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

Yes. Not in a conventional sense correct.

I would hate to think of myself as conventional haha. I like to push boundaries elsewhere - to explore the unconventional.

The more abstract a concept is, the less we collectively agree on the definition.

Asking a collection of people to describe a definition for "chair" is much easier than asking them to describe "beauty" or "existence" for example.

Sure we have definitions for them in dictionaries. Standardised general use. But this isn't very useful to the deeper inquiries of philosophy which are often personal, existential or pursuing fundamental truths.

What is beauty to you Vera? As I'm sure again, there is certainly discrepancies between my definition of beauty and yours. Just as my definition for what a God might he/ought to be has contradictions with yours.

In essence most if not all words we use in common language have nuanced differences, idiosyncrasies and colloquial/environmenal influences with respect to different individuals. That's because we all have a different understanding, relationship and experientially derived meaning applied to said words.

So I don't really see what the issue is. This is language, individualism and the restrictions of communication between two unique minds.

What I define as a "God" may not satisfy your definition of it. And it may never satisfy that definition. Or it may instead satisfy alternative definitions in your mind like "Entity".

So with that in mind, what was the intent you had with he above? Ought I use the term entity instead of deity?

Essentially, for me to truly define the term, like any term, as I understand them, I must describe it in respect to every inquiry or line of questioning you can throw at it. Every reason, rationality, logic that you may find and follow that might contradict what I believe or highlight flaws.

And we could be here for months or years, the same amount of time it took me perhaps to develop my theistic definition in the first place.
Not only that, but you may not accept my explanations as satisfactory for whatever reason: logical, moral, personal, practical etc

Hence, Theology isn't "knowing" the definition for deities. It's the process of trying to find one though discussion, philophising, reasoning, refining and reformulation.

People will always disagree with my definitions for things if they define it differently themselves. Obvious.

I'm fine with that. Theres no obligation to convince them, nor obligation to submit to their determinations. Only healthy discussion and free will.

This thread has an identity crisis. May I suggest...

"An example of how supply and demand, capitalism and greed corrupt eco ventures, plus what is God?"

Well, I hope future science provides you with such a path towards your personal salvation from theism.
Hallelujah brother!! — universeness

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.

Damaging to our ability to totally free ourselves from restrictive woo woo notions — universeness

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.

To make such a determination between all delusions (woo woo) from reality. You must know all of reality therefore all delusions? No? Is that not a logical inference?

I woukd imagine such a person would be pretty famous for that level of insight/discovery. 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".

The theists will be grateful to you for supporting their words and their concepts — universeness

I don't care if they are or not. Because it's likely my theistic view won't accord with theirs. And we would be having the same existential arguments that have been going on for millenia.

You have to decide if that is damaging to the future of our species or not. — universeness

I believe everyone is responsible for their own actions. Which means one person's actions can't be the entire destruction of the species.

Just as in the case of a nuke, its the person who presses the button, plus everyone that didn't stop them, those who didn't raise them better, those who lied for them, those who designed the system, the engineers that made the bomb, the coders that programmed it. A whole myriad of people are culpable for any one outcome in life.

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.

All I offer what I belive personally to be useful, interesting or a perhaps just a curious alternative information that may be helpful to someone. At best: knowledge. At worst, just some random guy crapping on about nonsense on tpf.

My intentions are good in life. And sometimes I make mistakes. That is what I'm responsible for.

How people might misquote me, misinterpret me, or use any aspects of what I say against me or against others, or for self interest or personal gain, to exploit etc is their choice and they have to love with their decisions.

, that all you say above, is that you think that its valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. — universeness

There is a few things I want to highlight on this. Which I will do from 2 separate approaches in 2 separate responses.

Firstly, are humans one set/group of existants in the universe? Yes, right? Then we are part of the universe, the whole.
Thus, is it logical to anthropomorphise at the very least that set/portion of the universe? Yes. Because we are "anthropos" (humans). Obviously. Its self clarifying/evident in this instance.

People that don't anthropomorphise other people (don't ascribe human expectations, characteristics and behaviours to other people) are either solipsist - believing no one else is truly real, has actual emotions, that they are fake or simulations. Or they are psychopathic - and don't believe anyone else's experiences, feelings and emotions are valid or warrant the same esteem as their own. In essence they don't anthropomorphise anthropos (people). They lack empathy.

However, that aside, the Oxford dictionary definition of anthropomorphism is such: "The representation of Gods, or nature, or non-human animals, as having human form, or as having human thoughts and intentions."

Here we have a contradiction in the inclusion of "nature". Humans are natural. Organic. From nature. Humans are a part of nature. So to anthropomorphise some aspects of nature is logical.

As for "non-human" animals, we can suggest that every similarity to humans behaviour, needs and natural characteristics are "anthropomorphic".

For example: like animals; we have dna, cells, tissues, organs. We live and die. Behaviourally, we compete, we attack and defend, we reproduce, we nurse/care for offspring, we exhibit common basic emotions and instincts like fear, aggression, playfulness, competition, curiosity, communication. We could consider these "anthropomorphic traits" of other animals, some of which are even applicable to plants, bacteria, fungi etc.

The elements of nature that confer "living status" are shared by all living things.

As for "Gods". They are inherently human concepts. As far as we know anyways. I've never been another animal so I can't claim information about the thought content of other animals.

So "Gods" are inherently anthropomorphic because they're a consequence/product of human experience.

So it seems the Oxford dictionary standard definition of "anthropomorphism" seems flawed or open to debate.

, that all you say above, is that you think that its valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. — universeness

Let's take it from a second approach now. Being human means being biased. Biased by the mere fact that we are evolved to sense, experience and perceive reality in the uniquely human way. We cant sense the things other animals can sense: for example echolocation in bats and dolphins.

So our relationship to the universe is a human-centric one. In that sense there is an element of anthropomorphising in all assumptions, critical thinking, exploration and ideas we generate about reality as humans, with human perception.

Science elucidates consistencies, and subsequent predictabilities. That's all it can do. The veracity of any scientific endeavour is based on repeatability of measurement. Standardisation.

In that way we try to reduce/minimise or ideally eliminate the anthropotic component - the degree to which we anthropomorphise the universe. We try not to fall into the trap of human-centric measurement but rather universal principles that are constant, everywhere, all the time, for everything.

However, even science isn't removed from human assumptions about reality. We have memory, thus we perceive linear chronological time. Thus we count it in a linear fashion: seconds, minutes, hours, the calendar, years, decades millenia etc.

We use this standard in science all the time. Many formulas include linear time as a component. For example speed or velocity: measured in meters/second.

But is a second natural? Is innate to nature. Or arbitrary - 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?

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.

I'm not saying the entire universe has human qualities. I'm saying that humans have universal qualities, and that humans only understand the universe "self-referentially", from the "human condition".

So of course we anthropomorphise our investigations. What else could we do. We can't measure/observe the universe from the conscious experience of a dog or from the state of being a rock.

While science does away with individual variations in perception in pursuit of something objective, spirituality, philosophy, art, poetry, imagination - they explore reality without confining themselves to consistency. As we can acknowledge some phenomenon in existence are not repeatable, but singular and unique expressions.

I hope this clarifies my position on anthropomorphising our experience of reality as an anthropos would.

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

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.

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

Is that not what we both seek? We must continue our asymptotic approach to omniscience! Do you not agree?

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

I would say you remain on solid ground on that one and there is no precarious limb support involved.
You are just offering me YOUR opinion on MY level of open mindedness which is of limited value to our exchange but, fair enough. I note your opinion on that, for what it's worth.

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

Let's hope that there are many folks around Putin who agree with you and will prevent him being the person you describe.

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

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.

Firstly, are humans one set/group of existants in the universe? Yes, right? Then they are part of the universe, the whole. — 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?
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.

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.

We try not to fall into the trap of human-centric measurement but rather universal principles that are constant, everywhere, all the time. — Benj96

Correct, but we also seek principles which are locally true, even only locally true, under a given set of circumstances.

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

Mathematic is a tool, there is no anthropomorphism in maths that I can perceive.
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.

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

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.'

but I am more concerned with what is true, than I am about the individual disgruntled feelings of my interlocuters. — universeness

However, the views of your "disgruntled" interlocutors are part of the truth of what is happening in reality.

Is that not what we both seek? We must continue our asymptotic approach to omniscience! Do you not agree? — universeness

Yes, we must consider as many possibilities and explanations as we can and develop a paradigm that can explain them in a unifying way.

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

This is true. You're wisdom has afforded a valid highlighting of that fact.

There is a great dilemma here: sometimes the best intentions butterfly effect into the most dire of consequences. We must ask ourselves, which prevails - the positive initial intention, or the calamitous fall out of its use by others, and thus finally, who then, is at fault? Ought we hold the originator responsible despite their good will, or those that propagated the transformation into something destructive.

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?

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

Thats fair. Nor do I. I think some flexibility on definition is often helpful. Sometimes defining every discrete individual aspect of soemthing can detract from the general flow of sentiments in communication.

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

I don't ascribe human level complex consciousness to the whole universe. That is uniquely ours and part of the definition of humanity. I ascribe the ability to form consciousness in the first place and for consciousness to evolve in complexity and ability to the universe as a whole.

Whatever the singular fundamental principle is, the "first mover", the ultimate existant that generates all subsequent qualities of reality, must have had the capability to generate consciousness from the beginning, or else it would not have occurred. This is in a way I guess a deterministic feature of the "origin/cause of all effects"

I believe existence requires a "sense of" existence mutually. A universe without consciousness is one that never was, isn't, nor ever will be, as it is unappreciated, undetectable, unprovable, no trace of evidence of its existence as evidence is tied to the experiencer.

In essence its as though it never existed at all. What would ever "know" of it. What would ever "happen" in such a universe.

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.


If you dont believe consciousness is fundamental, at what point in time in the evolution of the universe, life and then humans, do you ascribe the beginning of consciousness? Because it exists, and thus it must have some pre-defined point in time in which it occurred.

Correct, but we also seek principles which are locally true, even only locally true, under a given set of circumstances. — universeness

Yes very true. Biology, Sociology, geography or political science would all be good academic disciplines to cite here.

We only know of human society, earth geography, human history and politics for now. No aliens known so far. So these are locally valid subject which we couldn't outright apply to the whole universe. We can certainly aspects of each are probably quite aplicable across the board. For example plate tectonics in geography, this is based on physics and chemistry and could be applied to other planets and alien societies with reasonable confidence.

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

Well I would counter with positing what is "time" to an entity that exists eternally and did not begin nor end at any given time. How would such an existant perceive time. My view is that it would be unable to. Another reason why I don't think the universe is conscious - least not in the way humans are.

The second is measurable to the human lifespan and rate of existence. If you expand the concept of existence of something to billions of years, seconds are very much more negligible.

If we were bacteria living our entire lives in 20 minutes, a second would be more significant. If we were quantum particles appearing and disappearing in nanoseconds, a second has even greater significance, it is akin to a millenium.

Thus a second is relative to the "existant" in questions. But why is the second the length in duration that it is. This duration is arbitrary. The second could just as easily be 5 hours long or 30 pento seconds long. In essence it's arbitrary. It doesn't matter what standard of the passage of time we take, physical formulas will still operate in the same relationships to one another.

The numbers would be different but their relationship/proportion to eachother would be the same.

. 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

I agree.

I enjoy pushing boundaries and confronting very basic and taken-for-granted assumptions.

Everything is under the duress of intense interrogation, speculation and questioning. We must constantly challenge our assumptions to navigate the paradoxes and contradictions they otherwise naturally lead to.

I hope you enjoy our discussions, and feel like there's something of value, or at least something novel/ different to consider from them.

If I have invoked/identified new trains of thought or pursuits of reasoning/possibilities to pursue for someone else then I am exceptionally happy.

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

The irony here is that M.A.D may be the only reason the world is not currently, fully involved in WW 3.
Disagreement over Serbia started WW 1, Hitlers invasion of Poland was the final act that caused WW 2.
Putin's invasion of Ukraine has the same 'impetus,' towards a WW 3. I think M.A.D is the main threat that has stopped it for now.

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.

The standard model, QFT and quantum fluctuations can describe all matter/energy/forces (except gravity), in the universe. I find the proposal that there is a fundamental quanta that as a combinatorial, with other fundamentals (eg baryons, leptons, etc), produces human consciousness. 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.

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

I agree.

However, if consciousness is what the brain does, what "does" the brain? And what does the thing that does the brain, and what does the thing that does the thing that does the brain and so on.

It's like an infinite regress of processes accumulating into having a body, then having a body with a brain, and then having a sophisticated level of consciousness.

Just as hydrogen and oxygen lead to the emergent properties of water. Properties that neither oxygen nor hydrogen have by themselves.

These emergent properties are interactions between lower level properties. And those again are products of even lower level properties. Eventually we would expect the to be a final, base level property which has the capability to emerge into all more superficial properties.

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.

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

I feel there is some clearing up to do. I am very much in agreement with you. I'm Inclined to believe that animal consciousness and human consciousness is a process of refinement of previous processes which eventually reduce to physics and quantum physics. I don't believe there is any inexplicable "woo woo" unaccountable factor that magically sparks consciousness.

I think consciousness is emergent. But it is the properties it gains from emergence that separates it from mechanistic physics and allows for subjectivity etc.

But what my whole underlying theory relies on is the omni-potential of energy to do so. A spectacular dynamism where energy can be non conscious energetic reactions or those that confer a state of object permanence and its conscious experiential states built on top of that stability.

In essence, consciousness was always a capability of energy but only defined by very specific routes of evolution - namely evolution into living systems with agency and independence.

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.

And birth is the grand integrator of the inanimate into the animate, death is the grand integrator of the animate back into the inanimate.

Dualism then is the ability of energy to manifest as either objects or subjects.

The term "God" in this case is not a sentient being nor a non sentient principle of physics, but rather "pure" "raw" potential to be either. "Becomingness". Potency in all respects.

We can call it a foundational entity. Or a foundational concept, or a underlying rule of existence. But none of these variations in definition detract from what has ultimately occurred - life. And contemplation of said life's place in the cosmos. And acknowledgement that life is built out of the inanimate. And the distinction between the two is profound.

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

Sure, but that's a Kalam style regression back to a first cause placeholder such as a big band singularity.
This is where we differ. I think there is no evidence that consciousness goes back further than abiogenysis. Not even back that far actually. When did the first set of self-aware, conscious creatures arise? I don't know but I like this top 10 list from the site Psychology Today:

Hypotheses About the Origins of Consciousness
1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years ago (panpsychism).
3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago (Reber).
4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years ago.
5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of neurons, around 580 million years ago.
6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.
7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions of neurons, around 200 million years ago.
8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3,000 years ago (Julian Jaynes).
10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).

I currently favour number 5/6.

I currently favour number 5/6. — universeness

Interesting. What number of neurons satisfies a conscious state for you?

For me awareness is a gradual amplifying process.

Our awareness of things is a direct result of our scientific/technologic progress that elucidates new knowledge/awareness to absorb/adapt to.

For example, people 300 years ago were not aware of infectious diseases as a transmittable process. So they believed at best guess in malevolent spirits, curses and black magic that befell their family and friends to fill in the gaps.

Emotion and feels have stayed the same for most of our history. Anger, fear, anxiety, joy. These conscious facets are innate to being human.

However, knowledge has advanced steadily. And thus awareness of the true nature of the universe is slowly and surely coming into focus. Thus knowledge has shaped our conscious awareness - how we relate to the world.

The knowledge of even the most un-informed, uneducated of us today is still far more advanced than that of people 2,000 years ago.

I believe that evolution is the process of advancement of sentience. And competition is the pressure used to propagate new behaviours/adaptations based on simple probability/mathematics.

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

I think the way you are framing your musings, on the source of consciousness, is potentially very problematic, considering the current viewpoint range, of a typical societal cross-section (audience), that would represent humanity. You are trying to mix oil, water, gas and solid imo. Theism, science, panpsychism, dualism, don't have the common ground you suggest imo.

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

I think you'll find, they must all have a common basis fundamentally.

They are independent existants now. For sure. I agree in this respect. Categorically.

They are discrete, defined and restricted categories of human endeavour. Separated by their distinct paradigms and characteristics.

But that wasn't always the case. Alchemy for example = chemistry and "magic" or "mysticism". Now we have chemistry as a defined entity and spirituality or mysticism as another completely separate entity. Unrelated. Both are distinct.

But they weren't always like that. They diverged, as disciplines, from Alchemy.

Water, oil, gas and solids, ultimately, at the most basic level are all unified. They are all matter. They all obey physics. And physics can point exactly to the location of their divergence from one another.

In essence, nothing is ultimately discrete. Everything is a fluid spectrum.

There is overlap and interaction between everything. How we separate them into discrete, neat and classified groups based on predefined parameters/restrictions is a product of our need to isolate components (define).

The categorisation of nature into discrete interacting groups is how we gain knowledge of their individual behaviors and interactions, but it is also artificial.

Every grouping we make and impose on nature is an artificial construct based on similarity verses difference.

Nature innately doesn't operate by definition but as a soup. We are the component makers.

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. Perhaps it is down to something as mundane as number of neurons. So My current choice from that particular list, remains 5/6.
All the rest of what you talked about in your last post, merely refers to consciousness, since it arrived in the form of humans, does this suggest that you favour number 8 in the list?
Panpsychism/Dualism is at number 2.

There has to be some cut-off point between self-aware/not self-aware. — universeness

What I would ask is "if the nature/quality of awareness progressively changes stepwise and slowly" is there need for a distinct "cut-off".

In the same way as we have a spectrum of colours that blend seamlessly into one another. And we cut through those transitions to qualify and quantity (by wavelength) individual categories like yellow, green, blue etc. When in reality Green blends seamlessly into blue. At what point is something green verses blue? Is that border the same for all people?

Are these borders arbitrary or definitive?

What is beauty to you Vera? — Benj96

Beauty: That which is pleasing *aesthetically satisfying to the senses and/or emotions and/or intellect. (* as distinct from, but not antithetical to or exclusive of practical application, efficacy or expediency)
What is beautiful to me: harmony, coherence, concision, appropriateness, clarity, evocative power, emotional resonance. I also like a subtle choice of complementary colours and a pretty tune. (No, not the music that is better than it sounds, or the art that's intended merely to shock.)

I do understand that the specifics of what one considers beautiful - i.e. taste - is subjective, but beauty as a concept is readily communicable. Odds are, nobody outside the medical community could appreciate a beautiful thoracic scar; very few people can tell an ugly pig from a beautiful one; few see beauty in a chemical formula, but we can all understand that beauty may be seen from different perspectives and judged according to different criteria.

We may have a subjective ideas of what a god should look or act like; we can choose personal, unconventional, eccentric objects to deify, and people would still know what you meant by a god - particularly if you refrain from capitalizing it, 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. So, there is this commonly-held concept of deity.

When you say everything is god, that has no meaning in any context that other people understand. I just consider it redundant: Okay, and? What is its function? "Everything" What does it want from me? "Nothing" How does it relate to me? "All ways and no way." So then, 'everything is' sums up the situation, and godhood doesn't need to be mentioned. Come to think of it, neither does the existence of everything need to be mentioned, since we generally take it for granted.

To me, the purpose of communication is to convey thought-content between conscious entities.

"An example of how supply and demand, capitalism and greed corrupt eco ventures, plus what is God?" — Jamal

I may have added : and a quibble over word usage. But just the one; I won't go on about it.

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

This is very true indeed. Popular "God" concepts are often assumed to be understood by the dogma from which they are derived: the abrahamic God variants, the Islamic god, the Greek Gods etc.

But we must not dismiss individually defined/nuanced Gods - as in ones that haven't been popularised or dogmatised but are very specific and particular.

For those examples, the best we can do is take them in a "case-by-case" manner and question the logic/reasoning behind them as a unique formulation in their own right.

I can't ofc speak for you or any other philosophical interlocutor in this case, but personally I enjoy the freedoms and expressive nature of such individual "God concepts" that have been/continue to be developed and are subject to scrutiny, rigorous discourse and hopefully ammendmen/refinement.

I think ultimately, theology ought to be as flexible and reformative as any other discipline. Dogma for me is analagous to arrogance.

And yes, perhaps the fact that the existence of a "God" being the fundamental premise of theology is in itself ultimately open to debate/harsh skepticism, but there is still enjoyment in the process of theists engaging in reasoning and trying to establish a description of existant that may satisfy a deistic terminology.

I'm open minded. For me anything may/does go. Until deterred from/convinced otherwise. I think as philosophers it's important for us to try not to be deterred from subjects we are skeptical toward just based on personal bias/preference.

In essence, anything of true merit ought to stand up to ridicule.

But we must not dismiss individually defined/nuanced Gods — Benj96

Why not? They have no significance to us, either as objects of worship, judges, helpers and redeemers or as philosophical and moral concepts. They are personal eccentricities, and thus fall outside the purview of theology. (Defined and nuanced have very distinct meanings.) We can dismiss something extraneous without ridiculing it.... unless it intrudes upon and obfuscates the proximal subject.

I think ultimately, theology ought to be as flexible and reformative as any other discipline. Dogma for me is analagous to arrogance. — Benj96

That's a whole other conversation.

Why not? They have no significance to us, either as objects of worship, judges, helpers and redeemers or as philosophical and moral concepts. They are personal eccentricities, and thus fall outside the purview of theology. — Vera Mont

I agree that most of them are personal eccentricities - have no significance, worth, value of worship nor redemptive qualities. Perhaps 95, even 98, or 99% of Individual "God" notions may come to absolutely nothing of value, nothing new, nothing novel to philosophical pursuit.

But does that mean that "ALL" "God" concepts are inherently un-useful/pointless? Or is there always the slight potential to elucidate something applicable, logical and/or moral from this approach?

My belief is that there is a free or liberal "thoughtscape" - one not restricted by former religion nor restricted to dogmas. And perhaps this may or may not reveal genuine insight.

For me there is no automatic application of "nonsense" to theological points of view. I prefer to hear them out/give them space to air themselves/be articulated, and then ridicule, skepticism and rigorous lines of questioning can ensue.

Either they stand up to it or they don't. But I feel all views must be given their stage.

I think staying open minded to new premises is useful in unbiased philosophical endeavours.

What I would ask is "if the nature/quality of awareness progressively changes stepwise and slowly" is there need for a distinct "cut-off". — Benj96

But that's not what we observe, when we observe consciousness in action. A human can be made unconscious, so a definite cut-off point, between conscious and unconscious. Same with alive and dead.
The idea of linear gradation and opposite 'states' at each end of the gradation, is very common in the universe. Some stars reach a critical mass point and go supernova/collapse into a pulsar/collapse into a black hole, all based on cut-off points. An electron will orbit a nucleus, unless a critical energy input, pushes it away. These all involve cut-off points, and are clearly observed, in reality.

In the same way as we have a spectrum of colours that blend seamlessly into one another. And we cut through those transitions to qualify and quantity (by wavelength) individual categories like yellow, green, blue etc. When in reality Green blends seamlessly into blue. At what point is something green verses blue? Is that border the same for all people?
Are these borders arbitrary or definitive? — Benj96

What are you referring to? Coloured lights blending into white light? What do you mean by 'seamlessly,' when it comes to the physics of light waves/optics. When you see a spectrum of visible light you see definite borders, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. How would you apply your logic here to coloured paints? Colour borders are definitive. Paint one half of a wall red and the other half yellow and you will see a definite border, yes?

have no significance, worth, value of worship nor redemptive qualities. Perhaps 95, even 98, or 99% of Individual "God" notions may come to absolutely nothing of value, nothing new, nothing novel to philosophical pursuit. — Benj96

You can agree, but not with me. I didn't say that. I said we can't discuss something that has no meaning for us. Linear algebra is probably valuable, redemptive etc. But I do not speak the language and cannot discuss terms for which I have no definition. If someone versed in linear algebra uses words like gouda and cheddar, I'm likely to mistakenly believe they're talking about cheese, which i do understand.

But does that mean that "ALL" "God" concepts are inherently un-useful/pointless? — Benj96

Not at all. But we can talk about most of them, using a common vocabulary.

"An example of how supply and demand, capitalism and greed corrupt eco ventures, plus what is God?" — Jamal

Haha. I laughed a lot at that. Yeah tbh the convo really span off topic to considerable degree. But I didn't have the will to try move over to a new post so just went with it because it's mostly universeness and Vera and myself pursuing this new train of thought in any case.

I may have added : and a quibble over word usage. But just the one; I won't go on about it. — Vera Mont

I do empathise with this struggle. It is both frustrating in one aspect but in itself informative in another. In essence for me any conversation is entirely a process of defining. Defining (articulating) your views, defining my views in turn. Defining the difference between them and thus the words we use and how we use them, what they mean to us and how we construct our premises with those meanings.

It's one of philosophies greatest burdens and simultaneously greatest strengths. A dichotomy.

. I said we can't discuss something that has no meaning for us. — Vera Mont

Sure. And yet we did discuss it meaningfully. You articulated your points. I articulated mine. We exchanged views. For it to be truly non-discussible would be for it to not be put into words at all. For conversation to have never taken place, the subject never considered or argued.

When the word "God" is read by you, it conjures some idea in your mind. Some meaning related to the word. Even if the meaning is "does not exist" or "cannot be used meaningfully" or "not of value personally or socially".

That is still a meaningful statement that gives me information about your thinking, mind, attitudes etc. The exact nature of your relationship to the word.

You stated earlier that if my concept of God is "everything" then "so what?" what's its function, what does it do? How can it be beneficial to adopt the terminology? Does it have any behavioural or moral imperative? Does it impact your life in any way? In essence, what does my view of such a god existant have to offer you?

In truth it doesn't. Its just a word at the end of the day. My question is does me calling it God while you call it entity or universe or reality, whatever you wish, change anything about the description?

If you and I describe an apple, and I called it pomme and you call it manzana, does that change anything about the description, function, application or characteristics? No right? Because these words are just idiosyncrasies of language based on the same experienced object.

I have personal reasons to adopt the G term. You have personal reasons not to. So there is difference there. For whatever specific reason. I don't think those differences are actually a bother, nor reason to convince one another otherwise.

My choice of term is because of 1). My persisting personal awe/amazement that I experience when delving into the depths of its existentialism

2). The immortality of the concept (you can attribute it to the conservation of energy in an non deistic sense - something indestructible).

3). The potency of the concept (an origin story as well as an explanatory tool for consciousness and the external world)

4.).The presence of the concept - being something that permeates everything and 5). Choice - the free will to explore it in any way you wish. To relate to it in every way consciously possible.

To call it whatever you like.

6). Logic. A primary mover, notion, rule or law that is elegant, unrestricted, can put relationships and associations between things into some harmonious accordance. Something that clears the misconceptions, paradoxes and illusive nature of reality but is also empowering as logic and reasoning can be used constructively to help people just as it can be abused and misused to exploit /manipulate people.

For me the term fits well. For you it may not. Neither case means we are at neccesarily at odds with one another on the content. Just the term of referral.

If I had to replace the term God with something equivalent, it would be "Potential", as it satisfies the same criterion for me.

A human can be made unconscious, so a definite cut-off point, between conscious and unconscious. Same with alive and dead. — universeness

We only have one side of that event to make inferences from. It's inherently biased. The perceptions and conclusions of the living witnessing the death of a person. We have no insight into what the dying person experienced in the process of death because afterwards, the walls to communication are up.

We cannot outright confirm definitively whether the "I" fully stopped or became something un recognisable when compared the the "human 'I' " - the standard by which we assume consciousness to exist. The same reason we often don't consider animals, plants or other living things as conscious or with agency.

For example, the ocean makes waves. They exist briefly, then crash and resume the state of being flat ocean. They were always ocean, but only briefly wave (a unique state if being).

If we apply that human awareness, we can say they were briefly humanly aware (a wave) , but does that mean when they die (return to flat ocean) all awareness is lost? Or is there a fundamental consciousness ocean they return to?

These all involve cut-off points, and are clearly observed, in reality. — universeness

Agreed. There are cut off points that determine our definition of something. That doesn't detract from the fact that we do not know where the cut-off point for awareness/consciousness is. We only know what the cut-off for human awareness is (birth and death).

But we have difficulty with defining the nature of consciousness itself, not as it manifests in human form, but as a concept in its own right.

Perhaps the only consciousness that exists is human consciousness, but then we must contend with not only how 1). Other living things behave as we do but 2). How inanimate/dead material and its energy - from food - sustains a conscious being and is used to be conscious, when what we ate 10 years ago is no longer materially or energetically in our bodies and this happens 8 times throughout a human lifespan and yet the conscious identity persists despite the exchange of energy and substance - nothing being physically the same.

Where do we draw the line? In what specific state of arrangement is energy and matter conscious, or are they always some form of conscious? Is it an innate property that they possess?

Just as solipsism suggests only one mind possesses awareness and panpsychism suggests that all matter and energy is conscious. The true emergence of it can be anywhere within in this polarity/dichotomy.

When you see a spectrum of visible light you see definite borders — universeness

This is an oxymoron. Spectrums and quantized, discrete, compartmentalised things are contradictory to eachother.

You can divide a spectrum into discrete categories with borders. And you can place discrete packets into order as a spectrum removing borders.

But that doesn't mean they're the same. It means they're interchangeable based on approach/premise. Whether it is organised into multiples or left as a seamless whole.

Light operates in this way: as a wave (spectrum) and particle (confined/ restricted category/item or packet).

Colour borders are definitive. Paint one half of a wall red and the other half yellow and you will see a definite border, yes? — universeness

Depends if you're colour blind or not. Perception plays a part in determining differences. An animal that only sees black and white would not make such a determination between yellow and red for example. Only shades of grey.

It not only depends on physiologic ableness but also depends on the culture by which you descriminate different colours. For example a namibian tribe does not discern blue from green but uses the same word for both, as they believe they are shades of the same larger colour set.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian-himbas-see-colour%3fhs_amp=true

https://www.reddit.com/r/badlinguistics/comments/af2a47/a_primitive_tribe_in_africa_cant_distinguish_the/

The universe is not itemised. It is a seamless transition of interactions between space, matter, energy, time etc. Humans itemise. We are the discriminators, the categorisers, based on human perceived differences between things, and thus we developed language simultaneously applying different words to different categories to describe their relationships and build a knowledge of the universes content and workings.

The universe is 1 thing. And simultaneously it is a billion things. The difference is how many categories we want to/need to create in order to compare focused sections of the whole with other sections of the whole.

For it to be truly non-discussible would be for it to not be put into words at all. For conversation to have never taken place, the subject never considered or argued. — Benj96

I do enjoy your pretzel-shaped constructions! (Beauty, like humour, as Emperor Cartagia said, is subjective.) There is that nugget of rock-salt in the middle: "it". I often muse on "it"'s infinite variety of applications

When the word "God" is read by you, it conjures some idea in your mind. Some meaning related to the word. — Benj96

The meaning: a name given to a conceived supernatural entity that people hold in awe, and from which they expect supernatural responses. Many such have been popularly accepted and chronicled.

Even if the meaning is "does not exist" or "cannot be used meaningfully" or "not of value personally or socially".

The meaning exists; your application of it doesn't fit any definition I understand. Very much as if the mathematician were going on about equations where Gouda equals and does not equal Cheddar. I can't say he's right or wrong, if his equation solves a problem or not, because it sound like gobbledigook.

n essence, what does my view of such a god existant have to offer you?

In truth it doesn't. — Benj96

Exactly. So what can I do with it? Nothing. I could have ignored it and kept driving, but questioned it instead. I suppose that tells you something about me, too - but surely not something you didn't already know.

My question is does me calling it God while you call it entity or universe or reality, whatever you wish, change anything about the description? — Benj96

No; nothing changes: it remains obscure, fanciful, poetic and redundant.

If you and I describe an apple, and I called it pomme and you call it manzana, does that change anything about the description, function, application or characteristics? No right? — Benj96

Right! So if you said Allah, Obaluaye, Caishen or Thor, I would know what you're talking about. If, however, you described an apple as oval, bitter, hard, bright yellow, small and red, large, soft and purple, striped and pulpy and sour, green, inside and out, growing on the ground from a tree, I would not know what you're talking about.

I have personal reasons to adopt the G term. — Benj96

Evidently. I said so early on. I do not have access, and you may forgive me for saying I do not desire access, to your inner motivations.

You have personal reasons not to. — Benj96

None whatever - at least, no more personal than my reason for using the words 'chair', 'apple' 'beauty', 'west', 'it' or 'the'. The words were already fixed when I got here.

If I had to replace the term God with something equivalent, it would be "Potential", as it satisfies the same criterion for me. — Benj96

I'll answer this one via PM, for decorum's sake.