what is a god

[Prometheus]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

A single god doesn't get betrayed by sibs and offspring.

But the Abrahamic mythology does include a large act of betrayal: Lucifer, bringer of light, and a third of the angels.

It's interesting to compare Christian and Greek mythology on this point because they both had 'bringers of light': Lucifer and Prometheus (of course). Christians interpret the snake in Eden to be Satan and encouraged mankind to take the knowledge of the gods. Prometheus stole divine fire from Olympus and gave it to mankind, thus sparking mankind's creativity. Quite similar, but generally in the former myth Satan is seen as evil, while Prometheus is a benefactor to mankind (although there are different accounts).

If Jesus had been born in India and declared himself son of god, perhaps not much fuss would be made as Hindus believe we are all the divine spark, all 'sons of god'. It seems Christian mythology is particularly against the ascendency of man as a technological or spiritual being. Some historians argue that The Protestant Reformation was necessary if the Renaissance was to be successful in Europe, as the movement was more inclined towards mankind's own work.

[Lasse]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

Some historians argue that The Protestant Reformation was necessary if the Renaissance was to be successful in Europe, as the movement was more inclined towards mankind's own

Protestant Reformation seeking the direct connection to God. The movement tried to clean the Christian religion from unnecessary aspects and seek to connect the individual directly to the Higher Intelligence (through Christianity) 

[Strange]

17 hours ago, Prometheus said:

This could actually be an interesting topic. The concept of gods has been developed by many (all?) cultures. I wonder how many of these were independent origins - is it something any isolated human society will develop or is it just a contagious idea?

If the basic concept arose with early man, then it could have diffused (and evolved) with them as they moved around the world. In that sense, even religions in, say, the Americas, could have a common origin with all religion.

But, more recently, we do know that there has been a lot of "cross-fertlization" of religious ideas around the world through all of recorded history. So some ideas from Buddhism (for example) may have been taken up by the Gnostic Christians. And so on.

17 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Also true monotheism seems only to have occured once in the world but has spread to become the dominant belief system. From what little i know of Jewish history their culture, centred around a monotheistic mythology, was paramount in surviving disasters, diasporas, slavery and wars.

I'm not sure about that. For example, you ruled out Zoroastrianism, but that is still going. And there are monotheistic versions of Hinduism. And Sikhism. And there were phases of monotheistic thought in Ancient Egypt.

But what is also interesting is the tendency away from monotheism. For example, the way the early christian church struggled to explain the "trinity" (and how most explanation became heresies, in favour of the "least polytheistic" version). Or the way many christian worship Mary and other saints almost more then their god.

This tension may explain why other monotheistic beliefs have not become as widespread. The Abrahamic faiths (other than Judaism) seem to have struck a good balance with an ostensibly monotheistic religion with a certain polytheistic flavour. Hence appeals to the widest range of people.

 

5 hours ago, Prometheus said:

It's interesting to compare Christian and Greek mythology on this point because they both had 'bringers of light': Lucifer and Prometheus (of course).

And Zoroastrianism.

And then there is Amaterasu in Japanese religion. In fact most religions have a had a Sun god, which isn't too surprising.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Strange

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Prometheus said:

But the Abrahamic mythology does include a large act of betrayal: Lucifer, bringer of light, and a third of the angels.

It's interesting to compare Christian and Greek mythology on this point because they both had 'bringers of light': Lucifer and Prometheus (of course). Christians interpret the snake in Eden to be Satan and encouraged mankind to take the knowledge of the gods. Prometheus stole divine fire from Olympus and gave it to mankind, thus sparking mankind's creativity. Quite similar, but generally in the former myth Satan is seen as evil, while Prometheus is a benefactor to mankind (although there are different accounts).

If Jesus had been born in India and declared himself son of god, perhaps not much fuss would be made as Hindus believe we are all the divine spark, all 'sons of god'. It seems Christian mythology is particularly against the ascendency of man as a technological or spiritual being. Some historians argue that The Protestant Reformation was necessary if the Renaissance was to be successful in Europe, as the movement was more inclined towards mankind's own work.

The Abrahamic god being betrayed by his creations still offers a more unified basis for worship than the pantheons of all-powerful beings warring amongst themselves. It's a strain on anyone's faith when offerings to one god might enrage another. Monotheism offered stability at a level beyond the ken of mankind by removing many of the seeming paradoxes involved in multiple instances of omnipotence.

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Prometheus said:

It's interesting to compare Christian and Greek mythology on this point because they both had 'bringers of light': Lucifer and Prometheus (of course). Christians interpret the snake in Eden to be Satan and encouraged mankind to take the knowledge of the gods. Prometheus stole divine fire from Olympus and gave it to mankind, thus sparking mankind's creativity. Quite similar, but generally in the former myth Satan is seen as evil, while Prometheus is a benefactor to mankind (although there are different accounts).

I think it's just different ways to describe yin and yang, light and dark, good and evil etc. Knowledge is a double-edged sword, it can confuse people, cause worry and anxiety if that knowledge seems to suggest there's something in the future to be frightened of, a bringer of light, for me suggests a teacher, someone to explain why a knowledge of the future is just an illusion (knowledge can only ever exist in the past) and it doesn't matter how certain one is of that future worrying about it won't change a thing. OTOH, knowledge can also improve our present. 

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The Abrahamic god being betrayed by his creations still offers a more unified basis for worship than the pantheons of all-powerful beings warring amongst themselves. It's a strain on anyone's faith when offerings to one god might enrage another. Monotheism offered stability at a level beyond the ken of mankind by removing many of the seeming paradoxes involved in multiple instances of omnipotence.

The problem we have today is, there's very little that is beyond our ken, but again that is a double-edged sword. We know God can't exist, well those of us that can think critically, and that knowledge can dismiss what's been written because of all the contradictions, that only exist because we know it wasn't written by God/s.

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

If the basic concept arose with early man, then it could have diffused (and evolved) with them as they moved around the world. In that sense, even religions in, say, the Americas, could have a common origin with all religion.

Seems a shame that that basic concept was chosen to diffuse and evolve instead of the Piraha and their concept.

Edited April 30, 2018 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The problem we have today is, there's very little that is beyond our ken, but again that is a double-edged sword. We know God can't exist, well those of us that can think critically, and that knowledge can dismiss what's been written because of all the contradictions, that only exist because we know it wasn't written by God/s.

We know certain claims can't be true, and we know where the writings err, but because of the way capital G God is defined, we can't know He can't exist. The Abrahamic God has chosen to be unobservable, and is therefore supernatural wrt science. Science can choose to ignore Him until He decides to pony up the evidence required, just like any other phenomena, but we can't claim He doesn't exist. He seems to have been created to withstand such reasoning.

But you're right about what we ken nowadays. There's fewer gaps for guesswork and faith to creep into, and we see gods aren't needed the way they used to be as explanations for various phenomena. But the concept is still powerful, and the emotions behind wishful thinking are difficult to overcome. They seem most resistant to critical thinking.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

but because of the way capital G God is defined, we can't know He can't exist.

Except we kinda do and we accept we don't need it, so it really doesn't matter either way.

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But the concept is still powerful, and the emotions behind wishful thinking are difficult to overcome. They seem most resistant to critical thinking.

Seems to be yet another double-edged sword just because it has become so polarised, there's a degree of blame on both sides if the argument is G/god.

 

[Moontanman]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Except we kinda do and we accept we don't need it, so it really doesn't matter either way.

Seems to be yet another double-edged sword just because it has become so polarised, there's a degree of blame on both sides if the argument is G/god.

 

Blame on both sides of what? There is only one side and two takes on that subject, one take is that there is a god, the other take is prove it... 

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Except we kinda do and we accept we don't need it, so it really doesn't matter either way.

I think it's more honest scientifically to say we can't know without evidence. The effect is the same, and it's intellectually more consistent, and it highlights the differences between beliefs based on faith and those based on trust.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Blame on both sides of what? There is only one side and two takes on that subject, one take is that there is a god, the other take is prove it... 

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think it's more honest scientifically to say we can't know without evidence. The effect is the same, and it's intellectually more consistent, and it highlights the differences between beliefs based on faith and those based on trust.

There is a third way, one that doesn't depend on God, faith or trust, being honest with oneself. I do understand that this is closer to science than religion but both sides are capable of this epiphany, the proximity of either side has little value without the final step. 

 

[NimrodTheGoat]

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Belief in the One Horn takes a special kind of person, and it's OK if you aren't enlightened, and don't understand the cosmic wisdom involved (I have a pamphlet if you like). Btw, unicorns destroyed all alien life eons ago, otherwise we'd see them, since aliens can't become invisible like unicorns. And I'm sticking to that. 

Gimme the pamphlet, please sir

Edited April 30, 2018 by NimrodTheGoat
proper ettiquette

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

If the basic concept arose with early man, then it could have diffused (and evolved) with them as they moved around the world. In that sense, even religions in, say, the Americas, could have a common origin with all religion.

The problem is that if it did occur that early the archeological evidence would be very difficult to verify. Trying to find the genesis of ceremonial burial might be the best bet?

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

For example, you ruled out Zoroastrianism, but that is still going. And there are monotheistic versions of Hinduism. And Sikhism.

I understand Zoroastrianism has two deities, a light and a dark one. I met a practicing Zoroastrian once - he was pessimistic about the survival of the religion. 

The 'monotheism' of Hinduism is very different to the Abrahamic god: there is but one Brahman (sometimes translated as god), but all things are manifestations of it, including gods. So there are many gods, or one god, or there is nothing but god depending how you look at it.

Sikhism developed so late i don't think it can qualify as independent: Islam and Christianity would certainly have been established in the minds of the first Sikhs.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

And then there is Amaterasu in Japanese religion. In fact most religions have a had a Sun god, which isn't too surprising.

The story of Lucifer is so similar to that of Prometheus i wonder how much of one is simply the retelling of another, but casting the other side as the 'baddies' to give a different cultural narrative.

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Monotheism offered stability at a level beyond the ken of mankind by removing many of the seeming paradoxes involved in multiple instances of omnipotence.

Maybe, but how were these polytheistic faiths actually practiced? My understanding was that many of the deities complemented each other rather than antogonised each other. I've no idea how well neo-pagan movements reflect old pagan worship but that is how they practice. 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I think it's just different ways to describe yin and yang, light and dark, good and evil etc.

But the way it teaches religions to interact with and experience existence are quite different. Abrahamic theology casts the world as a battle between good and evil and encourages believers to so segregate the world, including themselves.Taoism observes the world as the interplay between light and dark, each utterly dependent on the other, including themselves. In the former it makes sense to try to rid the world of evil, the latter it makes no sense to try to rid the world of evil. Could explain the, uh, enthusiastic techniques of the Abrahamic faiths spreading the word, while other religions were more passive in that regard.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But the way it teaches religions to interact with and experience existence are quite different. Abrahamic theology casts the world as a battle between good and evil and encourages believers to so segregate the world, including themselves.Taoism observes the world as the interplay between light and dark, each utterly dependent on the other, including themselves. In the former it makes sense to try to rid the world of evil, the latter it makes no sense to try to rid the world of evil. Could explain the, uh, enthusiastic techniques of the Abrahamic faiths spreading the word, while other religions were more passive in that regard.

But isn't that just a matter of interpretation?

Edited April 30, 2018 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There is a third way, one that doesn't depend on God, faith or trust, being honest with oneself. I do understand that this is closer to science than religion but both sides are capable of this epiphany, the proximity of either side has little value without the final step? 

 

 Please elaborate, being honest with yourself? Final step? I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say... 

[Prometheus]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But isn't that just a matter of interpretation?

Yes. But my point is that it could make for very different societies, some more aggressive than others. Maybe that aggression is what is required for a religion to spread far and wide: an evolutionary trait if you like.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Yes. But my point is that it could make for very different societies, some more aggressive than others. Maybe that aggression is what is required for a religion to spread far and wide: an evolutionary trait if you like.

Food for thought, the caveat being, the point at which the interpretation occurs.

[Velocity_Boy]

I believe that the whole notion or idea of gods originated hundreds of thousands of years ago, if not longer, when those bipedal hominid primates that would evolve into homo sapiens first attained self awareness. And by proxy, the ability to fret about the future and to make plans and to know that he would dome day die.

So gods, or some other term for a timeless supernatural all powerful entity were invented. Conjured up ad a way to explain most important but as then unexplainable occurrences. Like storms and earthquakes and fires and plagues.

Some neurologists will tell you that the human brain is hardwired for belief in gods. That it came about as a by product of our evolved brains. That we once maybe even needed this belief, but not so much nowadays. That its, like nipples on men and our fight or flight responses... A vestigal trait.

And no..there is of course no proof of gods. Not a scintilla in all these millennia! Not even a hint if a god. Other than those holy books from the godists.

And again, yes...there is indeed every chance in the world that those books and fables are just that....fables and mythos stemming from ancient minds trying to make sense of their world. And trying to justify their deeds and console themselves with soothing ideas such ad an afterlife and a loving and caring creator sky god.

[Gees]

iNow;

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:30 AM, iNow said:

Uhuh. You were speaking to a specific individual member. You felt the need to point out “you likely won’t understand.” You do this often. You should work on avoiding that.

There is a documentary video floating around the forum where Feynman tries to explain magnets. He states that he can give an easy answer, but it won't give any real understanding. Then he explains that in order to really understand it, you would have to study physics and probably be one of his students.

What is the difference in what I said and what he said? There is only one difference; you think he is brilliant and you think I am an idiot. The attitude problem is yours. If you go back and read my post again, but this time pretend that the writer is someone who is knowledgeable and a little brilliant, you will find no difference in what I said and what he said.

 

Quote

Don’t try to conflate your treatment of individual respondents with your perceptions of forums, topic titles, and related exchanges. They’re not equivalent. 

Do you read? I stated very clearly that the only reason I am in the Religion forum is because this "individual" decided to "follow" me.  I avoid the Religion forum because the members posting here seem to want to prove a point, but they don't know what the point is -- they don't understand it.

Gee

 

Lasse;

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:58 AM, Lasse said:

Yes.

Well, if you want to know, I will try to explain.

 

Quote

If you can concentrate your recognitions (write shorter) it should not be a problem. I am curious what you think. I understood you interest in consciousness.

OK. If you understand that when I say "consciousness", I am not talking about the medical definition of that term, i.e., conscious, unconscious, comatose, etc. I am talking about the philosophical definition which simply means awareness. To be conscious of something is to be aware of something -- they are synonyms.

 

Quote

I think at some level everything is conscious i.e. everything has a set of physical attributes determine the entities presence and fundamental functions. Ant vs human. Consciousness for me is the level of awareness about those attributes.

This is a good start, but I limit my understanding of consciousness to life forms. I know that there are other theories, but I can not study everything. So, as to life forms, I will just try to describe the most basic changes.

1. Simplest life, like bacteria, is conscious of itself only. It is aware of the need to maintain itself and proves this by ingesting "food" and procreating. It is like an infant and is only aware of need.

2. When life develops senses, eyes or ears, etc., it becomes aware of it's surroundings. At this point it also develops some kind of brain, so that the sensory input has somewhere to dump the information. This life also starts to make choices -- should I try to climb over that rock or go around it?

3. The next step is what most people would call consciousness, when we become aware of knowledge. We no longer have to see the rock that is impossible to climb, because we can remember it and plan a route around it. We can use knowledge to plan, to create math, and to study intangible ideas. So at this level, we can have knowledge, be aware of that knowledge, and be able to manipulate that knowledge.

4. The next step is where we become aware of emotion, and it is the hardest step to explain. All life experiences feeling/emotion from the very simplest life forms on, as is evidenced by survival instincts, which all life has and which are all activated by feeling/emotion. But experiencing feeling/emotion and being aware of feeling/emotion are two different things, just as experiencing the rock mentioned above is different from the memory and awareness of that rock. Or maybe like when you are in surgery, and although your body is cut and experiences pain, you have no memory or awareness of that pain because it is stopped by anesthetics.

This is when we become spiritual, when we try to make memories of our feelings and emotions -- to acknowledge them because we are aware of them.  But how does one interpret ideas about feeling and emotion in the mind? We can see a tree, then picture a tree in our minds. But can you experience love, and then picture love in your mind? We often use art, poetry, dance, song, and architecture to express feeling and emotion. But expressing it and knowing it are two different things. 

Emotion works through the unconscious aspect of mind, which means that we are not conscious of it. But we do experience it and know that it happened, so we attach ideas, memories, pictures, and thoughts to our emotions. This is why emotional memory is so unreliable, because a change in our emotions can actually change our memories.

So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it.

Gee

PS I tried to counter your negative vote on this post, but I don't know if it worked. Whoever put that neg rep on it should take if off. There was nothing wrong with your post.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Off topic posts have been split to the trash. 

 

[koti]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

iNow;

 

There is a documentary video floating around the forum where Feynman tries to explain magnets. He states that he can give an easy answer, but it won't give any real understanding. Then he explains that in order to really understand it, you would have to study physics and probably be one of his students.

What is the difference in what I said and what he said? There is only one difference; you think he is brilliant and you think I am an idiot. The attitude problem is yours. If you go back and read my post again, but this time pretend that the writer is someone who is knowledgeable and a little brilliant, you will find no difference in what I said and what he said.

 

Do you read? I stated very clearly that the only reason I am in the Religion forum is because this "individual" decided to "follow" me.  I avoid the Religion forum because the members posting here seem to want to prove a point, but they don't know what the point is -- they don't understand it.

Gee

 

Lasse;

 

Well, if you want to know, I will try to explain.

 

OK. If you understand that when I say "consciousness", I am not talking about the medical definition of that term, i.e., conscious, unconscious, comatose, etc. I am talking about the philosophical definition which simply means awareness. To be conscious of something is to be aware of something -- they are synonyms.

 

This is a good start, but I limit my understanding of consciousness to life forms. I know that there are other theories, but I can not study everything. So, as to life forms, I will just try to describe the most basic changes.

1. Simplest life, like bacteria, is conscious of itself only. It is aware of the need to maintain itself and proves this by ingesting "food" and procreating. It is like an infant and is only aware of need.

2. When life develops senses, eyes or ears, etc., it becomes aware of it's surroundings. At this point it also develops some kind of brain, so that the sensory input has somewhere to dump the information. This life also starts to make choices -- should I try to climb over that rock or go around it?

3. The next step is what most people would call consciousness, when we become aware of knowledge. We no longer have to see the rock that is impossible to climb, because we can remember it and plan a route around it. We can use knowledge to plan, to create math, and to study intangible ideas. So at this level, we can have knowledge, be aware of that knowledge, and be able to manipulate that knowledge.

4. The next step is where we become aware of emotion, and it is the hardest step to explain. All life experiences feeling/emotion from the very simplest life forms on, as is evidenced by survival instincts, which all life has and which are all activated by feeling/emotion. But experiencing feeling/emotion and being aware of feeling/emotion are two different things, just as experiencing the rock mentioned above is different from the memory and awareness of that rock. Or maybe like when you are in surgery, and although your body is cut and experiences pain, you have no memory or awareness of that pain because it is stopped by anesthetics.

This is when we become spiritual, when we try to make memories of our feelings and emotions -- to acknowledge them because we are aware of them.  But how does one interpret ideas about feeling and emotion in the mind? We can see a tree, then picture a tree in our minds. But can you experience love, and then picture love in your mind? We often use art, poetry, dance, song, and architecture to express feeling and emotion. But expressing it and knowing it are two different things. 

Emotion works through the unconscious aspect of mind, which means that we are not conscious of it. But we do experience it and know that it happened, so we attach ideas, memories, pictures, and thoughts to our emotions. This is why emotional memory is so unreliable, because a change in our emotions can actually change our memories.

So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it.

Gee

PS I tried to counter your negative vote on this post, but I don't know if it worked. Whoever put that neg rep on it should take if off. There was nothing wrong with your post.

 

Gee, I’m missing on a lot of what you are conveying in your posts due to skipping through - caused by length. Since what you write is definitely worth reading, I would love to see you compress your thoughts into less words - do you think thats something that you want to work on? 

Edited April 30, 2018 by koti

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Gees said:

There is a documentary video floating around the forum where Feynman tries to explain magnets. He states that he can give an easy answer, but it won't give any real understanding. Then he explains that in order to really understand it, you would have to study physics and probably be one of his students.

What is the difference in what I said and what he said? There is only one difference; you think he is brilliant and you think I am an idiot. The attitude problem is yours.

I didn’t think you were an idiot, at least not until I read this. You’re correct. You’re no Feynman, but you also didn’t state that years of training was required to grasp deeper concepts. What you did do (and do frequently) is to belittle others and tell specific individual members that they are specifically incapable of grasping your point. 

When there is a misunderstanding in a text based medium, the fault generally lies with the author. Feynman didn’t put others down. He lifted them up.

You can comment on my attitude all you want. That won’t change the validity of my point. 

Focus on your argument. If people struggle to understand it, then focus on articulating it differently. I’m also not the only one that has asked you to be more concise. Perhaps start there. 

If you’re unable to explain something simply or in terms even a child can grasp, then it’s far more likely that you’re the one who doesn’t understand the concept well enough. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by iNow

[Gees]

 Koti;

 

3 hours ago, koti said:

Gee, I’m missing on a lot of what you are conveying in your posts due to skipping through - caused by length. Since what you write is definitely worth reading, I would love to see you compress your thoughts into less words - do you think thats something that you want to work on? 

Actually I did.

I had considered the Gaia hypothesis, panpsychism, and other theories of consciousness; I also considered going into the idea of "self", Jung's Oneness and Individualization and how that relates to the mind/soul; I also considered trying to explain the unconscious aspect of mind and how that works with emotion, the self, and how emotion, the unconscious and quantum physics all seem to disregard time, and how all of this causes the saying that "'God' has many faces", along with other ideas. But I threw all of that out because I thought it would just cause confusion. I also numbered the points so that they could be disputed individually. But all you really need to know is my summary:

So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it.

You might want to consider that skip reading or scanning Philosophy will not get you anywhere.

Gee

 

iNow;

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I didn’t think you were an idiot, at least not until I read this. You’re correct. You’re no Feynman, but you also didn’t state that years of training was required to grasp deeper concepts. 

Again, I ask do you read? I stated the following at the start of my post: "The Religion forum is in the Philosophy section, not the Science section, for a reason, so you would need to have some understanding of Philosophy."

Then I stated this at the end of my post: "You would have to have a very good understanding of consciousness, and probably some familiarity with a few of the theories of consciousness in order to understand my above statements."

What do you think those two statements mean? How long do you think it takes to get a "very good understanding of consciousness"? Years.

 

Quote

 

What you did do (and do frequently) is to belittle others and tell specific individual members that they are specifically incapable of grasping your point. 

 

Well, I don't intend to "belittle" anyone and am willing to work hard to help someone understand a concept. But there are not a lot of abstract thinkers, and they would have to have a passing familiarity with logic.

 

Quote

When there is a misunderstanding in a text based medium, the fault generally lies with the author. Feynman didn’t put others down. He lifted them up.

Bullshit. His contempt for Philosophy was well known, which is why I never paid much attention to him. I don't know what he thought about Religion, but saw him in a video years ago where he described the "God" concept as too parochial -- that was the word he used, "parochial". I understood the psychological ramifications of his statement immediately because Religion, "God" concepts, and psychology are closely related, but I didn't understand how brilliant he actually was until I saw the magnet video. He was definitely an abstract thinker with a brilliant mind -- his passing is our loss.

 

Quote

You can comment on my attitude all you want. That won’t change the validity of my point. 

I haven't figured out your point yet. If your point was that I am not a nice person, then hell, I knew that. My husband was the nice one. Do you remember that people like to kill off philosophers? (chuckle)

 

Quote

 

Focus on your argument. If people struggle to understand it, then focus on articulating it differently. I’m also not the only one that has asked you to be more concise. Perhaps start there. 

If you’re unable to explain something simply or in terms even a child can grasp, then it’s far more likely that you’re the one who doesn’t understand the concept well enough. 

 

Then please introduce me to someone who understands consciousness "well enough". I would love to meet him/her.

Are we done with this stupid argument now?

Gee

[Bender]

3 hours ago, Gees said:

So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it.

God is emotion? That doesn't really correspond with the view of most people who assign the specific property "creator of everything" to their God. What is the point of such a definition if it doesn't correspond to how people use the word?

9 hours ago, Gees said:

This is a good start, but I limit my understanding of consciousness to life forms. I know that there are other theories, but I can not study everything.

That seems rather restrictive. How can you make claims about the consciousness of bacteria without considering the consciousness of household appliences, such as toasters or hair dryers, which meet the requirements of your first level?

[Strange]

12 hours ago, Gees said:

OK. If you understand that when I say "consciousness", I am not talking about the medical definition of that term, i.e., conscious, unconscious, comatose, etc. I am talking about the philosophical definition which simply means awareness. To be conscious of something is to be aware of something -- they are synonyms.

But by ascribing "consciousness" or "awareness" to bacteria you are removing any useful meaning from those words. By your definition, water is "conscious" of the fact it has to run own hill. This is just silly (and further undermines your claims to be a "philosopher").

We now have to come up with new words to describe what the rest of the world means by "consciousness" and "awareness". 

 

12 hours ago, Gees said:

The attitude problem is yours. If you go back and read my post again, but this time pretend that the writer is someone who is knowledgeable and a little brilliant, you will find no difference in what I said and what he said.

Your modesty is impressive.

It is rather hard to read your posts as if they were written by someone knowledgeable and brilliant. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

 Koti;

 

Actually I did.

I had considered the Gaia hypothesis, panpsychism, and other theories of consciousness; I also considered going into the idea of "self", Jung's Oneness and Individualization and how that relates to the mind/soul; I also considered trying to explain the unconscious aspect of mind and how that works with emotion, the self, and how emotion, the unconscious and quantum physics all seem to disregard time, and how all of this causes the saying that "'God' has many faces", along with other ideas. But I threw all of that out because I thought it would just cause confusion. I also numbered the points so that they could be disputed individually. But all you really need to know is my summary:

So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it.

You might want to consider that skip reading or scanning Philosophy will not get you anywhere.

Gee

 

iNow;

 

Again, I ask do you read? I stated the following at the start of my post: "The Religion forum is in the Philosophy section, not the Science section, for a reason, so you would need to have some understanding of Philosophy."

Then I stated this at the end of my post: "You would have to have a very good understanding of consciousness, and probably some familiarity with a few of the theories of consciousness in order to understand my above statements."

What do you think those two statements mean? How long do you think it takes to get a "very good understanding of consciousness"? Years.

 

Well, I don't intend to "belittle" anyone and am willing to work hard to help someone understand a concept. But there are not a lot of abstract thinkers, and they would have to have a passing familiarity with logic.

 

Bullshit. His contempt for Philosophy was well known, which is why I never paid much attention to him. I don't know what he thought about Religion, but saw him in a video years ago where he described the "God" concept as too parochial -- that was the word he used, "parochial". I understood the psychological ramifications of his statement immediately because Religion, "God" concepts, and psychology are closely related, but I didn't understand how brilliant he actually was until I saw the magnet video. He was definitely an abstract thinker with a brilliant mind -- his passing is our loss.

 

I haven't figured out your point yet. If your point was that I am not a nice person, then hell, I knew that. My husband was the nice one. Do you remember that people like to kill off philosophers? (chuckle)

 

Then please introduce me to someone who understands consciousness "well enough". I would love to meet him/her.

Are we done with this stupid argument now?

Gee

You really don't seem to get philosophy at all, or indeed the point of a/this forum, it's not a competition (It's a meeting of minds, not a beating of minds). Arrogance can only block (your) understanding because as long as you think you're right you'll always miss the nuggets of wisdom that almost everyone has in their locker, true intelligence recognises there are many versions of clever. 

Dunning and Kruger have a lot to say on the subject but no doubt you'll reject their findings because they're scientists (spit).

Edited May 1, 2018 by dimreepr