Consciousness = Soul

[OptoGypsy]

So the fact that humans can think critically is evidence of god? Are you saying critical thinking must require a supernatural explanation (god) rather than a naturalistic one such as the fact humans have a highly developed prefrontal cortex which is directly related to critical thinking?

That's your evidence?

I'm claiming this when I say dualism, I'll go into depth after class

 

[ZNP-TBA]

That doesn't change the fact that the probability of Gods existence is higher than his non existence, if you want to prove me wrong let's play a game of mental gymnastics otherwise you are trying to appeal to my emotions which if something I expect from a feeler not an entp

I don't care too much for mental gymnastics or emotional appeal, especially as regards this topic. I care about evidence to which there is none so productive discussion is extremely limited. So I see you changed your title. So now the argument is that Consciousness = God? Ok great, you're still in the conundrum of having to produce evidence for such a claim. In public debate with people that have a relatively high IQ you don't just get to assert things and pretend its true as if people should already know.

If consciousness=god then does the unconscious person ( I'm talking about a vegetated ill person hooked up to machines for sustenance) completely have nothing to do with God? Also , how do you know consciousness = God? Some of the best minds in the world have been trying to figure out consciousness and nobody has really figured it out yet. We have bits and pieces and we're slowly beginning to piece together something but our knowledge is still far off from any kind of certain claims like you just made that consciousness=God. Do you have some in depth knowledge of consciousness that most other people including the most brilliant researchers in the world are lacking? Also, why are we shoving god into the realm of ignorance here? Haven't we've done this for centuries where the things we don't understand yet we attribute to some supernatural explanation until we discover natural evidence to the contrary. When we discover actual explanations for things we tend to push the supernatural ones back. Is not our ignorance about consciousness in the same camp?

Then you say the probability of God's existence is higher than it not being true. That's a very interesting claim. Based on what?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I'm claiming this when I say dualism, I'll go into depth after class

Please understand what I'm asking for. I'm not asking you to explain your understanding of concepts like dualism, absurdity, or schizophrenic gerbils. I'm just asking for real tangible evidence for some of the claims being made such as god exists or consciousness=god. That's all.

 

[OptoGypsy]

Please understand what I'm asking for. I'm not asking you to explain your understanding of concepts like dualism, absurdity, or schizophrenic gerbils. I'm just asking for real tangible evidence for some of the claims being made such as god exists or consciousness=god. That's all.

Here is what I have, to quote Sam Harris "While there is much to be said against the naive conception of a soul that is independent of the brain, the place of consciousness in the natural world is very much open to question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it... nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, declares it to be a bearer of that peculiar, interior dimension that each of us experiences as consciousness in his own case... and so, while we know many things about ourselves in anatomical, physiological and evolutionary terms, we currently have no idea why it is "like something to be what we are. The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand, the fact that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative characters, is an absolute mystery... the problem is that our experience of brains, as objects in the world, leaves us perfectly insensible to the reality of consciousness, while our experience as brains grants us knowledge of nothing else." To be the result of a mindless events is one thing: to be a kind of plan or true account of the laws according to which those mindless events happened is quite another. To quote C.S Lewis " The
Gulf stream produces all sorts of results: for instance, the temperature of the Irish Sea. What it does not produce is maps of the Gulf Stream. But if logic, as we find it operative in our own minds, is really a result of mindless nature, then it is a result as improbable as that. The laws whereby logic obliges us to think turn out to be the laws according to which every event om space and time must happen.
the man who thinks this an ordinary or probable result does not really understand. It is... as if, when I knocked out my pipe, the ashes of a knocked-out pipe.' But if the validity of knowledge cannot be explained in that way, and if perpetual happy coincidence throughout the whole of recorded time is out of the question, then surely we must seek the real explanation elsewhere... Where thought is strictly rational it must be, in some odd sense, not ours, but cosmic or super cosmic." This is why I believe Lord Bertrand was wrong in his "Worship of a Free Man" essay. I don't think this is what you're looking for nor me claiming that the chances of our universe existing being 10^500 shows that there is a strong probability for the existence of the divine in necessity as in the way mathematics exists. Therefore before this becomes a reduction ad absurdum as we both think differently I will put a stop to it.


With that being said do you think I'm accurately typed?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Here is what I have, to quote Sam Harris "While there is much to be said against the naive conception of a soul that is independent of the brain, the place of consciousness in the natural world is very much open to question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it... nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, declares it to be a bearer of that peculiar, interior dimension that each of us experiences as consciousness in his own case... and so, while we know many things about ourselves in anatomical, physiological and evolutionary terms, we currently have no idea why it is "like something to be what we are. The fact that the universe is illuminated where you stand, the fact that your thoughts and moods and sensations have a qualitative characters, is an absolute mystery... the problem is that our experience of brains, as objects in the world, leaves us perfectly insensible to the reality of consciousness, while our experience as brains grants us knowledge of nothing else." To be the result of a mindless events is one thing: to be a kind of plan or true account of the laws according to which those mindless events happened is quite another. To quote C.S Lewis " The
Gulf stream produces all sorts of results: for instance, the temperature of the Irish Sea. What it does not produce is maps of the Gulf Stream. But if logic, as we find it operative in our own minds, is really a result of mindless nature, then it is a result as improbable as that. The laws whereby logic obliges us to think turn out to be the laws according to which every event om space and time must happen.
the man who thinks this an ordinary or probable result does not really understand. It is... as if, when I knocked out my pipe, the ashes of a knocked-out pipe.' But if the validity of knowledge cannot be explained in that way, and if perpetual happy coincidence throughout the whole of recorded time is out of the question, then surely we must seek the real explanation elsewhere... Where thought is strictly rational it must be, in some odd sense, not ours, but cosmic or super cosmic." This is why I believe Lord Bertrand was wrong in his "Worship of a Free Man" essay. I don't think this is what you're looking for nor me claiming that the chances of our universe existing being 10^500 shows that there is a strong probability for the existence of the divine in necessity as in the way mathematics exists. Therefore before this becomes a reduction ad absurdum as we both think differently I will put a stop to it.


With that being said do you think I'm accurately typed?

Sam Harris and C.S. Lewis were not neuroscientists nor were they involved with any large field study of consciousness. So, how, from all of that, do you come up with "therefore, God!" To make that positive claim requires evidence or you have to humble yourself to admitting you simply don't know.

I don't think this is what you're looking for nor me claiming that the chances of our universe existing being 10^500 shows that there is a strong probability for the existence of the divine in necessity as in the way mathematics exists. Therefore before this becomes a reduction ad absurdum as we both think differently I will put a stop to it.

Nobody actually knows the probability of our universe existing. Because we have to ask compared to what? We don't know for certain what the status of our universe was prior to the Big Bang( if the BBT is true) or if our universe sort of always existed. It's very hard to speculate without sufficient evidence to use as an anchor to reality. Mathematics doesn't exist actually. It's an abstract concept human invented for understanding nature. However, math is consistent and its universality is derived from the stable cause and effect properties of reality. This makes math a great descriptive tool we can apply to reality. However, math can be perfectly consistent and not have anything to do with reality. Think of Ptolemy's circles within circles theory of the solar system.

I think the argument you're trying to put forward here is that since the universe appears to be so fine tuned that we can exist, which is an enormous amount of complexity, then only a divine being can be the answer. Is this at all accurate?

If it is I have a couple objections and maybe you'll find them of some value.

1) There's no actual evidence for any of these claims. Just speculation and crafty argumentation.

2) Almost every part of the observable universe is hostile to mankind. What I mean is that if the universe was specifically fine tuned for us (life) by some grand supernatural designer then why can we only sustain in this infinitesimally small spec of silicate matter called Earth and pretty much no where else in the observable universe without massive man made technological assistance? Wouldn't a well designed universe be more accommodating to well designed creation?

3) If a supernatural designer is required to account for all this complexity because something complex requires a designer, then it would stand to reason that any designer is more complex than that which it designed.But if the claim is something very complex requires a designer, and the designer is even more complex than that, then, by logical induction, what designed the designer?

(TL;DR for 3, the argument is shit is complex, complex shit needs a designer...so , the designer himself is complex and if complex shit needs a designer , who the fuck designed the designer? ... I added the graphic language for effect)

In all instances it seems like "God" is a non-answer.


I don't know if you're accurately typed. I don't know you.

 

[OptoGypsy]

Sam Harris and C.S. Lewis were not neuroscientists nor were they involved with any large field study of consciousness. So, how, from all of that, do you come up with "therefore, God!" To make that positive claim requires evidence or you have to humble yourself to admitting you simply don't know.



Nobody actually knows the probability of our universe existing. Because we have to ask compared to what? We don't know for certain what the status of our universe was prior to the Big Bang( if the BBT is true) or if our universe sort of always existed. It's very hard to speculate without sufficient evidence to use as an anchor to reality. Mathematics doesn't exist actually. It's an abstract concept human invented for understanding nature. However, math is consistent and its universality is derived from the stable cause and effect properties of reality. This makes math a great descriptive tool we can apply to reality. However, math can be perfectly consistent and not have anything to do with reality. Think of Ptolemy's circles within circles theory of the solar system.

I think the argument you're trying to put forward here is that since the universe appears to be so fine tuned that we can exist, which is an enormous amount of complexity, then only a divine being can be the answer. Is this at all accurate?

If it is I have a couple objections and maybe you'll find them of some value.

1) There's no actual evidence for any of these claims. Just speculation and crafty argumentation.

2) Almost every part of the observable universe is hostile to mankind. What I mean is that if the universe was specifically fine tuned for us (life) by some grand supernatural designer then why can we only sustain in this infinitesimally small spec of silicate matter called Earth and pretty much no where else in the observable universe without massive man made technological assistance? Wouldn't a well designed universe be more accommodating to well designed creation?

3) If a supernatural designer is required to account for all this complexity because something complex requires a designer, then it would stand to reason that any designer is more complex than that which it designed.But if the claim is something very complex requires a designer, and the designer is even more complex than that, then, by logical induction, what designed the designer?

(TL;DR for 3, the argument is shit is complex, complex shit needs a designer...so , the designer himself is complex and if complex shit needs a designer , who the fuck designed the designer? ... I added the graphic language for effect)

In all instances it seems like "God" is a non-answer.


I don't know if you're accurately typed. I don't know you.

I guess it's just what makes most sense to me, I would have to agree with 1) they are intuitive leaps of faith, but I believe that they are the best arguments until proven otherwise 2) I don't have an answer for this question, perhaps they were to be made to inhabited or in the future we are to become spirits(A.I) as in 2001 a space odyssey (which isn't an argument) 3. Minds are simple that produce complex thoughts taking us back to the original argument, in which at this point all I can do is quote Kierkegaard "take a leap of faith". An analogy I find to be a good one is that with networking computers: no-one thinks that all the computers attached to the entire world-wide web understand anything, so it looks like understanding ins't a matter of complexity but of an entirely different ontological category. Is there a questionnaire on this forum that I can fill in?

 

[Lark]

Did I post in this thread already?

Yeah, I think God is consciousness, not limited to that though.

 

[INTP]

The unconscious in our heart, where our emotions and intuitions span from, the consciousness is what we use to reason out propositions. I agree with you, the moral heart is written in each persons heart, religion is not to be used to brainwash people to do good by doctrine and fear of hell... this approach only leads God to be as ridiculous as Santa Claus and instead of needing God what we would need is more pigs infested into our cities. Every moral compass is the mark of God rather the person wants to admit it or not, one does not need to believe in God to be a good person. Unconsciousness is our DNA makeup and the conscious is what people refer to as the soul.

Actually most(if not all) of the reasoning you are referring to is actually just a rationalization to what ever the unconscious mind tells you. DNA is not our unconscious, its the collective unconscious(even jung said this), or well at least the blue prints for it. Our personal unconscious is built upon the collective and involves all of the brain activity that you are not aware at the time, even the ones you are now aware of are in the domain of the unconscious mind after a second. Some of the stuff is more easily accessible than others, depending on how they are wired in your brains(and the wiring changes all the time). The stuff most accessible is closest to the ego, especially those things about ourselves that we accept as a part of ourselves. Now ego doesent equal consciousness, but is the thing that directs our consciousness. It is also what tempts us, leads us to sin etc and i dont think its a coincidence that nearly all religions aim towards god by trying to get rid of the ego and/or its influences, either by religious texts that aim to take its influence away(like by teaching to act according to, well whats pretty much the opposite what ego would otherwise want), meditating or inducing a trance by dance, using hallucinogens or what ever. Even the australian aboriginals who separated from the rest of the world ages ago think that dream world is the realm of the gods, american natives take DMT, LSA, psilocybin, mescaline or what have you to see the god(s) and those are basically quick ways to get rid of your ego without going to sleep. Many of the biblical revelations came from dreams, angels appeared in dreams etc etc and im pretty sure you know that when you are dreaming, you dont function according to ego.

But the problem really is that without ego, we would basically just be another animal amongst others, without free will(if we even really have that in the first place), without morals etc. But maybe that would be the only way to REALLY connect with god, to truly become a part of the world(which god is also said to be). You can this being hinted in the bible in the story of adam and eve. Adam and eve were basically animals and had no ego, and god intended it that way. But the devil gave them the knowledge of good and evil(which basically is part of what we now call ego) and god banished them from the paradise because of this. In other words the devil gave us ego and it led us away from god.

That doesn't change the fact that the probability of Gods existence is higher than his non existence

I dont think so. There is just too much points to each side and any argument can basically be countered, you will always end up with both being equally probable or improbable, so it just comes down to faith. Not to mention that you cant prove that something doesent exist except via rationalization, but you cant even prove that you are not in a matrix(that argument alone makes it impossible to prove anything).

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I guess it's just what makes most sense to me, I would have to agree with 1) they are intuitive leaps of faith, but I believe that they are the best arguments until proven otherwise

I don't think leaps of faith are necessary. I don't see those as the 'best arguments' either because the argument is basically "god in the gaps" or claiming god in ignorance. There are mysteries we haven't figured out through naturalistic means yet so we've attributed these things to "god." That's just adding more questions (now about an entity called god) than answers and that goes against Occam's razor. What we do know is that things we've previously not understood about the world/universe in the past we've attributed to god but have been eventually discovered through naturalistic means ( electricity, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) Not that we've figured everything out ( we never will probably) but what we do know is considerable and no god in the gaps or supernatural explanation required.

2) I don't have an answer for this question, perhaps they were to be made to inhabited or in the future we are to become spirits(A.I) as in 2001 a space odyssey (which isn't an argument)

It actually doesn't seem so intelligently designed, does it?

3. Minds are simple that produce complex thoughts taking us back to the original argument, in which at this point all I can do is quote Kierkegaard "take a leap of faith". An analogy I find to be a good one is that with networking computers: no-one thinks that all the computers attached to the entire world-wide web understand anything, so it looks like understanding ins't a matter of complexity but of an entirely different ontological category. Is there a questionnaire on this forum that I can fill in?

Actually human minds are quite complex. If they were simple we'd know much more than we do now such as more answers to consciousness. But if the complexity of the universe isn't a reason for god then what is? Why even suggest a god at the root of everything? Seems like its not really needed. Taking a leap of faith isn't necessary if you're humble enough to accept "you don't know" because you really don't , neither do I. I'm ok with that because I think we will eventually find out more.

I think there are personality tests on this forum you can find.

 

[OptoGypsy]

Did I post in this thread already?

Yeah, I think God is consciousness, not limited to that though.

You misunderstood my argument

 

[OptoGypsy]

Actually most(if not all) of the reasoning you are referring to is actually just a rationalization to what ever the unconscious mind tells you. DNA is not our unconscious, its the collective unconscious(even jung said this), or well at least the blue prints for it. Our personal unconscious is built upon the collective and involves all of the brain activity that you are not aware at the time, even the ones you are now aware of are in the domain of the unconscious mind after a second. Some of the stuff is more easily accessible than others, depending on how they are wired in your brains(and the wiring changes all the time). The stuff most accessible is closest to the ego, especially those things about ourselves that we accept as a part of ourselves. Now ego doesent equal consciousness, but is the thing that directs our consciousness. It is also what tempts us, leads us to sin etc and i dont think its a coincidence that nearly all religions aim towards god by trying to get rid of the ego and/or its influences, either by religious texts that aim to take its influence away(like by teaching to act according to, well whats pretty much the opposite what ego would otherwise want), meditating or inducing a trance by dance, using hallucinogens or what ever. Even the australian aboriginals who separated from the rest of the world ages ago think that dream world is the realm of the gods, american natives take DMT, LSA, psilocybin, mescaline or what have you to see the god(s) and those are basically quick ways to get rid of your ego without going to sleep. Many of the biblical revelations came from dreams, angels appeared in dreams etc etc and im pretty sure you know that when you are dreaming, you dont function according to ego.

But the problem really is that without ego, we would basically just be another animal amongst others, without free will(if we even really have that in the first place), without morals etc. But maybe that would be the only way to REALLY connect with god, to truly become a part of the world(which god is also said to be). You can this being hinted in the bible in the story of adam and eve. Adam and eve were basically animals and had no ego, and god intended it that way. But the devil gave them the knowledge of good and evil(which basically is part of what we now call ego) and god banished them from the paradise because of this. In other words the devil gave us ego and it led us away from god.



I dont think so. There is just too much points to each side and any argument can basically be countered, you will always end up with both being equally probable or improbable, so it just comes down to faith. Not to mention that you cant prove that something doesent exist except via rationalization, but you cant even prove that you are not in a matrix(that argument alone makes it impossible to prove anything).

I love the way you think, I'll study up on Carl Jung... my knowledge of psychology is The Selfish Gene by Dawkins lol. What I do know is that the subconscious reacts apx. 400 milliseconds before our consciousness kicks in (might be wrong about that fact) so it would follow that our thoughts appear from our subconscious be we rationalize (breaking down ideas to see if they contradict, and building up new ideas) using our consciousness?

 

[OptoGypsy]

I don't think leaps of faith are necessary. I don't see those as the 'best arguments' either because the argument is basically "god in the gaps" or claiming god in ignorance. There are mysteries we haven't figured out through naturalistic means yet so we've attributed these things to "god." That's just adding more questions (now about an entity called god) than answers and that goes against Occam's razor. What we do know is that things we've previously not understood about the world/universe in the past we've attributed to god but have been eventually discovered through naturalistic means ( electricity, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) Not that we've figured everything out ( we never will probably) but what we do know is considerable and no god in the gaps or supernatural explanation required.



It actually doesn't seem so intelligently designed, does it?



Actually human minds are quite complex. If they were simple we'd know much more than we do now such as more answers to consciousness. But if the complexity of the universe isn't a reason for god then what is? Why even suggest a god at the root of everything? Seems like its not really needed. Taking a leap of faith isn't necessary if you're humble enough to accept "you don't know" because you really don't , neither do I. I'm ok with that because I think we will eventually find out more.

I think there are personality tests on this forum you can find.

I understand what you're saying and all I can truly respond to that is the honest answer I gave to you earlier. Christianity may not be a doctrine(theory) about the past and future of the human soul but it is something we all undeniably experience on a daily basis rather it be objective morality, living a life of hell (without love, leading to gnashing of teeth), etc. In its right form it is a product of faith and not superstition. Faith being a product of trust while superstition is a product of fear and false science. "I don't know", truly is a great answer as all the individual facts to the whole have yet to appear. I believe it is naive to call faith irrational, as it is alive in the persons soul, as INTP stated in the subconscious. I just can't accept post modernism.


I'm an ISFP enneagram 5w4 Sx/Sp

 

[Lark]

You misunderstood my argument

How so?

By stating my opinion?

 

[Mole]

There are mysteries we haven't figured out through naturalistic means yet so we've attributed these things to "god." That's just adding more questions (now about an entity called god) than answers and that goes against Occam's razor. What we do know is that things we've previously not understood about the world/universe in the past we've attributed to god but have been eventually discovered through naturalistic means ( electricity, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) Not that we've figured everything out ( we never will probably) but what we do know is considerable and no god in the gaps or supernatural explanation required.

Round about 3,000 years ago, at the beginning of Western culture in Ancient Greece, we discovered that the supernatural are natural forces.

However our culture has a huge psychological and material investment in the supernatural. For instance, the USA won't elect a President unless they are a person of faith, that is, believes in the supernatural.

And Islam, for instance, actually kills people today for mocking the supernatural.

But still, the Ancient Greeks are the foundation of our culture, rediscovered in the Renaissance, the rebirth of Ancient Greek culture in the 15th century, and alive today in the West.

 

[EcK]

You misunderstood my argument

Ok. Got it. External locus of control.