That makes it an entity, or even The Entity, but not a deity in any conventional sense. Redefining any word to mean "whatever I imagine it means" may work inside your head, in your dream-log, in poetry, but it doesn't stand up that well in communicating your ideas to another person who speaks a known language and has access only to definitions of its words as conceived by other speakers of that language. — Vera Mont
Well, I hope future science provides you with such a path towards your personal salvation from theism.
Hallelujah brother!! — universeness
Damaging to our ability to totally free ourselves from restrictive woo woo notions — universeness
The theists will be grateful to you for supporting their words and their concepts — universeness
You have to decide if that is damaging to the future of our species or not. — universeness
, that all you say above, is that you think that its valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. — universeness
, that all you say above, is that you think that its valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. — universeness
It's not my intention for you to feel 'put upon' by my viewpoints, but I am more concerned with what is true, than I am about the individual disgruntled feelings of my interlocuters.This all seems very imposing. As in you imposing your own personal dislike of theism on someone who finds it interesting, curious.
I don't think I need to be saved from anything. If you do, despite me being happy doing what I do, then perhaps it's a case of accepting other people enjoy things you do not for reasons you may not know. — Benj96
Is that not what we both seek? We must continue our asymptotic approach to omniscience! Do you not agree?To know exactly what notions are restrictive and woo woo from those that are not would require you to have a full, exacting, precise/accurate understanding of the entirety of reality as it truly is. — Benj96
I would say you remain on solid ground on that one and there is no precarious limb support involved.Einstein level.
Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're not that above case. So I would suggest a healthy openmindedness to other people's ideas and explanations over implying you know with 100% certainty all that is "woo woo". — Benj96
Let's hope that there are many folks around Putin who agree with you and will prevent him being the person you describe.I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. Which means one person's actions can't be the entire destruction of the species. — Benj96
Most of us do the same but don't underestimate the importance of such old adages as 'out of little acorns big oak trees grow' or 'little snow drops can become a deadly avalanche.' Don't underestimate your little snow drop contributions. Such can tip a balance or cause a melting point to be reached for good or bad.All I offer is my views on the universe and its moral or logical aspects as best as I can understand them, and on "my" theology. Not general theology. It's just a categorical think. — Benj96
Yeah but don't conflate the parts with the whole. YOU are not your leg, in fact you can continue without it and remain alive and conscious. Earth contains life that is conscious/self aware, that does not make the Earth alive and conscious/self-aware. Venus is very active, do you consider it conscious/self-aware?Firstly, are humans one set/group of existants in the universe? Yes, right? Then they are part of the universe, the whole. — Benj96
We try not to fall into the trap of human-centric measurement but rather universal principles that are constant, everywhere, all the time. — Benj96
Mathematic is a tool, there is no anthropomorphism in maths that I can perceive.But is a second natural? Is innate to nature. Or a human/artificial construction, something we applied to nature to standardise what we observe? Is the second an anthropomorphism derived solely from our human experience of reality that we project onto all physical processes? — Benj96
Fair enough. Your position is clear. I continue to think that your position is a very weak one, based on what I have already typed in my responses to you. It's very rare, that a TPF member causes another TPF member to significantly, change one or more of their fundamental views. BUT, it is good nonetheless, to regularly take measurements of what others think about 'the big questions.'In conclusion, as a response to you saying that I think it's valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Yes. I do. I think it's logical in the capacity of human logic. — Benj96
but I am more concerned with what is true, than I am about the individual disgruntled feelings of my interlocuters. — universeness
Is that not what we both seek? We must continue our asymptotic approach to omniscience! Do you not agree? — universeness
Don't underestimate your little snow drop contributions. Such can tip a balance or cause a melting point to be reached for good or bad. — universeness
Different sources will define a label in nuanced ways. I am not too concerned about the nuances applied to the term 'anthropomorphise,' for the purposes of our current exchange on this thread. — universeness
Why do you choose to project the consciousness/self-awareness of part of the universe, onto the whole of the universe, based on the current, very limited evidence, that such a projection is warranted? This is one of my interests. What convinces intelligent people, to decide to ascribe high credence, to a particular proposal, when the evidence is quite weak. — universeness
Correct, but we also seek principles which are locally true, even only locally true, under a given set of circumstances. — universeness
Carlo Rovelli offers detailed discussion on the notion of time as humans perceive it and use it. I have not heard him complain, that we anthropomorphise time. I have heard him challenge our classical notions of time, in quite coherent ways, but his argument do not have any significant anthropomorphic aspect, that I can perceive — universeness
. It's very rare, that a TPF member causes another TPF member to significantly, change one or more of their fundamental views. BUT, it is good nonetheless, to regularly take measurements of what others think about 'the big questions — universeness
For example, is the scientist who describes nuclear fission and its capabilities responsible for the use of this knowledge to create nuclear bombs? Should they have said nothing to avoid such abuse? Or is knowledge by itself innocent of its applications? — Benj96
This is part of the reason I believe the capacity for consciousness is inbuilt into the basic principles of physics. And is where I derive my dualist ethos from. — Benj96
That IS the position of most/many panpsychists/dualists. I currently assign high credence to the proposal that consciousness is what the brain does and is a result of combinatorial brain processes.
A car is an empty shell without it's engine. It's engine's ability only 'emerges' from it acting as a combinatorial. It's parts have no inherent 'fundamental' of the overall engine's function in combination. Each parts presence and independent function is required but they don't all contribute a set of common, quantisable, fundamentals to the overall function of the car. — universeness
The human brain DOES come from such fundamentals as quarks and electrons etc but I think the evidence that some other 'sprinkling' of a yet unknown fundamental, as the 'vital missing spark' for human consciousness, remains very weak.
It's not impossible but, as I have typed many times, the best I can do, based on the current evidence for panpsychism or/and dualism is a small raise, of a single eyebrow of interest.
21m — universeness
This is what I'm saying. The capability for consciousness always existed, but the existence of consciousness didn't neccesarily exist, only the foundation, the capability for its future emergence. — Benj96
I currently favour number 5/6. — universeness
Thats why I use the term God - that quality of energy to become both the general universe and the sentient occupants that appreciate/are aware of it. It is the perceiver and the perceived. — Benj96
You are trying to mix oil, water, gas and solid imo. Theism, science, panpsychism, dualism, don't have the common ground you suggest imo. — universeness
There has to be some cut-off point between self-aware/not self-aware. Perhaps it is down to something as mundane as number of neurons. So My current choice from that particular list, remains 5/6.I currently favour number 5/6.
— universeness
Interesting. What number of neurons satisfies a conscious state for you? — Benj96
There has to be some cut-off point between self-aware/not self-aware. — universeness
What is beauty to you Vera? — Benj96
I may have added : and a quibble over word usage. But just the one; I won't go on about it."An example of how supply and demand, capitalism and greed corrupt eco ventures, plus what is God?" — Jamal
because the people who believe in one of the popular deities tend to use the word as a proper noun and assume that when anyone says God, he means their god. — Vera Mont
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.