Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 1:43 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It's a God Theory
#1
It's a God Theory
I've been thinking about the possibility of such a concept of God (as I'm about to explain) for quite a long time. And I think it's a reasonable explanation for His existence.

I don't know if this idea is 100% true or not, but at least it makes sense to me from a philosophical point of view. After reading the post, you can explain what's wrong with it or simply tell me why you don't agree with what I wrote. Ask me questions if anything else needs to be clarified.

First, here's a question:

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)?

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

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). 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.

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).

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.
Reply
#2
RE: It's a God Theory



I believe you are attributing too much importance to self awareness, this was I believe a by product of the evolutionary process that our ancestors have gone through.

It may seem marvelous but so many things in evolution do.

If you acept that evolution happens then you accept that self awareness is one of the possible outcomes.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#3
RE: It's a God Theory
(November 10, 2010 at 3:42 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I believe you are attributing too much importance to self awareness, this was I believe a by product of the evolutionary process that our ancestors have gone through.

It may seem marvelous but so many things in evolution do.

If you acept that evolution happens then you accept that self awareness is one of the possible outcomes.

I accept that evolution happens and that it can give rise to self-awareness in living things.

But, what I'm essentially saying is that awareness should be something that is already present in the universe even before the time of evolution, and it exists everywhere at an abstract level of the universe, because for matter to organize itself into a living thing (through the process of evolution), there has to be a type of feedback loop that slowly evolves over time and that allows a creature to perceive itself. So, this is where the concept of self-reference is needed to explain the awareness of ourselves and every other creature as well. And I explained in my previous post why self-referentiality implies that there is a non-physical mind in the universe (which is also capable of perceiving itself since it is a self-referential system). Thanks for your input though. Smile
Reply
#4
RE: It's a God Theory
Quote:But, what I'm essentially saying is that awareness should be something that is already present in the universe even before the time of evolution, ...

You need proof for this assertion Rayann, and how do you go from this to a personal god? It just won't follow, what about the infinity of other possibilities and explanations for this 'self-referencing' you propose.
Reply
#5
RE: It's a God Theory
Books can't think because they don't have the chemical impulses required to simulate thought in a logic-processing brain structure. Also, we made books out of ground up stuff. That'd be like throwing somebody in a woodchipper and asking the chunks that come out if they can think.
Reply
#6
RE: It's a God Theory
(November 12, 2010 at 10:18 am)R-e-n-n-a-t Wrote: Books can't think because they don't have the chemical impulses required to simulate thought in a logic-processing brain structure. Also, we made books out of ground up stuff. That'd be like throwing somebody in a woodchipper and asking the chunks that come out if they can think.

But that's ridiculous.
Reply
#7
RE: It's a God Theory
Clearly in regards to desirable traits, we are all biased towards sentience because it is a trait we possess. "The universe came to be by a cosmic intelligence because it appears intelligent, and we appear intelligent." Yet, just as easily, one could examine this same universe and come to the conclusion that "The universe came to be by cosmic laws because all appears to be ruled by cosmic law and sentience is the result of both time and direction guided by said cosmic law."

Of course one could argue: "Well, who made these cosmic laws?"

And one could answer: "The laws abided by our universe are a product of the universe's formation. Like matter, energy, and time, they are interdependent."

"What determined their interdependence then?"

"It seems most probable other laws, though the pre-big bang period is still being studied extensively."

I haven't actually read Hawking and Mlodinow's "The Grand Design" yet, and I'm not well versed in the M-theory so I can't elaborate much on that point; but, assuming there is an intelligence or intelligences -- what if god, or gods evolved? What if a rise to sentience was a gradual one for these celestial beings as well as organic ones, guided by the same non-sentient forces?

What if the gods have a lineage? The perpetrator of the 'big bang' created a vast universe with upwards of 100 billion galaxies, and if you're a proponent of the multiverse theory, quite possibly infinite others. What if the god/gods who took such a very special interest in this speck of rock we call Earth is a descendant of these (possibly near infinite) chain of deities? Since the existence and nature of these proposed creatures has never gone past speculation, or has any methodology in which to test their potential existence, it would be impossible to say with any degree of certainty what they are and what they are not -- what attributes they possess, and what attributes they do not possess, as the definition of 'god' and 'gods' is an incredibly fluid one. Intriguing concepts to muse over; however, self-awareness isn't a necessary component of the universe's known makeup, and proposing such an idea seems rather frivolous considering it's lack of evidentiary support.
"Faith is about taking a comforting, childlike view of a disturbing and complicated world." ~ Edward Current

[Image: Invisible_Pink_Unicorn_by_stampystampy.gif] [Image: 91b7ba0967f80c8c43c58fdf3fa0571a.gif] [Image: Secular_Humanist_by_MaruLovesStamps.gif]
Reply
#8
RE: It's a God Theory
(November 12, 2010 at 8:26 am)LastPoet Wrote: You need proof for this assertion Rayann, and how do you go from this to a personal god? It just won't follow, what about the infinity of other possibilities and explanations for this 'self-referencing' you propose.

I don't have a way of proving this scientifically, of course, but since it is a fact that we ourselves have the ability of self-perception, and yet made of stardust particles, it follows from here that there is a self-referential element in the universe that allows inanimate matter to build itself and organize itself, and then finally cause it to reflect on it's existence (as I'm doing right now by typing this post). I don't think there is any other explanation for our self-awareness which is simpler (and sounder) than what I have presented in this thread. If you think so, then feel free to post your ideas and/or scientific theories.

How did I go from this to a personal God? Well, it's because the idea of self-referentially in nature implies that a collection matter can perceive itself and become alive only when it can loop back on itself, such as the brain in a human body, and therefore, the most abstract level of reality is a "self" instead of a "non-self" (i.e. mainly because it is something that can refer to itself). And such an abstract type of self can be viewed as a personal God since it logically follows that anything that has a self can also have its own feelings and thoughts just like we do.

(November 12, 2010 at 10:18 am)R-e-n-n-a-t Wrote: Books can't think because they don't have the chemical impulses required to simulate thought in a logic-processing brain structure. Also, we made books out of ground up stuff. That'd be like throwing somebody in a woodchipper and asking the chunks that come out if they can think.

Yes, books can't think because they don't have a brain. But that's not where I'm getting at in this thread. Smile See the comments above.

(November 12, 2010 at 3:23 pm)Lethe Wrote: Of course one could argue: "Well, who made these cosmic laws?"

Either the laws created themselves or they were always there. But whichever of the two it is, there has to be a simpler explanation for the laws until we are left with one, single law which explains every other law in the universe. This ultimate law could be God Himself. And as I've been saying, He could be a self-referential type of law in the sense that He is a law for making all the other laws, as well as a law for giving rise to evolution, life, and even consciousness. And the law is alive itself because it is the source of our own aliveness.

In Islam, two of the attributes of God is that He is the All-Aware (Al-Khabeer) and the Alive (Al-Hayy). We also believe that He is the Self-Subsisting (Al-Qayoom). These are some of the qualities which are in agreement with my own theory on why these qualities are necessary in the first place to make it possible for inanimate matter to perceive itself and to become alive. That's why, it's reasonable for me to believe in such attributes of God as mentioned in Islam.

(November 12, 2010 at 3:23 pm)Lethe Wrote: Since the existence and nature of these proposed creatures has never gone past speculation, or has any methodology in which to test their potential existence, it would be impossible to say with any degree of certainty what they are and what they are not -- what attributes they possess, and what attributes they do not possess, as the definition of 'god' and 'gods' is an incredibly fluid one.

Yes, and one of my thoughts on atheism is that when a person says that he doesn't believe in God, he is not rejecting God, but only rejecting models (or concepts) of God.
Reply
#9
RE: It's a God Theory
(November 10, 2010 at 2:56 pm)Rayaan Wrote: 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.

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

We have the first "Incredulity" red flag already Smile

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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?

Quote: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?

ROFLOL

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

Quote: 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 Smile

Quote: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.

Quote: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"
.
Reply
#10
RE: It's a God Theory
It's a tricky area. A lot of good arguments on both sides. But as Father Ted would say, it's an ecumenical matter.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Hybrid theory between freewill and determinism Won2blv 18 4198 July 26, 2017 at 10:57 am
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Attention Schema Theory Won2blv 0 462 February 18, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Last Post: Won2blv
  What is the best theory for what intelligence is? DespondentFishdeathMasochismo 30 5533 December 7, 2015 at 10:10 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Chaos theory MagetheEntertainer 25 3754 July 15, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Last Post: FreeTony
  Hidden God theory ziyadalvi 12 3997 July 27, 2013 at 9:00 am
Last Post: ziyadalvi
  Mandelbrot Fractal and Watchmaker theory as proof for gods existence? Mystical 13 4592 April 10, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Justification Theory: Preliminary Questions Nimzo 4 2249 May 8, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Nimzo
  Theory of MI Sarcasm 0 1053 April 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Last Post: Sarcasm
  Your theory of justification? theVOID 33 9168 March 11, 2011 at 6:03 am
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)