The Schizophrenic God

[DevilSolution]

Okay so basically if we presume "God" created all the energy within the universe aswell as defining the laws of the universe. If "God" was then to be a spectator of this universe, it could be said that it would only be watching a simulation, a simulation that it could run over and over again with the same results. Given that were yet unable to explain the genesis of life, or exactly how life started (1). It could be argued that life wouldn't ever exist within these simulations, in the same way that if we were to run computer simulations of the universe, we wouldnt expect life to form in the simulation. Therefore i suggest that "God" decided upon the epoch of the universe to split its consciousness across the universe. This would essentially be the self destruction of "God", all that exists now is the lingering shards of its consciousness across the universe. Now under the right circumstances this consciousness can apply itself to some specific scenario's where it thinks life may be sustainable so it uses some of it's "local" consciousness to make the basic steps required to form the first form of organism.

There's 2 ways at looking at it, either it waits for the right conditions to further "push" along the process when the time was right, such as "filling in" the gaps of evolution we currently miss, such as the gap between us and our cousins aswell as other missing links in the evolutionary tree.

Or the reverse of evolution is true to the extent that evolution still acts and processes as it would have, but instead of us being the product of evolution, instead this consciousness created life in a very specific way and then evolution took over.

Either way what the consciousness was waiting for was carriers (or made them), being's with enough potential for its "local" consciousness to fit into. I suggest that humans possessed that potential at which point the "local" consciousness evenly distributed itself amongst the homosapien population (when the population was big enough to absorb the consciousness).

Therefore we humans have within us some shared consciousness of "God", so that we can experience life and each other from different perspectives, in contrast to being a single omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being.

This would make us all schizophrenic personalities of "God", that we must learn our various attributes, virtues, short coming etc from an introspective point of view. Humans ofcourse would have only adopted a "local" portion of that consciousness when we had enough potential to harness the "local" consciousness and the entire consciousness will have various domains within the universe also acting in a similar fashion. This would imply that other lifeforms should also exist else where in the universe where ever this consciousness decided to act upon its "local domain", this could mean that we humans took possibly [math]\tfrac{1}{10}[/math] or [math]\tfrac{1}{100}[/math] or [math]\tfrac{1}{1000}[/math] etc depending on how much consciousness was distributed and how much is used in the process of the intermediate "steps" required for an organism to posses the potential to harness the consciousness.

So in conclusion i am suggesting that "God" became somewhat pantheist (became the universe), spreading its consciousness evenly around the universe waiting for the right conditions in which to instigate and help the progression of life to the point where the most advanced form had enough potential to share the "local" consciousness into the population which then gives god a personal perspective and it makes us schizophrenic persona's of that consciousness in which we become individual but with a collective consciousness of some totality of "God's" consciousness. If you think about it logically, we as humans together have some aspects of omnipresent (2) we are also fairly omniscient (3) and finally we becoming more and more omnipotent (4). We therefore share some traits that religion prescribes to "God", although we don't have all or even most if these in totality we atleast show signs of having a proportion of them.

I've tried to be fairly scientific with my approach to how this whole process would take place but obviously there will be flaws, especially philosophical flaws such as "the first cause" aswell as declaring that energy and physical laws had a creator which most people nowadays dismiss due to the probability of mathematics and the possibility of "many universes", however i'm simply coming from the approach that in the "many universes" and the probability of mathematics we still dont know how genesis occurred or if its actually possible and we don't know how or why the big bang happened (or how time really exists) so therefore this theory simply defines those factors in simulation terms, where "God" was a passive observer who'me got bored of repetitive results and therefore "became" part of its simulation to experience and adapt the simulation.

I have no idea whether the essence of its being will become one again if the universe was to die out or if the big freeze occurred etc but i'm guessing by spreading its consciousness it wanted to interact with these variables from a micro perspective.

Also i quite like the idea that we somehow inherited a part of this consciousness and all of humanity share the equal burden of being schizophrenic persona's of this consciousness in which we all have to come to terms with.

This type of hypothesis could be adapted in many different ways to adhere to each persons preference on creation, the nature of god, our understanding of science etc but fundamentally i went for the most plausible scientific approach, skipping over religious dogma's beyond that of initial creation.

One final note, even if we were to prove genesis within a laboratory it still doesn't mean that there isnt a consciousness out there waiting for hosts with the combined potential to inherit this consciousness (5).



1) (genesis) We have a fossil evidence for the first forms of single cell organisms but other than the "primordial atmospheric chemical soup" hypothesis we dont actually have any proof of the creation of life.

2) (omnipescent) We are fairly well distributed as a species and we also use telescopes and microscopes for viewing the internal and external realms aswell as using EMW's to view a large spectrum of the universe.

3) (omniscient) To the extent that we have fundamentally broken down the laws of physics to a high degree, we have an innate ability for understanding abstract mathematics and we have built the corner stones for most scientific area's like chemistry and biology and so forth.

4) (omnipotent) We have made huge scientific and technological breakthroughs which have allowed us to harness the power of the atom, the power of solar energy, the power of chemical energy, the power of thermal energy etc, were also able to transfer these sources of energy into other sources of energy making us collectively quite powerful in regards to other animals and as a system of and in ourselves comparatively to non-conscious entities.

5) (invocation paradigm) This would simply imply that each simulation "God" expresses itself differently and allows itself to interpret itself in many different ways rather than be trapped in the higher realms of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresence being, because lets face it, its existence would be very very very very very very very boring. By becoming pantheistic and destroying itself it would allow for endless possibilities with the potential of never being whole again. (if it cant unite and stop the big freeze or exponential dark energy etc) so it also has a challenge.

P.S I'm agnostic by nature, i dont conform to any religion persay but i do have deep philosophical roots within existentialism and collective consciousness.

 

Regards.

Edited December 17, 2015 by DevilSolution

[hoola]

I see everything as a component of math, including all the gods, devils, persons, matter, and the energy that drives it all. Everything is information, so there is a "leveling of importance", attributed to each entity, including humans, horseflies, atoms or the deity of your choice. I see these "bitstrings" of information evidenced as the functional component of string theory. With this surmise, some bits describe something, say a devil or angel or some impossible flying pig, that we feel must somehow exist on some level, and we are right. While existing only (so far) within the advanced awareness of the human brain, and not in physical reality, they do exist in overall mathematical reality, or else we could not imagine them. This gives the illusion that they do or could exist outside of our head (as in art), and with enough wishful thinking (religion) they seem loosely coupled, but fundamental structures. I also see them as fundamental structures, functioning as "seat fillers" in the Oscar theatre of reality. There in there, but nobody is going to call them up to the stage to give a long boring speech.....their "acting ability" seems a little sub-par to the selection committe.... I group the universe into logical and illogical sections, the logical ones have "durability" and can exist (and persist), while the illogical ones don't (so can't), as the math equations that describe them allow, and not any moral choice on our part to determine...

Edited December 20, 2015 by hoola

[DevilSolution]

Therefore the universe is an extension of and or not? I agree we are completely constrained by logic, its our fundamental source of intellect. We'll never be able to comprehend anything above logical formalities. To say nothing exists beyond logic is almost a paradox though, its like a dog, they can only bark to communicate and it serves their purpose to most extents, but from a higher level of intellect we see that barking is primitive. There are parallels between our comprehension and those of other animals. Maybe were constrained on purpose? They'd be no point in experience if we already knew everything there was to know.

[Itoero]

What do you mean when you use the word 'God'?

[Ophiolite]

DS, your proposal is not novel, it is vaguely plausible, but there is really no substantive evidence to support it. Perhaps you would like Robert Heinlein's humorous concept of pantheistic multi-person solipsism. The fabric of your notion is loose enough for it to squeeze into that.

[puppypower]

Therefore the universe is an extension of and or not? I agree we are completely constrained by logic, its our fundamental source of intellect. We'll never be able to comprehend anything above logical formalities. To say nothing exists beyond logic is almost a paradox though, its like a dog, they can only bark to communicate and it serves their purpose to most extents, but from a higher level of intellect we see that barking is primitive. There are parallels between our comprehension and those of other animals. Maybe were constrained on purpose? They'd be no point in experience if we already knew everything there was to know.

 

There is 2-D logic and there is 3-D logic, which are not the same. The left side of the brain uses 2-D logic ,while the right side of the brain uses 3-D logic. Science is more left brained and therefore is more comfortable using 2-D logic; cause and affect. Logic in 3-D is different. This form of logic is cause, effect, cause and/or affect, cause and affect. When someone has an intuition, from left field, this is 3-D logic. The affect; solution, can appear before there is rational cause and affect. The logic is then reversed engineered, after the answer had appeared.

 

For example, the right brain processes emotions. Emotions are considered irrational and therefore do not follow the laws of 2-D logic in terms of the changing output. The right brain uses a different logic schema to assess this. Try to use 2-D logic to predict the whims of a dingbat. Yet, emotions seem to find the way to the future, due to the extra z-dimension. In real time, they don't seem to add up to cause and affect. But over time, they find a way to the future; z-axis.

 

The analogy is the river flows to the ocean, since the ocean is at lowest potential. Yet along the way, the river meanders back and forth, even over flat land. There is a z-axis all the way to the ocean; 3-D cause, that has a sense of potential and direction, that may not be easy to see in terms of the cause and affect of the local 2-D meandering.

 

Humans place 2-D limits on the 3-D and even 4-D God, to make him more human and easier to manhandle. It makes people feel less afraid of their narrower vision. They see the meandering of the river and give it logical meaning, but they fail to see the ocean and assume God has no control over the cause and affect of the meandering.

Edited January 4, 2016 by puppypower

[Strange]

 

There is 2-D logic and there is 3-D logic, which are not the same.

 

Citation needed.

 

The left side of the brain uses 2-D logic ,while the right side of the brain uses 3-D logic. Science is more left brained and ... the right brain processes emotions.

 

Nonsense.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/16/left-right-brain-distinction-myth

http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/

Edited January 4, 2016 by Strange

[puppypower]

We use both sides of the brain at the same time, with both 2-D and 3-D assessment being done. The real distinction is people are conscious of only one side of the brain, at a time They are unconscious of the other side of the brain, even though this is also active. Both sides will be involved in any activity, but only one side will be conscious at a time. This is what these studies showed.

 

One will not see this distinction doing studies from the outside, in the third person. Both sides of the brain will fire and no activity will seem distinct. One will need to gather conscious versus unconscious data from the inside, where one can see the distinction between conscious and unconscious and therefore what data/side is consciously available to the person.

 

For example, there is a difference between someone who believes the logic of someone else, not because of the logic, but because it feels right; prestige learning. This is different from someone who believes they are right, because the logic adds up properly in their mind, first.

 

Both sides of the brain will be used in both cases, since both scenarios use logic and feeling, but the former is more conscious of a feeling for the logic, while the latter is more conscious of the logic behind the feeling. This will not show up as a distinction using a third person brain scan. One would need to go inside their head, to see which way they are consciously biased, with their unconscious supporting this from the other side; both sides will fire.

 

The third person data is a good starting point, but it is not up to the task of addressing the bias of consciousness versus unconscious.

 

For example, if you had a tooth ache, versus you watching someone with a toothache in the third person, do these give the exact same data? The answer is no. The person with the toothache, lives this experiment in the first person. This gives another dimension to the data; pain, that you can't fully empathize from the outside in the third person.

 

The feeling of pain, that the first person can see clearly, is what is making them do all the contortions and moaning; data seen in the third person. The pain is ocean that the river is flowing to, causing the river to meander along the way ; both sides of the brain. This meander is the 2-D third person data we see, with ocean there in 3-D, but not clearly seen.

 

These studies need someone skilled in the first person to run 3-D experiments. The 2-D experiment are cute, but are misleading when dealing with 3-D. I doubt there even know how to define 3-D to be able to make this distinction.

 

The schizophrenic God is a projection of seeing the contortions of pain in the third person but not the pain in the first person that makes this external data possible. The gap adds an unknown that seems irrational. This is projected into an irrational God. This is the beginning of awareness in the first person, with one side of the brain playing for the other.

Edited January 4, 2016 by puppypower

[Strange]

We use both sides of the brain at the same time, with both 2-D and 3-D assessment being done.

 

There is no such thing as "2-D and 3-D assessment".

 

The real distinction is people are conscious of only one side of the brain, at a time They are unconscious of the other side of the brain, even though this is also active. Both sides will be involved in any activity, but only one side will be conscious at a time. This is what these studies showed.

 

No they didn't.

 

 

These studies need someone skilled in the first person to run 3-D experiments. The 2-D experiment are cute, but are misleading when dealing with 3-D. I doubt there even know how to define 3-D to be able to make this distinction.

 

Please stop posting random crap that you made up.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Strange

[Velocity_Boy]

Your ideas here of what your god might be like, as well as what he might not be like answer Nothing.

 

In fact, the sort of god you posit actually raises more questions that it answers.

 

We do not need ANY concept of god in the sciences.

 

He just does not apply.

 

Inapplicable!

 

A non sequitur.

 

Like proposing a carburetor for being responsible for a gorgeous piece of classical music.

 

We can explain with great accuracy what happened from -10^43rd of a second after the Big Bang.

 

And since Time was created with the Big Bang, there is no need to speculate what came before.

 

Religion and the need to create gods are simply an undesirable by-product of the evolved homo sapien mind.

 

Just like our obsession with seeking patterns and causes. Even when there are none.

 

Christianity of an offshoot of Bronze Age Hebrew Mythology.

 

The Book of Genesis is a fable, and never meant to be taken as literal.

 

Yahweh is one of the most loathsome characters in all of fiction. A murderous and tyrannical and capricious Bully God.

 

As likely to have actually existed as Thor or Zeus.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Thanks.

[freekundli]

What do you mean by god?