Right. But that doesn't really affect my argument. My argument is that we accept that experts/leaders/adults make decisions and perform acts that non-experts/non-leaders/children are not allowed to make, and so the idea that there is a God who does not act like he tells us to act, cannot be considered immoral or hypocritical per se. — Coben

So there's nothing inconsistent with a supposedly perfect God acting in ways which we know to be less than perfect... ?

If there is a God who has incredibly more knowledge than us, and presumably perception also, the fact that such a God does certain things that seem immoral to us cannot be ruled out as immoral or hypocritical, since we, if this is the case with God, do not know what God knows. And sure, we limit those powers - though in wartime those limits are far out there: Hiroshima, Dresden and then a lot of smaller acts where innocent people were killed. — Coben

Like I said, to some extent we do allow but we also set limits, for example, since WW2 the succeeding wars have been greatly monitored to avoid such occurrences. Also, proving that we know that it's wrong. Humans get to do such things because if they're reasonable they become hail marys and if they're not they become life lessons. And because we're faulty, such logic fits in with our progression from ignorance to knowledge. I don't think it should be the same for a supposedly perfect God.

I haven't said anything about holding God to a different standard. If it is true that God knows vastly more than us, God may be doing perfectly. — Coben

So, God may be doing perfectly what is questionable or outright wrong for us to do? Hmm, No. Not buying that. Outside of thoughtless allegiance to such a God, nothing about some of His actions could be designated as perfect. And, from human experience through every narrative ever given, the allegiance to the Abrahamic/Mosaic God is not automatic. I would even dare say it's been bought by whatever razzmatazz was used to influence people the most. But I can't speak of that God's rationale, intelligence, composure, love, etc, etc, at all times. And, to me, that's a pretty big "faith-gap" in the trade between wholehearted trust and someone's life. Infact, we have a word which may be said to fit perfectly with the representation of the Abrahamic/Mosaic God - TYRANT.

Why make excuses for what is clearly unacceptable behaviour regardless of who or what does it? Can't we just demand the perfection promised?

I'm not an Abrahamist but I think there are parallels in behavior we accept in humans with extra authority and power. Children are often told not to do things that parents can decide to do in certain circumstances where they deem it necessary. — Coben

That's the point I'm making - that, the 'do as I say' teaching is inadequate when the teachers don't do as they say.

Ordering the children around, using force in extreme situations with the children - forcing them to use a seatbelt as a mild example, pulling one forcefully back from the street. Police can use violence, courts can do things to people that others cannot - this would be precisely not vigillante violence, vengeance is mine says the court system (lol) and all that. Military leaders making horrible choices, bombing targets with known or heck intended civilian casualties (WW2) had a lot of that. Individual citizens deciding to bomb the mafia would do prison time. — Coben

None of them claim to be perfect or above censure. Unless we accept that the "abrahamic/mosaic" God is just another being liable to faults just like all the other beings we have encountered.

Not that any of this need be morally simple, but most of us allow that people with extra skills, positions of power, special knowledge get to do stuff that would be 'sinful' if kids or regular citizens or the unskilled did it. — Coben

We allow but we still know it is wrong and we still define the limits of such allowances. When we get down to brass tacks, the only reason we give such allowances is when it benefits us more than it harms us. So, again, this has the implication that the "abrahamic/mosaic" God isn't really special but we allow Him for the sake of benefits, right?

And again, why are we holding God to the same standards we have for humans? Isn't God supposed to be above that? What happened to being perfect, all-powerful, faultless, etc, etc?

You may be confusing peace with pacifism.

Pacifism does not lead to peace. Pacifism only leads to contempt. Peace can only exist in mutual respect, and all respect is ultimately always based on the fear for reprisals.

It often takes a hell of a lot of reprisals to finally bring peace. — alcontali

So how long do we still have to wait until the peace is achieved? Also, is God involved in this peace process and why isn't He working faster? (He just happened to create everything in a week but it's going to take forever to bring peace... ?)

Just off hand, I can't tell you why God doesn't lead by example. I can tell you though that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are descended from Abraham, not Moses. It was to Abraham that God made the promise of descendants more numerous than the sands of the sea. Something like that. — Bitter Crank

My apologies, my bad. Anyway, the significance of the question remains, I hope.

God did tell one of his prophets, Hosea, to marry a whore.... So what happened? Hosea's wife behaved badly, like a whore -- pretty much what was expected. Why did God want Hosea to marry a whore? So Hosea could understand what it was like being the God of Israel. — Bitter Crank

Again, it's like God is seeking some kind of validation and He isn't clearly setting out the rules. If the whore is acting like a whore,... I think I'm missing where the problem lies. If humans have free will and they can make whichever choice suits them, doesn't it mean they can follow whomever they choose, God or not.

Also, God seems to always want something from us. Being a supreme being, shouldn't He be less wanting and more giving? It always seems like God is the one with the unfulfilled expectations.

Also, isn't a supreme being supposed to do the greatest good? Save all mankind including his son?

Well, presumably god has cosmic responsibilities that necessitate actions he cannot otherwise morally justify. Thats what I suspect a religious person might say. An appeal to some greater good, like sacrificing his son (immoral) to save the souls of all mankind. (Greater good). — DingoJones

This then raises the question, "can't he save souls without the sacrifice?" Coz He (God) is the one performing the sacrifice. Then, He (God) is the one accepting the sacrifice. And, finally, He (God) is still the one who saves the souls. So what would I be missing? I would think it be easier to just skip to the part which concerns us and save us the trauma of whatever psychological complex seems to spur His unapologetic morbid streak.

I have a whole poetic list of such bad examples if you want to see it. — PoeticUniverse

No need, I get it.

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter"?

All existence, all energy, all life is defined by activity, among other fundamental qualities. Activity determines utility. Utility is the very definition of significance. Therefore, it all matters.

What you've expressed is that some configurations are more limited than others. However, everything does according to its capacity and nothing more. Humans matter - not because they will exist a billion years from now, but because right now they are aspects of utility in a certain relation in this existence. That, in itself is significant. Hence, it matters.

We live in a world where those life-forms of hundreds of millions of years ago matter. Can you imagine the industrial revolution without the discovery of oil? And what is oil without the organic life of hundreds of millions of years ago?

Was the food you ate ten years ago insignificant? Where would you be without that food?

Anil Seth (from the link given above):

People consciously see what they expect, rather than what violates their expectations

The Oracle (from the Matrix Reloaded movie):

We can never see past the choices we don't understand.

I think the whole "brain-predicts our reality" thing is just another way to say that our consciousness/awareness is efficient, harmonious or works along the path of least resistance (chaos). I don't think it's a new approach to understanding consciousness, just a scientific version of an idea already existing in the philosophical paradigm.

I have a question or two which, to me, represents why the problem of consciousness cannot be solved by a scientific consciousness-brain explanation and must instead depend on a philosophical and abstract one:

How is a person aware/conscious of their own awareness/consciousness?

How do we perceive our own perceptions?

No matter how many turns of feedback one supposes the brain has, there is still the question of how the final turn is registered into our awareness without creating another loop. And, if we claim awareness/consciousness or even perception is a mere activity within the cause-effect or action-reaction paradigm, then what is there to prevent plants from being conscious?

By choices even including those of both sides. IOW you have to go to war with people in certain situations, even if and in fact because of the fact that you are good.

If going to war and killing people is OK, and Krishna encouraged Arjuna to go to war and not be cowardly, why all the fuss about anger. All the destructive aspects of anger are accepted, but not the emotion. — Coben

War and killing people is not ok. What Krishna taught is that you can't avoid the consequences of one's own actions. If good people don't fight off evil, then they're just as guilty for its outcome including those who can resist its influence. Imagine if, in WW2, most of the allied powers decided not to get involved since Hitler wasn't going after them? Then, eventually, they would be just as responsible for whichever outcome would have ensued both short and long term. However, by acting for the sake of those others who are part of the greater community, they determine the nature of the future for everyone and especially safeguard their own. (Hence Krishna's "this battle is like an open gate to heaven" speech.)

Also, Krishna teaches that even in such conditions, war and violence, we need to keep our reason and compassion and act with the highest discipline and integrity. Which is why anger would not be acceptable.

War is about protecting the good and attempting to stop (ideally, to save) the enemy from their own destructive impulses. Again, in WW2, once the instigating force behind the Germans had been overcome, they (the Germans) stopped fighting. We don't go around calling all Germans evil even though at one time they supported Hitler. (A case could even be made that Hitler was alike many other leaders in history - not evil, just really, really wrong in their convictions. Were the British monarchs who almost colonised half the world any better? The Romans?) The same could also be said of any other empire which sought to conquer and rule others.

War is often less about good vs evil than it is about progressive vs destructive energies. All Krishna is saying is that anger is a destructive energy, and it harms oneself as much as others.

The Bhagavad Gita doesn't even condemn war, in fact it bases itself on a war backdrop and implies heavily that war is necessary in some circumstances. — Coben

Not "necessary". War is portrayed as inevitable because the course had already been set in motion.

If we say that objective truth exists out there but we can't access it or not all of us can access it, then how is that an objective truth? If no one can access it then it's an idea, not a thing, and if only some can access it then it is personal, not objective. — leo

Usain Bolt (and many others) had/have achieved certain running speeds that some people (not necessarily unfit) cannot. Michael Jordan (or Vince Carter among others) have jumped to heights that some people (not necessarily short) cannot; Albert Einstein (and other geniuses) had/have levels of intelligence that some people (not necessarily stupid) do not, etc, etc.

My point is:

First, truth is not relative. Otherwise, there would be no possibility of objectivity whatsoever. (Also, subjectivity does not negate objectivity, and vice versa. Because, again, there would be no objectivity since subjectivity is an ever-present aspect of an individual consciousness.)
Secondly, objectivity does not imply ubiquity. Objectivity is just a perspective in relation to certain collective agreements of interacting consciousness.
Lastly, like anything else, truth is there for all those who wish to avail themselves of it depending on how they apply themselves and their capacity to achieve.

However if we say "There is only personal truth", then we are not stating an objective truth, we are stating a personal truth, and that way we can remain coherent. — leo

Then, there would be a collection/multitude of personal truths and which still maintain 'coherence'. I prefer to think there's just truth and which we refer according to our limited perspectives.

From The Bhagavad Gita (Translated by Vladimir Antonov):

2:62. But if one comes back in the mind to the earthly objects, then inevitably an attachment to them arises. This attachment leads to the desire to possess these objects, and the impossibility to satisfy this desire produces anger.
2:63. Because of anger the perception gets completely distorted. The distortion of perception causes the loss of memory (the memory about one’s own achievements). And the loss of memory leads to the loss of the energy of the consciousness. By losing the energy of the consciousness, man degrades.

So, basically, anger is a reaction to our own shortcomings misguidedly directed at others. By loss of memory of one's own achievements is meant that we forget our status (as humane, compassionate, reasonable beings). Man degrades means that he/she acts without due integrity, out of countenance, child-like, maybe even animal like (with little reason, compassion, humane-ness).

Personal experience has taught me that anger is what we do when we're blaming ourselves for not being good enough, for not being vigilant enough, for trusting when we should have known better, for not being disciplined enough, for seeking undue shortcuts, etc. It's never about other people, it's always about our misguided expectations. There are always limitations (weaknesses) and failed expectations in anger.

Legs -> Walking -> Movement.
Brain -> Awareness -> Consciousness.

If legs are restricted, it is impossible to walk. However, movement is still possible.
Can there be consciousness without awareness in the brain?

(The body of a brain-dead person can survive on life-support machines for a long time. So, without the brain, how do the body parts and organs detect, process and respond to stimulus? Is it all mechanical? Or are there parts of the neural network that are still functional? If so, perhaps consciousness is not of the brain, a notion we've always suspected, science has hints but nobody wants to admit it could be true. Is there something to this... ?)

Sin has a victim and you are ascribing the term of sin where there is no victim. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Depends on the perspective you use to refer to victim. We can even be victims of our own misguided endeavours. Therefore just by being a participant in sin, we are already victims.

Infra/ultra-orange?? — Terrapin Station

I'm referring to the scales or spectrum in which those light frequencies belong to. Red or violet isn't the only 'light' frequency with an infra/ultra spectrum, is it?

The energy of a photon is linearly related to its frequency always: — fdrake

Ok. But what is the relation between the stream of photons whose frequencies are in the 'visible' spectrum of light versus those in the infra and ultra scales of the spectrum?

And, are the different scales (the 'visible', the infra and the ultra) linearly organised with respect to each other?

You seem to be tying spiritual thinking to matter... — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This is the point of misunderstanding - I'm implying that the significance in materiality is derived from spirit hence "the love of money... " quote.

"The love of money is the root of all evil," - What is the root of all evil? Not money but, it's the love of money.

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

In both cases love has the same significance. Love is the aspect which one identifies with. It is a connection, an influence, an attachment, a bond, etc, etc. In both cases, love directed to the wrong thing, love when not directed to the father (the source, creator, unity), is mistaken, it is wrong and sinful.
When the embodiment of one's identity is directed towards bias (limited or relative aspects), then it is wrong or sinful. When it is directed towards the absolute (the father, God - the unity and harmony of everything) then it is righteous.

It is people's weakness and lack of self-discipline (lack of cultivation of inner strength, laziness, lack of vigilance, etc) that makes them persist in ignorance, that makes them succumb to wayward thoughts and emotions, that makes them mistake individuality for selfishness, etc.

The question is this: Are these people who, after the first generation, are no longer volunteers kidnap victims? Prisoners? — Unseen

Are we kidnap victims or prisoners of our parents?

I've been there before. It began 10 years ago when my dad was sick and then it turned into a really intense bout of depression when he died in about a year's time afterwards. For me, because knowing is a big part of how I deal with things, I ventured into spirituality with the aim of uncovering whatever lies hidden in the realms of "spirit" or "soul" or anything that will get me closer to the inner knowledge of "consciousness", "psyche", etc. And I mean I seriously went about it. Anyway, years later, I realised I was tired of being depressed, I was tired of hints and hidden or mixed messages and so I decided to reconcile my life, to "balance it out" up to the point in life that I was then. So, I determined what made sense and what didn't and formed my own fundamental principles of what my life will be based on.
For example,

• 1. If there's a God (superior force, being) then He gave me the abilities I have and use. If He's got a problem He will do something about it. Till then, I Am Who I Am and I DO What I Do.
  2. Everything I do is according to what I think is best for me.
  3. The mistakes I made and will make are in pursuit of experience, knowledge or interaction. I'm going to make as many as is necessary to achieve my goals.
  4. All actions have consequences and I have no choice about it, etc, etc.

But before all that I had to settle one fundamental score - that is, the answer to why am I here?

It's simple, I'm here because I chose to be here. That may not make sense when you reference ideas such as I had no choice in the matter of my birth, or my parents, or the when, how and any number of factors that came into play to bring about your presence on this little blue planet. But, consider this - why should oxygen combine with hydrogen to make water?

This is not about free will or choice, it's about NATURE. If an oxygen atom knew what scientists know about its components and their configurations, about its affinities and aversions, its latent, active and potential capacities, etc, then it would not question its role in water (if it questioned, that is). So my point is - LEARN YOUR NATURE!

There is nothing more true than energy. Your energies, whatever they are, act in accordance with their nature and thus they direct the why, where, how, what, when, etc, you are and will be.
So, what is the nature of your energies that they should manifest the conditions you refer to as you, here, now?

Also, as a parting gift, life is boring only when you are too lazy to do the only thing you are here to do - BE. So, why not take this opportunity to be the scientist that discovers who they are. It is hard work, it takes time and effort, and you will likely not attain the target. But, on the off chance that you realise what it means to be one person in a billion or seven billion, you just may succeed. (Also, there are about 200 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, approximately 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, etc.)

So, now the question becomes,

Do you really want to quit? REALLY? :brow:

Because it's not part of the script. — Shamshir

:rofl:

That just makes us sound really dumb. I'm laughing but I'm also terribly ashamed (on the inside) because I know it's true.

It could be done on a large-scale, maybe continent-wide scale if not country-wide. That way the costs could be better distributed to the consumers.

I wonder if there is any agreement that honesty in public life should be enforceable in principle in somewhat the same way that it is in business? — unenlightened

You mean like, "I honestly believe I deserve that," or, "I honestly believe the ends justify the means," etc, etc. Yeah, we've really enforced such.

The problem with consensus is it is just that.

Organs are distinct and separate parts of a body. On the other hand, semi-circles are not necessarily distinct and separate parts of a circle. This is because a circle exists primarily as a concept. In reality we have objects which approximate to spheres or rounded portions. There are no shapes existing as distinct and separate objects in nature, they can only be derived as conceptual properties of objects in nature.

What is logic as its own distinct identity?
What is logic before we or anybody else imparts any limitations to it?
What is logic before it was a part of philosophy, of mathematics, before it was designated as something to be taught by somebody, etc, etc? (I'm not asking that we should ignore what has been taught over the years but, as they do in science, let us try to track back and see if we could identify logic as itself. It's like investigating the origin of the universe or an earlier state of our earth, let us track logic and observe what it is or could be as an identity.)

We have this thing we call reason or reasoning and most of the time we imply that to be logic. This may be because, as some people say, everything is an illusion taking place in our mental faculties since nothing can be known outside of it. However, the mind is not self/all-existent, is it? We don't consume foods to feed our minds, do we? (And, if we did, how could those foods exist outside the mind, and as what?)
Also, the concept of others (other things, people, subjects, objects, etc) is always in opposition to the concept of our self-identities. If they were a part of ourselves (our minds), there would be no such opposition, would there?
Another thing is we speak of reasoning about this or that, and we know or realise that our reasons and reasoning can be illogical or limited in relation to logic without negating the faculty or capacity to reason. So, what does that mean?


Basically, I'm asking, is there logic beyond our reasons or reasoning and what is it?
Obviously, I'm implying that logic does exist beyond our reasons or reasoning. The identity by which I designate it is what is somewhat controversial, if I may say so myself.
To me, logic is the expression of the laws which govern activity in nature. Here, nature being interactive reality and thus the relative aspect or designation of reality. Therefore, logic designates the mode of operation of nature, whether a specific or collective circumstance, depending on the point(s) in focus. It defines the how but not necessarily the why "things" are.

Which brings us to our application or use of logic. We are limited in our expression of reality. This means we are a part of nature. Also, we are limited in our operation of that nature, which means we are a specific circumstance at best even though we may be a collection of lesser circumstances, fundamentally. Basically, we are not the whole of nature.

We can conjure relations/concepts in our minds which connect to and with every possibility extant in those minds. Such a concept we designate as an absolute. It is a concept which connects to all other concepts, contains all other concepts, exists within all other concepts, influences and determines all other concepts and its identity and character cannot be influenced or determined by any or all of the other concepts. It is itself and as such, an absolute. (We know of such - God, Reality, Life, Energy, etc depending on application.)
But, what is the purpose of an absolute concept? My hypothesis is, absolutes are used to set the limits. In analogy, when we know how high a building should go, we are able to calculate how low the foundation should be for the best stability, and vice-versa. Here, stability being the absolute or the determining factor. I think logic is such a determining factor in relation to our reasoning capacities and faculties.

I mean in the sense that scientists have determined to do away with metaphysics (the "un/super-natural" kind) in present-day science. This is because everything that science deals with, is considered to be part of natural phenomena. At least, that's what I think.

The issue was perhaps highlighted my Niels Bohr's argument with Einstein about the existence of 'electrons'.
Bohr argued that there were no 'things in their own right' we call 'electrons', only consistent human 'interactions' with an aspect of the world it was convenient to explain by the word 'electron'. — fresco

In bold and underlined are other "things" which Bohr should not have used as definitive and yet he did. The argument about the non-definitiveness of reality because of our "unreal" percepts and concepts MUST be a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. What it doesn't answer is, "what are we perceiving or conceiving?" "Can the resources or aspects of perception and conception be non-existent or unreal?"

If what you are implying from that Bohr-Einstein argument is true, then everything we designate as something are illusions/representations. Illusions/representations of what? Illusions/representations in what?

What is existence that it should be relative, instead of absolute? If it's a concept, then, a concept of what? Whence and how is the concept derived?

What about schools of philosophy that no longer consider themselves metaphysical in the sense of going beyond the natural? — Joshs

I believe everything is within the purview of nature (reality's mode of operation), otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognise them. Also, if logic is adhered to, nothing should be beyond nature, just beyond our understanding or appreciation of it, and therefore any new information is an opportunity to learn.

"it sounds like you're saying there is a real realm of physical nature and a real realm of human subjective experience, or what we colloquially call 'phenomenological', and that the two are different in their contents and methods of study but equally primordial. We can study the nature of human experience naturalistically, using objective empirical methods of the social sciences, or phenomenologically, via non-empirical philosophical modes of inquiry. — Joshs

I believe there's a subjective experience which is the domain of all that we know, understand, believe, etc. However, through reason which adheres to logic, it is also clear that we can deduce and/or conceive of an objective relation of which we are a part of. So, for me, philosophy is about the relation between the two domains and empiricism is fundamentally about how much influence we can exert, operate and appreciate in relation to both. We have the capacity to interact with reality regardless of whether it is from a subjective/objective, abstract/practical, point of view. Our knowledge can never be absolute but it can be expansive, so it's about developing/unfolding more connections.

Science has developed its limits, its sphere of operation - empiricism - and we should respect that. However, there's more to our processes of knowledge than that. For those who need a dimension of knowledge that goes further, they should look to that which goes as far as they need. So far, philosophy is not as limited as science and should not sacrifice its integrity just for a mere moments popularity. Right now, in this age (moment in time) scientists are working harder and smarter than philosophers and that is why they seem to be achieving more even though the methods employed by both have a great many points of similarity.

:razz: Trick question! :smile: Philosophers since Hume, and probably long before, have struggled with this one, as you surely know. :naughty: :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Yeah, but it's different for us now, thanks to them. I'm asking what "consciousness" they're talking about. Even if they don't know what consciousness is, they should know what they're trying to say and mean - what their reference is in relation to the subject/object in question. I'm trying to establish a common language so that we don't have an argument where we're both discussing different things while insisting they're identical.

Science shows us that consciousness is always temporally behind the times — Unseen

Does this refer to sensory awareness?

and experiments show that the brain has made the decision before the consciousness thinks it has made it. — Unseen

Is thinking carried out by the brain or consciousness?

It follows from those things that the consciousness is merely an observer of brain activities. — Unseen

If the brain is the centre of sensory input and processing, what is consciousness and how does it observe brain activities?

I don't think we can have much more than a layperson's analysis of consciousness. I think it's probably a so-called "primitive" (primary, unanalyzable concept, known directly and in no other way). — Unseen

First, there's the consciousness that is a state of attention or focus in awareness. By this I mean, being conscious or not conscious of something.
Secondly, there's the consciousness that is a collective aspect of our mental faculty. This not only involves sensory awareness but also our perceptions and conceptions and all the processes and relations involved including thinking, belief, knowledge and understanding.
Thirdly, there's the consciousness that denotes our ultimate presence in reality. That is, what we are fundamentally in relation to what is. This goes beyond what we currently know or are aware of and is determined by how best we can represent the relation between the absolute of reality and our individual selves participating in that reality.

I think, if properly characterized and defined, then coupled with the appropriate logical connections, any hypothesis on consciousness may be said to be beyond a layperson's babble. And it may be the way to make it relevant or the least bit credible as a subject/object of consideration.

I think as Newton implies, we should consider "science" as referred to in these modern times, as the experimental part of philosophy. And I think scientists should keep with their vocation and ignore the metaphysics which is clearly not a part of it. The problem is that those who advance metaphysics have forgotten about the "natural" part of philosophy. Nowadays metaphysics is synonymous with super/un-natural as if anything can be beyond nature.

I no longer think we need to reconcile or unite the two, rather, those who propagate metaphysics need to adhere to logic instead of fuelling fancies and gross mysticism. Subjects like mind and consciousness can be investigated logically and, to some degree, practically without abandoning the field of metaphysics or natural philosophy.

At one time, not too long ago (in this forum), I advocated for the union of science and philosophy but now I think to let the past go and build upon a better realised future where philosophy can earn its merits by its own work instead of relying on handouts. I believe, philosophy can go further than science since it is not as limited. However, it needs the kind of dedication and mastery we observe in science.

So, why are we conscious? In addition to humans, evolution also produced plants, and while plants can react to their environment in stimulus/response fashion, there’s no indication whatsoever that plants are aware of themselves as beings. — Unseen

What do you mean by this, "indication... aware of themselves as beings"? And what designates or determines consciousness to be in some but not others?

What is the relation between consciousness and life or life-forms? Can life or life-forms lack consciousness (even just rudimentary levels of it)?

What is self-awareness? At what stage of animal life does the self-awareness begin? Is recognition and response of stimuli part of self-awareness? Is self-preservation mechanisms in response to conditions (both internal and external) affecting a life or life-form part of self-awareness?


What I'm trying to get at is if you're just referring to consciousness from an uncritical or casual (layperson's) point of view or is it something that you have thought through and can give insight into your analytical process. How have you arrived at what consciousness is and how have you characterised it in relation to those that possess it?

Psychology is the original (or one of them) portmanteau words. — tim wood

In short, some science is done under the aegis of psychology, but by far not all that psychology "does" is science, unless idiosyncratically defined. — tim wood

Somewhat true I think. However, it's quite definitive as to what psychology attempts to achieve - the study of the psyche. Science is also a kind of portmanteau in terms of its meaning, in the sense that, it is a blend of philosophy and physically investigative endeavours - ideally representative of logic coupled with practice. And, just like psychology, there are "unscientific" or uncharacteristic aspects which contribute to science, e.g. hypotheses.
Another "unscientific" aspect is observation which is necessary for both science and psychology but it's primarily just a factor of learning, scientific or otherwise.

So if we're going to change evolution/life, "psychology" provides no substantive clue as to how or what. Maybe the devil is in the details - do you have any details? — tim wood

I'm not saying we're going to change evolution/life. My point is, we can unfold or develop those capacities which constitute progress and thus consciously participate in furthering evolution instead of the process taking place un/sub-consciously. Imagine how much further we could have been in terms of basic reasoning abilities if the first step of organised knowledge had been to develop the art/science of thinking... ? It is possible the term "common sense" would mean something a lot better realised, well-defined and more logical than it is now. It's like basic arithmetic - almost everyone (past a certain age) can do it mentally without the aid of formal education. However, it wasn't always the case.

So if we're going to change evolution/life, "psychology" provides no substantive clue as to how or what. Maybe the devil is in the details - do you have any details? — tim wood

Ok, I realise my mistake. I should have included all fields of knowledge pertaining to the study of our mental faculties. Include psychiatry, neuro-science, neuro-psychology, cognitive neuro-science, neurology, etc. (Think what they all were before differentiation or what they collectively represent in relation to the study of our mental faculties.) Then, after such understanding, developing practices which promote the advancement of those mental faculties e.g. ease of activating and engaging all mental activities, elevating the degree/scope of power and influence generated and controlled for use in all parameters of mental activities, etc, etc.
Would such be realistic?

I think we share similar lines of thought with respect to what belief is. However, I have this question I've wanted to ask someone, so here goes - often we try to reconcile knowledge in such a way that it matches that of others, for the most part, about a particular object/subject. So, is belief something that we should also attempt to reconcile? Or, is subjectivity one of the main aspects of belief and therefore they must remain isolated from those of others regardless of any commonalities.

About causation, maybe we can't see it but we can perceive and conceive of it. It's like a disease, all we see are symptoms (effects) and micro-organisms which cause diseases (agents of causation) but the disease itself, the actual influence which is causation, does not produce impact in the senses. However, through the corresponding factors a disease could be monitored. So we know a disease as the resultant of various aspects working in conjunction. Isn't causation alike?

But what if some lives are more valuable than others? Can our claims to life be equal then? — Dusty of Sky

More valuable, how? What is that value and how is it determined? If it's in how beneficial we are to others, there's the question of what those others are and what nature the benefits are in comparison to human life, for example, if such as food and medicines benefit human lives, are they more valuable than those human lives?
Then there's the question of what that value signifies, for example, if we say that mother Teresa is more valuable than Hitler, then would it mean that if they fought she would win? Or, simply, what benefits does the greater value confer in relation to those of lesser value?

I think all lives are equally valuable because any value we could assign fails to match the significance of a human life. For example, what are gold and diamonds without humans to appreciate them? Therefore, human life (or life) is the summit of value, such that, it could not be increased or diminished by anything other than itself (and also it is life that bestows value upon everything else).

Granted this does not automatically mean that the Gods themselves were also just created or made up by humans, but it does beg the question of why it is that Gods only seemingly came about or had any identity in conjunction with the creation of their respective religion. — Maureen

God(s) represent the bigger picture; they represent the part of life beyond normal human activity. Therefore, they played the part of providing inspirations and guidance and in manifestation of activities in higher consciousness. That was before humans coined terms like prophets, oracles or genius (remember in some cultures, those who were spiritually gifted were said to be possessed by genius or genii).

how exactly do you explain the presence of Gods in conjunction with their respective religions when the religions themselves were merely created by humans? — Maureen

Firstly, religions did not develop from trends. They were propagated by gifted men primarily in service of their communities and as a way to direct their talents. The religious movements had purpose, primarily a well-organised mode of conduct in human interactions - morals. They also served the purpose of raising human consciousness from succumbing to instinctive behaviour by infusing philosophical musings of what the greater reality could be - and this is where God(s) come in.

If you take into consideration the collective thoughts, emotions, trends, beliefs, etc of those times, and couple it with the modes of expression, the language, the forms of education and knowledge, the politics, the future outlook of those humans, etc, etc, you will realise there's nothing unnatural or misplaced about religious belief. For example, currently we as a collective human of this present time believe we can develop consciousness and manifest it in machines. And we have this belief that they will mirror human consciousness and so we act and react to these ideas in accordance with our present understanding of the stakes at hand.
Now imagine a human being looking back from a future so distant none of our imaginings could capture anything about it. To them, profound as we think our application of consciousness is, we are exceedingly and unbelievably primitive.

It's the same with religions. Right now, you (in particular) can't see any need, or use for religion. But you can't just project your consciousness back to the past and have it remain as it is now and expect to uncover the core of their actions. You must walk in their shoes and be what they were, see yourself choosing a religion for the same reasons they did, see yourself acting as they did to achieve what they did, see the value in the things they sought, then watch as their successes and failures unfolded into future endeavours by and by until today when in so many other ways we still continue to chase the shadows of enlightenment and perfection.

God(s) exist. There is no doubt of that. The only query is what/who that/those God(s) are and why/how they are. If you want God(s) to be products of imagination and thus unreal, so be it. However, mental objects/subjects still have influence over us and our activities and therefore have real value. So, at the very least, God(s) have existed as is proven by the state of our consciousness today. Otherwise this discussion would not be.