What the God debate is really about

[Mudhammam]

If reality is entirely self-organizing, then you should agree that our own consciousness is not separate but that it is already embedded within the total, unified self-organizing system and therefore it is not confined to our brains only (nor any particular region of space, for that matter). Consciousness would not be something "emergent" in the universe, but rather inherent.

And if that is not so, then there has to be an external agent. But either way, you can't eliminate consciousness as being the initial/fundamental state of reality.

I posted plenty more thoughts on this topic in my Order vs. Randomness thread.

I would say that at bottom reality is self-organizing and this is evidenced by the continual discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology.

Concerning consciousness though, I would say it's only inherent when you have the right organization of molecules, which of course you may or may not get through natural selection. So beyond that I wouldn't say it is inherent or fundamental to reality (a distinction should be made here between MY reality, or mankind's perception of physical reality--on which consciousness is fundamental--and truly "objective reality"--on which I think it is not).

[Rayaan]

But again, the ability of bringing about the right organization of molecules for consciousness to arise must already be a part of the underlying "objective reality."


Accepting the idea that:

1. Our consciousness is a combination of the complex laws of physics, chemistry, and biology (all which are contained within the objective reality),

while maintaining that:

2. The objective reality itself is fundamentally non-conscious,

seems to be in conflict because it's as if you are implying that the objective reality (through the atoms and the laws of nature) started perceiving itself one day (through beings like you and me) and then regarded itself to be something non-conscious.

^ The point is that your consciousness and objective reality are deeply entangled. Your consciousness is a manifestation of objective reality. Therefore when you say that objective reality is not conscious, then you are technically saying that you yourself is not conscious, which you know is not true.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Does a conscious observer emerge from a self-organizing reality or does a self-organizing reality emerge from a conscious observer?

Very astute observation, succinctly stated.

[Mudhammam]

But again, the ability of bringing about the right organization of molecules for consciousness to arise must already be a part of the underlying "objective reality."


Accepting the idea that:

1. Our consciousness is a combination of the complex laws of physics, chemistry, and biology (all which are contained within the objective reality),

while maintaining that:

2. The objective reality itself is fundamentally non-conscious,

seems to be in conflict because it's as if you are implying that the objective reality (through the atoms and the laws of nature) started perceiving itself one day (through beings like you and me) and then regarded itself to be something non-conscious.

^ The point is that your consciousness and objective reality are deeply entangled. Your consciousness is a manifestation of objective reality. Therefore when you say that objective reality is not conscious, then you are technically saying that you yourself is not conscious, which you know is not true.

Hmm.. on some level, yes. We, the conscious observers, are an organized collection of innumerable infinitesimal atoms which themselves aren't conscious. I suppose within this objective reality exists the principle for potential consciousness to emerge if a number of conditions are met. But I wouldn't say this makes everything that comprises fundamental reality, or even yet the deeper underlying principles of that, conscious. Only some of it carries (at least that we currently know) within the potential for matter and energy to make consciousness possible. Now how these parts are connected to consciousness beyond our observer-observation relationship (or even how that works) to me seems like a matter of speculation at this point.

[*Deidre*]

Neither. There's nothing to ''observe.''

God is created from the minds of those who hope for a Creator to explain the things that mankind can't yet explain itself. We are not comfortable with the phrase, 'I don't know.' So, we create a 'God of the gaps,' so to speak.

There's nothing wrong with gaps. If God exists, he will fill them in, without us having to do so.

Just my 2 cents

Yes but I'm saying let's suspend the idea of God as he (it) is typically conceived by religion. I'm happy with just calling the higher powers that be what they are--universal laws, nature, etc.

Even from that, in just discussing nature, we still have these questions about reality that basically assume we are consciously observing "things" out there, "objects" composed of innumerable atoms and even smaller components. But what are objects? Has the self-organization of atoms brought forth beings that can understand themselves...or have our conscious minds sprung forth or evolved in some fundamentally unknowable way so that our perceptions are themselves responsible for this apparent cohesion, self-organization, of everything that we observe? No reason to invoke a deity, though I see this as really just a surface level manner of speaking about this greater mystery underlying our existence. Matter and energy operates through mechanistic laws to produce beings, composed entirely of the same materials as everything else in the Universe, that can observe and reflect on everything else, including themselves. Are you saying observation, that is, all we perceive, is an illusion?

All that we are aware of (conscious of) would exist without our awareness.
If someone is not conscious for whatever reason, the laws of physics and nature still prevail. Our consciousness is merely our ability to be aware of objective reality.

That's how I see it, no pun. :-)

[Mudhammam]

Yes but I'm saying let's suspend the idea of God as he (it) is typically conceived by religion. I'm happy with just calling the higher powers that be what they are--universal laws, nature, etc.

Even from that, in just discussing nature, we still have these questions about reality that basically assume we are consciously observing "things" out there, "objects" composed of innumerable atoms and even smaller components. But what are objects? Has the self-organization of atoms brought forth beings that can understand themselves...or have our conscious minds sprung forth or evolved in some fundamentally unknowable way so that our perceptions are themselves responsible for this apparent cohesion, self-organization, of everything that we observe? No reason to invoke a deity, though I see this as really just a surface level manner of speaking about this greater mystery underlying our existence. Matter and energy operates through mechanistic laws to produce beings, composed entirely of the same materials as everything else in the Universe, that can observe and reflect on everything else, including themselves. Are you saying observation, that is, all we perceive, is an illusion?

All that we are aware of (conscious of) would exist without our awareness.
If someone is not conscious for whatever reason, the laws of physics and nature still prevail. Our consciousness is merely our ability to be aware of objective reality.

That's how I see it, no pun. :-)

But consciousness varies from species to species. For example, snakes perceive infrared thermal radiation while bees are said to see ultraviolet colors. Imagine what consciences might be like in other animals that perceive different wavelengths of light-- vastly different! And they would never know what it's "really" like "out there" (at least as we do). Even in people, just altering chemicals in our brains change how we perceive objects, spatial dimensions, even time. And there's synesthetes: people whose neurological make up is such that when one sensory or cognitive pathway is stimulated, it leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway. Some always see numbers, for example, in distinct colors, or visualize sounds.

[*Deidre*]

I will need to ponder this one haha

But going with your thread title, the idea of a god existing isn't objective reality for anyone. I think where you're going with this is that my objective reality is different say from another species' objective reality, based on how our consciousness is "wired." So, if someone believes in a god, might one exist? But, objective reality for other species is still observable. No one can "observe" an idea. God is just an idea that people have of him/it. No one to date, has ever observed him. Which is why the Jesus story took shape, a human being serving as "God incarnate."

The imagination of man isn't objective reality.

Not sure if that's where you're heading but judging from the thread title, I assumed so.

[Mudhammam]

I think where you're going with this is that my objective reality is different say from another species' objective reality, based on how our consciousness is "wired."

A whole 'nother can of worms! It never ends!

So, if someone believes in a god, might one exist?

Exactly. But only as a conscious thought. How real is that? Is it less real than any other thoughts in my head, which would obviously include everything I perceive?

But, objective reality for other species is still observable. No one can "observe" an idea. God is just an idea that people have of him/it. No one to date, has ever observed him. Which is why the Jesus story took shape, a human being serving as "God incarnate."

Well sure, I can't argue that the Christian story is entirely retarded. And I can't argue that mankind has imagination and that this works differently then however our sensual perceptions work. I'm more focused on our sensual perceptions, and you could throw language in there (for example, how do you describe the color red to a blind person?). What is the nature of imagination exactly? Is it just part of everything else? That is, is my conception of myself as a physical being, my physical brain AND my "mind's eye", all these things that I perceive as objective reality and subjectivity reality (and they always increase through scientific discovery, as do their distinction), merely "wired" into my consciousness that way, which is itself fundamentally unknowable?

The imagination of man isn't objective reality.

But are you sure? Think about how mankind as a whole perceived objective reality 150 years ago. 500 years ago. 2,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago. Does it really resemble the "objective reality" we seem to live in now, where practically everything is primarily composed of ridiculously microscopic particles jumping around in empty space? Where will we be in 500 or 1,000 years? Will "objective reality" still look like anything we perceive now? Yes, I suppose on a very practical, macroscopic level. Or perhaps our human brains are wired in such a way that we will continually compartmentalize matter into even smaller definitions ad infinitum? I don't know if we can ever really know these things, or objective reality, if that's what it is that always just seems a few steps ahead of us.

---

I also realize we could easily slip back into Platonic philosophy if we take this too far. Lol.

[MindForgedManacle]

If reality is entirely self-organizing, then you should agree that our own consciousness is not separate but that it is already embedded within the total, unified self-organizing system and therefore it is not confined to our brains only (nor any particular region of space, for that matter). Consciousness would not be something "emergent" in the universe, but rather inherent.

Woah, wait, what? Slippery slope bro. Reality being self-organizing would not entail consciousness not being an emergent property of brains. It would just mean that this self-organization can bring about complex phenomena, not that it is ontologically fundamental. Quantum systems are always interacting and yet it is still perfectly sensible to talk about the interactions of separate quantum systems and the emergent properties of those systems that are not present in the lower levels of reality, such as entropy.

And if that is not so, then there has to be an external agent. But either way, you can't eliminate consciousness as being the initial/fundamental state of reality.

Bare assertion and a stupid one at that. Or are you going to present your argument for the truth of metaphysical idealism and your refutation of metaphysical realism? I'm waiting.

I posted plenty more thoughts on this topic in my Order vs. Randomness thread.

If your post here is any indication, I shudder to venture there.

[*Deidre*]

I think where you're going with this is that my objective reality is different say from another species' objective reality, based on how our consciousness is "wired."

A whole 'nother can of worms! It never ends!

So, if someone believes in a god, might one exist?

Exactly. But only as a conscious thought. How real is that? Is it less real than any other thoughts in my head, which would obviously include everything I perceive?

But, objective reality for other species is still observable. No one can "observe" an idea. God is just an idea that people have of him/it. No one to date, has ever observed him. Which is why the Jesus story took shape, a human being serving as "God incarnate."

Well sure, I can't argue that the Christian story is entirely retarded. And I can't argue that mankind has imagination and that this works differently then however our sensual perceptions work. I'm more focused on our sensual perceptions, and you could throw language in there (for example, how do you describe the color red to a blind person?). What is the nature of imagination exactly? Is it just part of everything else? That is, is my conception of myself as a physical being, my physical brain AND my "mind's eye", all these things that I perceive as objective reality and subjectivity reality (and they always increase through scientific discovery, as do their distinction), merely "wired" into my consciousness that way, which is itself fundamentally unknowable?

The imagination of man isn't objective reality.

But are you sure? Think about how mankind as a whole perceived objective reality 150 years ago. 500 years ago. 2,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago. Does it really resemble the "objective reality" we seem to live in now, where practically everything is primarily composed of ridiculously microscopic particles jumping around in empty space? Where will we be in 500 or 1,000 years? Will "objective reality" still look like anything we perceive now? Yes, I suppose on a very practical, macroscopic level. Or perhaps our human brains are wired in such a way that we will continually compartmentalize matter into even smaller definitions ad infinitum? I don't know if we can ever really know these things, or objective reality, if that's what it is that always just seems a few steps ahead of us.

---

I also realize we could easily slip back into Platonic philosophy if we take this too far. Lol.

I view it like this, if you say you went fishing out on the ocean yesterday and saw a whale, I would have no reason to doubt you, because I know whales exist. Other than pictures, I've never seen a whale, however. But, because whales ARE real, they are observable by someone. Same with your example of the color red and how to explain it to a blind person. Because the color red has been proven to exist, it is observable and despite a blind person having no reference point for colors, it is objective reality.

Objective reality is based on either observations or scientific theories that offer plausible evidence. Just because our minds can't perceive various particles in the atmosphere, scientists have conducted studies to determine that they exist.

Now, if you were to say you talked to Santa Claus yesterday, I wouldn't believe you. For he is a myth, and not part of objective reality.

The paranormal is not part of objective reality either, for it can't be proven through mainstream science.

Mainstream science is the standard of which we base our objective reality.
This is why a god can't be "proven" to exist. Believing legends and hearsay doesn't translate to reality. (objectively speaking)

I have more to say on this; really fascinating topic you have chosen to discuss!