Here is a interesting thought

[Angrboda]

Is somebody going to tell him that the Matrix movies drew upon themes from multiple world religions?

I guess not.




Since the beginning of recorded history, mankind has puzzled about what makes life and mind what it is. In that, such speculations have generally tracked understanding of physics and devices of the time. For some ancients, the breath was associated with life, and the substance of man with the breath. The Stoics imagined fire as the universal animating principle, and thus the nature of mind was an interaction between the fire of god and the air or breath of the pneuma. Somewhere along the way, the spirit became incorporeal. However, when machines were developed, the ideas of the self echoed the fascination with machines by imagining clockwork beings, powered by steam or electricity. Now that the epitome of a thinking machine is a computer, the mind is analogized to a computer, despite the fact that the computational architecture of the brain is vastly different. I occasionally visit with a group which studies the works of Jane Roberts, who channels an entity known as Seth. At one such meeting, I came across a passage in one of their books which referred to a record of all conscious activity and thought, similar to the Akashic record, yet true to form for a modern author, the records were stored in a type of computer-like data bank.

---

In philosophy, one theory of justification, of knowing whether or not something is true or justified, is whether it is consistent with whatever else is known and believed. (Not to be confused with the coherence theory of truth. This form of 'coherentism' is about justification, not truth per se.) I haven't had time to pursue my studies in that direction, but what I suspect from my brief glances and other studies is, that while coherence or consistency is a necessary part of justification, it by itself is not sufficient to guarantee truth. Unfortunately, a lot of theological speculation, such as this here, only satisfies coherence; it doesn't reach anywhere close to justifying believing it as true. But you can't tell that to many religious people; they think that if they can construct a coherent story, they're on to something. Perhaps, but you need considerably more before you should take such stories seriously.