gotta watch this. You distastefully come across as an elitist and rather inexperienced in life. At this stage of my existence, after getting to know lots of types of people, I don't really care if someone is a janitor, a secretary, a DOT worker, a scientist, a theologian, or a dog catcher: We ALL have worlds living within us, bright unique specifics worlds full of hopes and dreams, an entire mysterious array of worlds, and your attitude comes off as dismissive and short-sighted. Dreamers are valuable... but so is everyone else.
As much as I appreciate you protecting the masses, that is not at all what I said, or meant to say. I'm not insulting people, or looking down on them, or dismissing them as inferior, or anything even remotely like that; I am simply describing how things work, from a purely objective standpoint, in an imagined reality by using my own as reference. I apologize again for giving that impression.
Free will is an assumption.
No one is completely free.
You are currently caught in webs of thinking just from the culture, time period, physical body, family, ethnic background, and economic group you have been raised in, among other things.
You might feel like you have the power of choice, but all the choices that you have have already been handed to you and you're not aware of choices outside of them.
An argument I've heard before, and one I don't believe, though I can respect that you do.
No, I missed your large leap from the prior paragraph to this one.
Yeah, I kinda put that in for dramatic effect...
*sheepish grin*
Though now that I look back on it, there isn't really a leap to make, because the connections (between the paragraphs) necessary for such a leap aren't there. I tried to explain it in the next part of the second paragraph.
On the other hand, this rather ties in to the previous bit. We, as members of this mess of creation called the world, are all a part of God's mind. However, my point is, if we're all sentient, are we all, in some way, "God", in the same sense that the more sentient characters in my paracosm (imagined world; I just learned that word) are me, recognized and named as aspects of myself?
It is difficult to explain; like the Holy Trinity, actually, but if this is true, then, and I mean this in the humblest possible sense,
we decide what
God thinks, and
God decides what
we think, and those distinctions are too close together to remain separate.
Is there a discernible rational answer to that? Or is it just the stuff of speculation?
How should I know?
It sounds more the realm of philosophy, religion, and creativity.
Which is why I chose Philosophy and Spirituality.
Yes, it somehow became a discussion of a particular sect of Christian doctrine.
Yes, I suppose it did.
Yeah, that was the standard Christian boilerplate there.
(How's it feel to be the spawn of Satan?)
Tiring. The way I see it, Jesus himself was a radical at the time, full to the brim with new ideas that contradicted what many people thought. I ask myself sometimes whether, if he came back now, anyone would recognize him.