Full Version: What makes a God a God ?
But if it worked for you, it might work for everyone, and then the currency would be inflated and worthless. You can't win.
I'll tell the G-man to supply only me, and in return I'll make sure everybody is totally afraid of him and kisses his butt no matter what
Nature is probable just as valid as Allah, God, Elohim, Jehovah, Hoda (The Pharsi word. My daughter-in-law is of Persian ancestry and was born in Iran.) BTW, Rick, what is you definition of nature?
BTW, is there a thread on the creation, nature and function of money?
BTW, is there a thread on the creation, nature and function of money?
Nature? That which occurs.
Money is liquid power. Maybe you should start a thread on that.
Money is liquid power. Maybe you should start a thread on that.
Rick, you define nature as, "That which occurs." Good.
As a unitheist, I am comfortable with saying that: G-d is that which occurs, physically, mentally and spiritually. Check out what Paul writes about our living and being within God, in Acts 17:27-29. As a human being I see myself as the result of my nature (body), my nurture (mind), and my pneumature--a word I have coined to refer to the way my conscious nature (my pneuma, or spirit) helps to mold my body and mind.
I like your definition of money: "Money is liquid power. "
Is this why we think of it a currency--that which flows like a current?
As a unitheist, I am comfortable with saying that: G-d is that which occurs, physically, mentally and spiritually. Check out what Paul writes about our living and being within God, in Acts 17:27-29. As a human being I see myself as the result of my nature (body), my nurture (mind), and my pneumature--a word I have coined to refer to the way my conscious nature (my pneuma, or spirit) helps to mold my body and mind.
I like your definition of money: "Money is liquid power. "
Is this why we think of it a currency--that which flows like a current?
Economists do think of money as flowing in a circuit. Unlike electrons, however, money can be created and destroyed. Banks create money by "lending" it, and borrowers destroy money by paying it back. When someone borrows from a bank, the bank writes a check. They never lend currency like greenbacks.
There is a very large "pipe" of money flowing into the USA government as payments from workers and employers into social security. If that pipe were diverted into the stock market, it would be a windfall for the stock holders because stock prices would be pumped up by that inflow. That's the real reason behind Bush and the Republicans' attempt to destroy social security.
There is a very large "pipe" of money flowing into the USA government as payments from workers and employers into social security. If that pipe were diverted into the stock market, it would be a windfall for the stock holders because stock prices would be pumped up by that inflow. That's the real reason behind Bush and the Republicans' attempt to destroy social security.
Rick, perhaps the following should be in the new thread, on money.
However, I will state it here: It is not not impossible, or illegal, for any individual, or even groups of individuals, to do the same thing that banks are doing: If we have the will and the imagination, we all have the power to create what, those of us who are doing it, in the Toronto area, call complementary and community currency (CCC).
However, I will state it here: It is not not impossible, or illegal, for any individual, or even groups of individuals, to do the same thing that banks are doing: If we have the will and the imagination, we all have the power to create what, those of us who are doing it, in the Toronto area, call complementary and community currency (CCC).
Rev.
How complimentary is the currency here?
I could use some funds to start up a studio.
How complimentary is the currency here?
I could use some funds to start up a studio.
Don, if you are serious, see the thread on money for more on this. Also check out my site mentioned in my signature, below. BTW, I like a sense of humour, as long as I you are not just being sarcastic. Sarcasm does have its place--in the dumpster.
Confucius says,
2:2 Think no evil.
Marcus Arelius (philosopher king) - Meditations
No evil is according to nature.
Rev, why would your perceptions lead you to sarcasim. Anything I take the time to say/type is worth being said. And can be taken literally, however be careful of subjective perceptions of what reaction the words illicit.
I am always serious when it comes to my art, and if God's intentions for me to have a studio to do my practice, then a studio I shall have.
Although my faith in God has wavered at times, deep down in my soul, the very essence of me, God knows whatz up. It's a hardwired thing, God. It was probably the first seed planted in every newly forming brain, the image or thought of one form of a God or another.
It is hard to get started in the art scene, especially when you move to a completely alien place where you have no contacts in the industry.
Just gotta keep plugging away. I'm excited about the direction my new body of work is taking. It is being done under strict budget and in the cramped confines of my tiny basement heater and storage room.
2:2 Think no evil.
Marcus Arelius (philosopher king) - Meditations
No evil is according to nature.
Rev, why would your perceptions lead you to sarcasim. Anything I take the time to say/type is worth being said. And can be taken literally, however be careful of subjective perceptions of what reaction the words illicit.
I am always serious when it comes to my art, and if God's intentions for me to have a studio to do my practice, then a studio I shall have.
Although my faith in God has wavered at times, deep down in my soul, the very essence of me, God knows whatz up. It's a hardwired thing, God. It was probably the first seed planted in every newly forming brain, the image or thought of one form of a God or another.
It is hard to get started in the art scene, especially when you move to a completely alien place where you have no contacts in the industry.
Just gotta keep plugging away. I'm excited about the direction my new body of work is taking. It is being done under strict budget and in the cramped confines of my tiny basement heater and storage room.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I will get back to you, later with a suggestion, or two. BTW, my daughter, Catherine (49) is an artist. She lives with her artist husband, Wayne Adams, on a floating house, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, Tofino, BC, Canada.
I will get back to you, later with a suggestion, or two. BTW, my daughter, Catherine (49) is an artist. She lives with her artist husband, Wayne Adams, on a floating house, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, Tofino, BC, Canada.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Mar 16, 11:14 AM) |
| I have a better word for God: nature. It's a lot less controversial and means the same thing. For example, my own ethical, loving, and creative human nature... |
I too see God in nature, or because of historical baggage I prefer to use the word divine, or ultimate, equating the divine with the creative good in nature (law, life, and love). But there is also an unknown, a transcendent element to the divine, which by Kantian definition we do not know unless and until it becomes immanent, and that is why I might use the word divine instead of the word nature, even though they are intertwined.
"Equating the divine with the creative good in nature" is a human action. Kantian philosophy also sets human perception (or knowing) as fundamental. Apart from the human tendency to see (feel?) divinity in "things," there does not seem to me to be a valid role for the concept (of the devine) in a satisfactorily useful model of reality.
That is, if something does not increase explanatory power, it should not be included in an explanation. However, I am still open to finding a proof of the need to include divinity in a model of nature.
That is, if something does not increase explanatory power, it should not be included in an explanation. However, I am still open to finding a proof of the need to include divinity in a model of nature.
Warren, is this the first time you have posted here? Or is this just the first time I have noticed? Welcome, anyway. Warren and I--we both like to call ourselves unitheists--discovered each other on the Web, For some time, now, we have been posting at http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?s...=160&#entry3795 On the current thread--and there have been scores on unitheism over the years--there are 179 posts and have been over 1100 clicks. Very interesting.
Recently Rick wrote--were you serious, or joking, Rick?--that perhaps he is an "unwitting unitheist". BTW, Farr, what constitutes a witting one? And, what is the difference between theism (short for monotheism), atheism and unitheism?
Monotheists--Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.-- seem to argue: Here is what God is like! Now believe in Him according to what we tell you.
Atheists argue: There is no superbeing called God. Believe only that which can be scientifically verified to be true--material reality.
Unitheists say: Why argue! Let us, as rational people, assume that there is something mysterious going on, beyond what we can detect with the normal human senses. That something seems to be in the process of coming into being. Let us with an open mind, explore the process. Do not be surprised if each of us will experience this process in our own way. This is part of the fun of discovery.
BTW, Rick, if you define nature as "that which occurs", the same is true for what I call G-d--so do Orthodox Jews. Some unitheists stick with 'God'. It matters little, to me.
Recently Rick wrote--were you serious, or joking, Rick?--that perhaps he is an "unwitting unitheist". BTW, Farr, what constitutes a witting one? And, what is the difference between theism (short for monotheism), atheism and unitheism?
Monotheists--Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.-- seem to argue: Here is what God is like! Now believe in Him according to what we tell you.
Atheists argue: There is no superbeing called God. Believe only that which can be scientifically verified to be true--material reality.
Unitheists say: Why argue! Let us, as rational people, assume that there is something mysterious going on, beyond what we can detect with the normal human senses. That something seems to be in the process of coming into being. Let us with an open mind, explore the process. Do not be surprised if each of us will experience this process in our own way. This is part of the fun of discovery.
BTW, Rick, if you define nature as "that which occurs", the same is true for what I call G-d--so do Orthodox Jews. Some unitheists stick with 'God'. It matters little, to me.
| QUOTE (Revlgking @ Mar 29, 12:33 PM) |
| Recently Rick wrote--were you serious, or joking, Rick?--that perhaps he is an "unwitting unitheist". |
I was serious. I stated my beliefs and you equated them with unitheism, even though I am not advocating the term. Therefore, by your definition, I am a unitheist, unintentionally. However, subsequently you seem to be adding to the definition, so maybe it no longer fits. If "all that is" is nature, then there is nothing supernatural. Gods, deities, and theisms by definition are supernatural.
Rick, my conception of the divine is essentially natural not supernatural, guess that's why I use lower case divine rather than God most of the time-- a transcendent aspect (if any) I would call cryptonatural (unknown natural) rather than supernatural. Divine in this case is I guess primarily of semantic value, the word divine instead of natural referring to that essence of nature that is good, creative, and powerful in a possibly-mysterious way.
Rev. King, this is the first time I've posted in this forum as BrainMeta— made just a few under the old name. A "witting" unitheist obviously is someone who calls himself a unitheist, like you and me
"The only difference between at least some theistic and atheistic constructs is the belief or disbelief in the existence of transcendent aspects. But as with the fully-transcendent (deistic) divine, any such aspects, by virtue of complete inaccessibility, are irrelevant from our standpoint.
Thus by eliminating transcendence... as a consideration for determining faith, we see that both concepts are inherently identical, and apparent differences in belief are due only to differences in labels, the theist’s divine immanence being ultimately the same thing as the nontheist’s ultimate reality.
Maybe there’s a better option. We don’t have to choose between theism, atheism, and agnosticism because, from our subtranscendent viewpoint, they’re really one and the same— at least in certain forms." --from Being.
This is something I wrote.
Rev. King, this is the first time I've posted in this forum as BrainMeta— made just a few under the old name. A "witting" unitheist obviously is someone who calls himself a unitheist, like you and me
"The only difference between at least some theistic and atheistic constructs is the belief or disbelief in the existence of transcendent aspects. But as with the fully-transcendent (deistic) divine, any such aspects, by virtue of complete inaccessibility, are irrelevant from our standpoint.
Thus by eliminating transcendence... as a consideration for determining faith, we see that both concepts are inherently identical, and apparent differences in belief are due only to differences in labels, the theist’s divine immanence being ultimately the same thing as the nontheist’s ultimate reality.
Maybe there’s a better option. We don’t have to choose between theism, atheism, and agnosticism because, from our subtranscendent viewpoint, they’re really one and the same— at least in certain forms." --from Being.
This is something I wrote.
Nice words there. I think we are in agreement. To me, cryptonatural concepts are useless because our purpose is to know, and not knowing, to find out. Things that are inherently hidden can be of no concern.
Natural. Supernatural. Rick and Warren, to me these are words. If they help us communicate as good people, they serve a valuable purpose. If they serve only to divide us, away they go. The more and more I understand how things--physical, mental and spiritual work-work, the more natural things become.
For me, one of the values of the unitheist approach is that it seeks to unite, not divide. As a unitheist I do not insist that Farr, or anyone, adopt this or that creed. I am more interested in deeds than I am in creeds.
For me, one of the values of the unitheist approach is that it seeks to unite, not divide. As a unitheist I do not insist that Farr, or anyone, adopt this or that creed. I am more interested in deeds than I am in creeds.
Sounds good to me. Too many "religious" people seem to be motivated by antagonism and are interested in suppressing thought and activity that is not in perfect accord with their prejudices. Unitheism seems like a welcome relief.
I have no doubt there is much that is happening beyond certain posters' ability to detect.
"A welcome relief". Sounds like a good definition for unitheism.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Mar 30, 09:20 AM) |
| Nice words there. I think we are in agreement. To me, cryptonatural concepts are useless because our purpose is to know, and not knowing, to find out. Things that are inherently hidden can be of no concern. |
I think we're in agreement too. A lot of people (but not all) who believe in supernatural events already think they are simply natural phenomena that is beyond understanding with our current knowledge. If they substitute cryptonatural for supernatural they wouldn't need the word supernatural at all.
If we could go back to Medieval times with a camcorder, they might think we were the devil and our lives would be in danger. If we could convince them that it was artifice based on natural principles though we might get an audience with the King, complete with dancing maidens.
As for things that are inherently hidden, I would call those transcendent unless and until revealed, and until then in a real sense irrelevant.
Once we're through the niceties of terminology (each understanding what the other means) we see eye-to-eye nicely.
I think I mentioned in an old post-- I like your politics too, Rick. Impeachment, anyone?
One problem with agreement is that it tends to bring a halt to further discussion.
| QUOTE (Revlgking @ Apr 01, 05:38 PM) |
| One problem with agreement is that it tends to bring a halt to further discussion. |
Rick, you, and I might generally agree on this issue but we have yet to hear from other posters. I would say reports of the demise of this thread are highly premature.
Warren and Rick: I do not mean that agreement will, or should, bring a halt to more discussion. What could happen is this: We could encourage others to participate. Meanwhile, we could go on to discuss the practical value and implications of unitheism, or other ideas and concepts.
What is the 'separation' that has been referred to recently?
| QUOTE |
| What is the 'separation' that has been referred to recently? asks Rhymer |
To what are you referring, Rhymer?
=================================================================
BTW, you may be interested in reading the following dialogue which I had, recently, with a friend in another forum to which I write. If you want to check it out, here is the link
http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?a...t=280#entry4558
Pave, a forum friend of mine, offers, what for me is, a logical definition of G-d (Note that I use the Orthodox Jewish way of writing the word.:
=================================================================
BTW, you may be interested in reading the following dialogue which I had, recently, with a friend in another forum to which I write. If you want to check it out, here is the link
http://boomer.invisionzone.com/index.php?a...t=280#entry4558
Pave, a forum friend of mine, offers, what for me is, a logical definition of G-d (Note that I use the Orthodox Jewish way of writing the word.:
| QUOTE |
| Instead of God being a singular and sepatated personality who is jerking everybody around and is intimately involved in the business of humans, the suggestion or contention is that God is pervasive in all things and plants and animals and humans as a Creative Force and is functioning with benign, automatic dynamics. |
Is this too difficult?
One can respond to what my friend writes : I do not agree!
But surely it sounds logical. At least it is for me it does. And I add my agreement to the following: "Now, if it turns out that God is a singular personality, well, that's OK too."
One can respond to what my friend writes : I do not agree!
But surely it sounds logical. At least it is for me it does. And I add my agreement to the following: "Now, if it turns out that God is a singular personality, well, that's OK too."
| QUOTE |
| The difference lies as much in the expectations of people than it does in whatever reality God/G-d ends up to be. I like the premises because I was taught that God was somewhat of a prick who played favourites and got offended too easily. And that's about me....not God." |
Unlike, Pave, I was taught that God was/is a loving heavenly father who had/has a son called Jesus who came down to earth to save us all and bring in the Kingdom of God on earth.
As a child--1930-1940's--I saw many family members, friends and acquaintances suffer and die. And most died horrible and unecessary deaths. People without enough money--most Newfoundlanders lived in poverty--had to go without even basic medical care. Life then did have a price tag. Then along came WW II (I was 9-15 years old during the war) and this brought more suffering and death. Our island was actually attacked, twice, by enemy subs. Sixty-nine people lost their lives.
Ironically, WW 2 also brought the good times to many in Newfoundland. Everybody, suddenly, had a paying job. This was followed by a time of such opportunity and prosperity, at least for the king family, that I thought the Kingdom of God was on the way. The opportunity for me and my family earn money provided me with the money, at 17, to begin my studies for the ministry. I wanted to be in the front lines when the King--and I don't mean Elvis--came back to take over. In 1953, my wife and I began our ministry--she taught while I preached--in the then squatters' town--Happy Valley/Goosebay, Labrador. My wife and I literally founded the town, now over 10,000. I served over 40 successful years in this Kingdom-ministry. But still, no Kingdom.
As I have indicated often, I was born a skeptic. But it was approximately during the last decade--perhaps fifteen years--of my ministry that I really began to question. This led me to rethink theism. Had I been in any denomination other than the UCC I would have, no doubt left and perhaps have become a unitarian. Although many of the rank and file of the UCC can be quite conservative--theologically speaking--the UCC system allows for liberal and even unitarian thinking. To make a long story short: This led me to the work of the former Dominican Priest, Father Matthew Fox--now an Episcoplaian--then to his pan-en-theism, and then to what I now dubb 'unitheism'.
As a child--1930-1940's--I saw many family members, friends and acquaintances suffer and die. And most died horrible and unecessary deaths. People without enough money--most Newfoundlanders lived in poverty--had to go without even basic medical care. Life then did have a price tag. Then along came WW II (I was 9-15 years old during the war) and this brought more suffering and death. Our island was actually attacked, twice, by enemy subs. Sixty-nine people lost their lives.
Ironically, WW 2 also brought the good times to many in Newfoundland. Everybody, suddenly, had a paying job. This was followed by a time of such opportunity and prosperity, at least for the king family, that I thought the Kingdom of God was on the way. The opportunity for me and my family earn money provided me with the money, at 17, to begin my studies for the ministry. I wanted to be in the front lines when the King--and I don't mean Elvis--came back to take over. In 1953, my wife and I began our ministry--she taught while I preached--in the then squatters' town--Happy Valley/Goosebay, Labrador. My wife and I literally founded the town, now over 10,000. I served over 40 successful years in this Kingdom-ministry. But still, no Kingdom.
As I have indicated often, I was born a skeptic. But it was approximately during the last decade--perhaps fifteen years--of my ministry that I really began to question. This led me to rethink theism. Had I been in any denomination other than the UCC I would have, no doubt left and perhaps have become a unitarian. Although many of the rank and file of the UCC can be quite conservative--theologically speaking--the UCC system allows for liberal and even unitarian thinking. To make a long story short: This led me to the work of the former Dominican Priest, Father Matthew Fox--now an Episcoplaian--then to his pan-en-theism, and then to what I now dubb 'unitheism'.
| QUOTE |
| The rest of the arguments have, essentially, been about who holds the keys to heaven and who's gonna get them. Pave. |
And what a dust-up that is, Pave, eh?
Rev LGK,
It's ok., I've read further back through the posts and realise that the 'separation' referred to was the 'enlightenment' that there is no God. I would have used a different word.
Even though there is no God, I do believe that a belief in a God is comforting for all those people who are unable through bad education or an inability to comprehend the truth (as well for those who are capable but too lazy to work out the truth).
Moreover, I would also say that even though religious beliefs are behind many causes of mass destruction done by 'man', the absence of religions would have probably been worse. This is simply because the fear factor would be then be eradicated.
I attribute to my perceived 'unknown causer' everything which I am unable to comprehend, either because of its complexity or enormity (cf. what 'man can achieve').
I started this post because I realised that whilst God gets the accolade for prayers answered in most religions and good events which occur, it seems odd to me that the Devil doesn't get the blame for all things nasty (ie., unwanted by man).
Of course the Devil doesn't exist either, but those that believe in God believe in the Devil too.
I continue to support and respect all those who have a faith of any description. I do not intend to criticise their faith or their belief, nor do I expect them to accept my beliefs!
The need for a belief is SO strong that billions of humans subscribe.
I am responsible for my actions, not a God.
I am not God.
It's ok., I've read further back through the posts and realise that the 'separation' referred to was the 'enlightenment' that there is no God. I would have used a different word.
Even though there is no God, I do believe that a belief in a God is comforting for all those people who are unable through bad education or an inability to comprehend the truth (as well for those who are capable but too lazy to work out the truth).
Moreover, I would also say that even though religious beliefs are behind many causes of mass destruction done by 'man', the absence of religions would have probably been worse. This is simply because the fear factor would be then be eradicated.
I attribute to my perceived 'unknown causer' everything which I am unable to comprehend, either because of its complexity or enormity (cf. what 'man can achieve').
I started this post because I realised that whilst God gets the accolade for prayers answered in most religions and good events which occur, it seems odd to me that the Devil doesn't get the blame for all things nasty (ie., unwanted by man).
Of course the Devil doesn't exist either, but those that believe in God believe in the Devil too.
I continue to support and respect all those who have a faith of any description. I do not intend to criticise their faith or their belief, nor do I expect them to accept my beliefs!
The need for a belief is SO strong that billions of humans subscribe.
I am responsible for my actions, not a God.
I am not God.
Rhymer, making myself clear: For me, there is no such thing as"a" god, one who looks like a person.
However, to all that IS, I give the name 'G-d'. That is, G-d is that which is total, universal, all encompassing. G-d interpenentrates in and through all that IS. In addition, G-d encompasses all that is. See Acts 17:28.
Is this clear?
However, to all that IS, I give the name 'G-d'. That is, G-d is that which is total, universal, all encompassing. G-d interpenentrates in and through all that IS. In addition, G-d encompasses all that is. See Acts 17:28.
Is this clear?
"Your God is the One that feeds you."
This from the pen of Steven King! Who would have thunk it?
There are no answers. There are only choices.
This from the pen of Steven King! Who would have thunk it?
There are no answers. There are only choices.
| QUOTE (Revlgking @ Apr 03, 05:16 PM) |
| ... to all that IS, I give the name 'G-d'. That is, G-d is that which is total, universal, all encompassing. |
ok, That's what I call 'the universe'.
| QUOTE |
| G-d interpenentrates in and through all that IS. In addition, G-d encompasses all that is. Is this clear? |
No. If G-d 'is that which is total, universal, all encompassing', then it is at best redundant to say that G-d ' interpenentrates in and through all that IS'. Why should something both 'be itself' and 'interpenetrate itself'? My guess is that we are not talking about strictly logical constructs here, but are dealing in the same kind of inconsistencies that generate the simultaneously tangible and transcendent cognition that is mystical thought.
God is man's imagination. Not figment of, but the actual imagination, brain process. Does that make man god?
Surely through the passage of time (and survival) man WILL become God, or join God, or replace God.
Surely through the passage of time (and survival) man WILL become God, or join God, or replace God.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Apr 03, 09:05 PM) |
| God is man's imagination. Not figment of, but the actual imagination, brain process. Does that make man god? Surely through the passage of time (and survival) man WILL become God, or join God, or replace God. |
God imagines Man, and Man in-turn imagines god.
When all the imagination stops...
| QUOTE |
| No. If G-d 'is that which is total, universal, all encompassing', then it is at best redundant to say that G-d ' interpenentrates in and through all that IS'. Why should something both 'be itself' and 'interpenetrate itself'? Asks Dan. |
Dan, Do You accept that there are such "things" as mental and spiritual realities, as well as a physical reality. Or are you strictly a meterialist?
| QUOTE |
| My guess is that we are not talking about strictly logical constructs here, but are dealing in the same kind of inconsistencies that generate the simultaneously tangible and transcendent cognition that is mystical thought. |
Now you are being unclear. One of the points I am trying to make, when I use terms like "G-d and unitheism", is: For me, G-d is not an objective being to whom I can point and say: There He is!
u·ni·verse (yū'nə-vûrs')
n.
All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
The human race.
The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
G-d is the Universe, so why call it, him, her or the 'object' anything else?
n.
All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
The human race.
The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
G-d is the Universe, so why call it, him, her or the 'object' anything else?
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Apr 03, 03:42 PM) |
| ... Moreover, I would also say that even though religious beliefs are behind many causes of mass destruction done by 'man', the absence of religions would have probably been worse. ... |
This assertion, that rational atheism would be (or is) worse than false belief, should be more closely examined. If a person believes in an infinite future, alive in heaven, then the value of life here and now is diminished. Such a person might kill more easily or have less regard for preserving our environment.
I believe in hoping (and working) for an infinite future, of our descendants alive on Earth, and after Earth is consumed as the Sun turns into a red giant, an infinite future in space. There is no guarantee, and if we don't overcome our primitive tendencies toward wishful thinking, the infinite future will not be available to us or to anyone else.
| QUOTE |
| G-d is the Universe, so why call it, him, her or the 'object' anything else? |
Exactly. This is why I like the Jewish form, 'G-d'. For me, it is short way of saying all those things you say about the universe. The '-' represent all that we do not know about the ALL. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
You will see that it refers to more than 'pantheism'--the physical universe is God.
You will see that it refers to more than 'pantheism'--the physical universe is God.
With panentheism, "God maintains a transcend character" (Wikipedia). That is why I prefer pantheism. There is additional complexity in the model without increased explanatory power with the addition of some mysterious immanence. What can be explained by panentheism that pantheism cannot explain?
and I prefer 'panpsychism' because 'theism' implies a magical 'god' quality that adds complexity without increasing explanatory power
And on that subject, there doesn't seem to be anything that panpsychism explains that plain old physics doesn't explain.
consciousness
Ah, but we are working on explanations that don't need the excess baggage of panpsychism. Simpler is better, assuming the simpler model suffices.
to my knowledge, there exists no simpler explanation
although, maybe you are right....perhaps I am describing a variation on 'panpsychism' and therefore, by using the term without clarification, am including unwanted baggage
although, maybe you are right....perhaps I am describing a variation on 'panpsychism' and therefore, by using the term without clarification, am including unwanted baggage
No, just plain old generic panpsychism is suspect. It implies that lots of particles in the universe that are not now, never were, and never will be, involved in consciousness, have non-physical properties that enable consciousness.
It hypothesizes a special property of matter, undetected so far by any physical means, that is essential to consciousness and has no other function. While all along, the known properties of matter (mass, charge, etc.) may be sufficient for a full explanation. Stay tuned.
It hypothesizes a special property of matter, undetected so far by any physical means, that is essential to consciousness and has no other function. While all along, the known properties of matter (mass, charge, etc.) may be sufficient for a full explanation. Stay tuned.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Apr 04, 02:49 PM) |
| No, just plain old generic panpsychism is suspect. It implies that lots of particles in the universe that are not now, never were, and never will be, involved in consciousness, have non-physical properties that enable consciousness. |
Why is consciousness 'non-physical'? Your brain is physical, and it is conscious (presumably).
| QUOTE |
It hypothesizes a special property of matter, undetected so far by any physical means, that is essential to consciousness and has no other function. While all along, the known properties of matter (mass, charge, etc.) may be sufficient for a full explanation. Stay tuned. |
nonsense. It is well known that ordinary physical matter, when assembled in specific ways, generates complex conscious states. Why cannot a single particle generate a simple conscious state? What is the 'threshold' combination of matter that causes a transition from 'no subject' to 'subject'?
Let's assume a monistic model in which consciousness is a physical thing. The easy problem of consciousness is the question of how it arises. If it is due to the way atoms interact (with known physical properties), then a panpsychic hypothesis is unnecessary. If consciousness is always there (panpsychism), then that leaves open the question of why most mental states are non-conscious.
So panpsychism brings no new mechanism to the table, and it raises as many questions as it answers. Therefore I find it to be unsatisfactory in "explaining" anything.
So panpsychism brings no new mechanism to the table, and it raises as many questions as it answers. Therefore I find it to be unsatisfactory in "explaining" anything.
| QUOTE |
| Stay tuned. Rick writes. |
And if we do, what will we hear?
| QUOTE |
| So panpsychism brings no new mechanism to the table, and it raises as many questions as it answers. Therefore I find it to be unsatisfactory in "explaining" anything. Rick writes. |
Excellent points, Rick and all.
May I suggest that this is why I value "unitheism"--G-d is process in being, not a being separated from us, or from what IS.
This concept allows for what was true, is now true, and, possibly, what will be true. BTW, I accept that you are free to value your own ideas and concepts about all this. Tell me if I ever tend to put your ideas down. I respect all forms of thinking. I honour thinkers.
G-d, a la Alfred North Whitehead, is in, and of, the process which we experience as life. Please check out http://www.ctr4process.org/
May I suggest that this is why I value "unitheism"--G-d is process in being, not a being separated from us, or from what IS.
This concept allows for what was true, is now true, and, possibly, what will be true. BTW, I accept that you are free to value your own ideas and concepts about all this. Tell me if I ever tend to put your ideas down. I respect all forms of thinking. I honour thinkers.
G-d, a la Alfred North Whitehead, is in, and of, the process which we experience as life. Please check out http://www.ctr4process.org/
| QUOTE (Rick @ Apr 04, 03:06 PM) |
| Let's assume a monistic model in which consciousness is a physical thing... |
this assumption is inconsistent with the 'observer/observed' duality inherent in logical inquiry
| QUOTE |
| If consciousness is always there (panpsychism), then that leaves open the question of why most mental states are non-conscious. |
You are assuming the existence of 'non-conscious mental states'. I reject that any such animal exists, and that we can explain brain activity in terms that do not create this apparent problem.
| QUOTE |
| ... panpsychism brings no new mechanism to the table, and it raises as many questions as it answers. Therefore I find it to be unsatisfactory in "explaining" anything. |
The notion of consciousness as a 'property (thus, non-local) of the universe' rather than an 'object (localized) in the universe' is a rather simple idea that, unlike the 'object' hypothesis of consciousness, yields a straightforward and consistent answer to the hard problem of consciousness.
| QUOTE |
| The notion of consciousness as a 'property (thus, non-local) of the universe' rather than an 'object (localized) in the universe' is a rather simple idea that, unlike the 'object' hypothesis of consciousness, yields a straightforward and consistent answer to the hard problem of consciousness. |
Dan, you have lost me. Please simplify. First answer: What is your theological position? Are you a secular humanist? An atheist? Or what?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.