I propose that God is a function of belief which is a physical form of the mind, or brain just to be clear. Accepting that forms of the mind have physical existence then it follows that God also has physical existence within the mind; he or she certainly exerts an influence. The logical extension of this proposition is that God only exists in our minds and is a limited or personal individual experience for each of us. A shared experience of God may create a mutual concept of God but he or she is still limited to an individual's construct and not linked to the consciousness of others. Interestingly this could explain why God is perceived as omnipotent, as he or she is inexorably tied to our minds and privy to everything that goes on in there.

Our consciousness, awareness, emotions and views are formed by intermodulation between sensory input and the brain. Physical intermodulation examples can be seen in non-linear devices and radio waves where two signals modulate to form intermodulation.

Acknowledging this helps us to be aware of what these forms actually are; a level or dimension of consciousness that we ourselves create. Our acceptance of these forms determines our reality. These forms develop with age and determine how we perceive our ‘being’.

There exists a perspective continuum within which an individual’s consciousness resides. Our individual perspectives determine our place on the perspective continuum. Where perspectives differ, there is potential to breach the ‘perspective gap’ and reach a mutual understanding (‘perspective gain’). The greater the ‘perspective gap’ the more difficult it is to realise or manifest that ‘perspective gain’. Therefore, it follows that a lesser ‘perspective gap’ is easier to span and reach a shared perspective.

I call the concept of realising ‘perspective gain’ ‘perspective mining’. The interesting thing about ‘perspective mining’ is that it is subject to the ‘observer effect’ in which the view of another perception is tainted by the bias of the observer and may change the interpretation of what is actually being considered or conceived resulting in misunderstanding.

This misunderstanding, particularly where the observer is perceiving a limited view or event, can lead to conflict between opposing views. Conversely, the ‘observer effect’ can seem to reveal great insights where a limited perspective or event informs a broader perspective i.e., something appears to be miraculous or mystical where a finite idea or event aligns with the broader beliefs or concepts of the observer.

The trick with ‘perspective mining’ is to recognise we are all placed somewhere on the perspective continuum and that our own bias will likely affect what we are perceiving. Through this process, we can change the focus from merely recognising differences to seeking ‘perspective gain’ or mutual understanding.

By understanding what our sense of self actually is and where we are placed on the perspective continuum, we can enable ourselves to seek wisdom from other perspectives both outside and within the context of our own.

I believe that this should be a two-step process as how can we understand others if we do not fully understand ourselves first. Accepting that we are physical beings, and that our concepts of self, soul and belief are the outcome of a physical process, we can see past ourselves to reach a higher shared consciousness, 'being' or 'humanity', within each of us.

As it stands, humanity seems to be consumed with idealisations of self, spirit, soul and belief. I acknowledge that these concepts are functions of a physical process but posture that there needs to be a paradigm shift in our perspective before we can see past ourselves to seek understanding and wisdom from the ideas and views of others.

I conceptualise thought as an intermodulation between sensory input and the mind resulting in the formation of ideas, emotions, shared perspective etc. Intermodulation examples can be seen in non- linear devices and radio waves where two signals modulate to form an intermodulation.