It's a God Theory

[theVOID]

Why doesn't a book or a table, for example, have the ability of self-perception like we do? Or to put it differently, what is it that makes a certain collection of inanimate matter be able to come to life and then perceive itself (such as the material in our bodies) whereas many other objects around us do not have such an ability (i.e. self-perception)?

Is this a serious question?

A book does not have the ability to distinguish it's self from anything else because it has no brain, no sensory input, no response mechanisms, no ability to model environments. We have these systems and they are of sufficient power to allow us to distinguish ourselves from the environment.

And as for us being "self aware", we are only aware of a tiny fraction of the brains total function, and it has entirely to do with input, response, analysis, memory, decision and action, these are the only actions that we really have any awareness of at all, and that awareness seems to arise one thought at a time. I am aware of my breathing, but not while I am thinking about what I am typing, my thoughts can flicker between breathing and what I am typing, and typing is interrupted by the breathing awareness, but I am never truly aware of both simultaneously.

It's unclear exactly how many animals are self aware, Elephants, Dolphins and Chimps are, so there are likely many others.

I can only think of one possible answer to this question,

We have the first "Incredulity" red flag already

which deals with the idea of self-reference. I'm not really concerned about all the DNA stuff and the chemical ingredients of life because individual atoms, or simply matter itself, cannot be the only thing which is responsible for the awareness of ourselves.

Bare assertion fallacy. We have direct evidence of the material brain function being related to self awareness, not only can brain damage (which only relates to the physical) change one's level of self-awareness, Certain experiments have temporarily turned it off - The person still functions in instinctual ways, their reflexes still work, they still breath etc, but after the experience is over they report not having any awareness at all.

There is something more abstract in the universe that causes a collection of lifeless particles to turn back on itself and to perceive itself and thus becoming alive. This is basically what is happening during the creation of life, which is, a type of self-referencing (or a feedback loop) in nature.

Bare assertion #2. Can you back any of this up?

However, I believe that such a self-referential nature of the universe is something abstract while also being something "alive" at the same time. Why? Because this is what allows matter to become alive, and to know itself and to learn about itself, so the underlying system should also be something alive itself (even though maybe it doesn't have any physical properties).

So you're saying that life cannot form by a long process consistent with our empirical foundation, but can exist spontaneously without creation from the beginning of time?



And a non-physical mind has no explanatory virtue, you might as well say *poof magic* did it.

It can also have knowledge and emotions just like we do, because the self-referential system has a mind of it's own, or a unique type of self, which makes it possible for us to have knowledge and emotions in the first place (because it can refer to itself). To me, this is a rational explanation for the mind-like nature of God in the sense that He is some kind of a pre-existing, self-referential system out of which all the types of awareness and mental faculties came from.

No, it's Bare Assertion #3

If we accept this idea, and if there are no alternate explanations (for how inanimate matter can become animate), then this would mean that there is an element of self-referentiality everywhere in the universe (which has a mind of its own), and I think that's what makes it possible for a "self" to come out of "non-selves" like the atoms in our bodies. To summarize this idea, here's a quote from a book entitled I am a Strange Loop, by Douglas Hofstadter, in which he says: "In the end, we self-perceiving, self-inventing, locked-in mirages are little miracles of self reference" (Hofstadter, 363).

1. We shouldn't accept this idea because you've got absolutely no support for it.

2. Even if there are no alternate explanations (which is false), this is a Gaps argument, we don't know X therefore Y is completely fallacious, A prime example of the argument from ignorance.

3. That quote seems completely non-religious. I agree that our minds are feedback loops, but they are material loops.

4. You think my body and brain are not my "self"? I completely disagree.

This is the closest philosophical theory that expresses the reason for my belief in a personal God and why it's even necessarily true for Him to exist.

It's a perfect demonstration of bad reasoning.

And even if your premises are true and your conclusion follows, how the fuck did you get to "personal god"