for me death is simply transfigurement.

You will cease to be human and your identity will shift to something else. The energy and matter that upheld your conscious mind, body and self identity will dissipate or spread out and be shared amongst the various other biologicals that work on decaying your body back into the flowing cyclical material-energetic soup that is mother nature.

Sure "you" as a specific identity and it's experiences and memories will evaporate, but your substance - your basis in the physical world will not go anywhere but simply be recycled into new living systems.

At most this could only ever be the creation of a new identity with no recollection or memory of past lives. Experiencing life anew as a worm, a wolf, a human. Who knows. At worst it means you will never exist again. In total oblivion.

But the oblivion one emerged from is the same as one enters on death. And as you didn't suffer before being born, I suspect you will not suffer in death. Suffering is for the living not the dead.

All in all, regardless of what view you take, I don't think death is something to be feared as much as it is inevitable and natural and what gives life meaning. A fact of life just as much as birth.

Dying as a process, now that can be feared. Dying may involve suffering - pain, disablement, disorientation, uncertainty. That is something to fear but it resides in the "state of living."

Perhaps death is just like a dreamless sleep. Perhaps one you may awake from once again. Or perhaps one you never wake from.

In either case is dreamless sleep "suffering"? I don't believe so.

I can't agree more. Well said. Bravo/brava.

Well, I think good friends are akin to therapists that work for free - through compassion (patience, tolerance, insight/understanding and non-judgement) rather than for monetary incentive.

I hope that one day we can all confidently say we are surrounded by well meaning and good friends (therapists) and not people who treat us as a means to an end - a selfish end at that.

If this was the case, the world would be a place with much less suffering (both self inflicted as inflicted on others).

Unhappiness erodes both the self and everyone that that self is exposed to. The best place to start rectifying that is thus the self.

So this question is more towards those who don't find physicalism convincing anymore: How does matter arise from consciousness?

And in this case consciousness is the ontological primitive — TheMadMan

Hmm this is a challenging notion to argue but I thank you for the task. It seems fun. I'm going to ad lib with this one.

So lets say for arguments sake consciousness as an ontological primitive is an spontaneous impulse (action potential) that wishes to create tracks or patterns (thoughts) so that it can develop a store (memory) and thus perception of the passage of time (based on memory of the past) and by proxy anticipation (or the "future" ), as well as a sense of presence (the present), it requires some substance to store information and making these thought tracks/patterns - ie for making memories.

Cue matter. If energy is the impulse of thought - potent, flexible, malleable, changeable, creativity, imagination, then matter is it's rigid or crystalline counterpart - the memory generated.

And as we know the two are related (equivalent) - by Einstein equation (e=mc2).

If consciousness is a fundamental, then the hard problem of consciousness/or matter (I think they are the same in this case) cannot be found in our brains, and is not that hard at all, it would instead be a reevaluation of the e=mc2 equation with the assumption that (c2) represents the gap (or "problem" of unifying the 2 entities: thought (energetic impulse, and memory - matter: the anatomically stable structure, the neurons).

Matter is thus the form of energy with properties of stability, it takes a solid and structured or patterned form and then remains that way until acted upon again. Just as memories take form and are slowly altered every time we revisit them with our conscious attention.

Perhaps con"solid"ation of memories also involves gravity which draws in scattered "memories" and condenses them into geometric relationships/associations (orbits, solar systems etc - perhaps a basic for logic or reasoning. Organisation, complexity. Negative entropy).

So really the question would be how does thought in this case (energy - the electricity or light coursing and rippling through the system as it thinks, acts and develops) become matter (the memories formed) and I would suggest the answer lies in the e=mc2 formula.

Speed is a relationship between time and space (distance). It is also the factor that distinguishes matter from energy - (c) the speed of light (which is energy, so it's a "self-referential" equation - apt for consciousness or "self" no? ).

In order for energy to become matter, or "thought impulse" to become "memory", time and distance must change rapidly. As the equation would suggest.

Perhaps with some relativistic expansion-dilation type of change.

A given quantity of energy or "thought" could hurtle out (space) , dissipate (entropy) and it's rate of change (with relation to time) might slow and become more stable, less chaotic, and thus precipitate into an emergent form that is much less excitable and dizzyingly zippy/fast (matter).

This primitive consciousness could be said then to be a dynamic relationship between the 4 fundamentals: energy, time, space and matter (each dependant on the qualities/properties of the others for existence and their "separable individual behaviours" ).

I hope this satisfies your request for a consciousness based emergent physicalism answer that you might enjoy contemplating.

It's at most an analogy/metaphysical, metaphorical or pseudo-physics description.

It has no scientific "proof" from a purely physicalist perspective, but I guess resolving the physical with the conscious (hard problem) wouldnt come just from objective physical explanations would it? I think it could be seen as reasonable despite not being scientific.

That I imagine physicalist will detest with every inch of their "material bodies." But I don't shy away from a bit of thought paintings/art regardless of their disgruntledness

I think it's connected to what teachers sometimes say: there are no stupid questions. The point is of course that one learns by expressing difficulties and having them addressed and not by concealing one's ignorance or confusion. — green flag

Exactly. When we make mistakes it's usually due to misidentification of rational connections, mislogics, poorly followed trains of thought. Thus the expectations we developed as a result are at a mismatch with what happened irl.

Verbalising what happened out loud allows an observer/witness to hash out suggestions as to where you may have gone wrong. Their own experiences can help a lot here (if they're wise to them).

Or even to just share the experience, silently offering comfort and encouragement while you talk out loud to yourself inherently reduces shame because there's proof that someone else knows and didn't judge you/criticise you for it.

We hide what we are not proud of. But the simple fact is we all make mistakes. We are fallible. And no shame comes of admitting this collectively shared and unifying characteristic of being human. The admitting it is the release. The burden is halfed because it is shared.

Many therapists use this tactic. They act as a mirror to yourself. The questions they ask are prompts to delve deeper into ones ignorance, miscalculations and thus release them guilt, in essence to reconcile the blockade (fixation, self criticism or grudge) holding someone vacn from free flowing and les turbulent thought.

I think that this sort of confession is neccesary for a healthy and resilient mind, be it to a therapist, to a yogi or guru, a wiseman/woman, a parent or friend, or to a clergy member.

We ought not lose the importance of this.

I hear plenty say that a god couldn't exist because there is simply too much suffering in the world and good behavior isn't regularly rewarded. So if there was a being one could call a god what qualities would they have to have to exist in this world? — TiredThinker

It's a good question.

1). I think It would have to be a singular object to be held account/to give an account of its existence. So we aren't all asking questions to thin air or brick walls. Essentially so it could communicate it's nature using a language and through a creature/being with a voice.

This would also mean it is not "directly" responsible as a singular limited existant for the suffering caused by say a tsunami nor would it be required to do "magic tricks" like float as it does not have all it's power available to it as a single object. It's not like a human or robot for example can logically be able to trigger tsunamis.

2). It would have to however describe how it is "indirectly" responsible for everything in existence - to provide a full true account (knowledge) of the relationship/associations between how it is now in its current form and the origins of existence (an origin story or reference to its original form and the evolutionary link between the two). As we can assume if they are really God, they should know their own beginning.

It would somehow have to convince people that despite it being in singular objective form, it's reasoning or argument is sufficient to insist that it is the same fundamental substance as the beginning. Or it has to explain how self identity might be an illusion, and that consciousness is one shared phenomenon, that there is only one aware entity behind all self identities.

3). It would have to prove its knowledge is true/accurate by doing something more predictive than anyone else. For example for seeing their own death years in advance. As we assume a correct paradigm/algorithm for reality should enable the user to forecast/prophesise the future far in advance of anyone else.

4). Finally, that all being said : that it can be observed (as an object), that it knows it's own true nature from the beginning, and it can predict the future, it would have to prove its benevolence as an object. A reason why anyone should care or believe it is God.

For example if it knows the truth (knowledge of realities true workings/nature) simply by revealing this knowledge to people who don't know it yet, it should by its logic reveal the true nature of everyone who heard it. It would distinguish lies/deception/deceit or manipulation from honesty and truth, separating them apart and thus probably polarise people into 2 factions.

People would either feel ashamed, guilty, remorseful or self critical or they would feel euphoric and delighted based on that revelation of knowledge of themselves and others as they truly are.

Others would be super angry and reject or deny the entire thing. And probably want to hold someone accountable for all the mayhem/disruption. So such a God would probably be blamed as the revealer of knowledge, and thus martyred/killed. And in doing so satisfy proof of its existence as an omniscient object (it could detail the origin of the universe as well as the future) and benevolence (that it did so at its own peril to help people realise what they truly are).

I believe these are the four qualities it requires for a God to exist:
1). Objectivity (its real/we can witness it ) 2). Revelation (it knows the past) 3). Prophecy (it knows the future) 4). Benevolence (it sacrificed itself for reasons of proof of all of those things)

That's not collective intelligence; that's stored information or archived knowledge.
We do not currently have the technology to compile or compress intelligence.. — Vera Mont

Ah okay interesting. I see the conflation I made.

I sincerely doubt this. Human collectives have over time proven to be prone to deception, delusion, prejudice and incitement, to run away with all kinds of unfounded and unsound beliefs, to persecute one another over trivia in the name of a moral imperative, to wage genocidal wars over a minute variance in moral precepts. A lone decent man is far more likely to behave morally than a righteous mob. — Vera Mont

Hmm yeah you're probably right.

Maybe "innocent mistake" would be a better term for what I mean. — TheMadMan

If a mistake occurs I'm not sure it's "innocent" in the sense that the person caused it.

But the mistake is either caused by "mal-intent" or "despite good intention" . And I think that's the key difference.

If a mistake is caused but the intent was good, then the mistake is in the action/execution. Forgiveable. Perhaps the person requires a bit more careful thinking/reasoning and planning in the future.

If a mistake is caused by bad intention. The error/mistake was in ever thinking it's okay to want harm to befall another.
That is somewhat more sinister and more difficult to tackle.

People can easily justify bringing harm to others especially in a revenge context. But two wrongs do not a right make.

Even if someone had bad intentions towards you, does not give one permission to practise hate and revenge. Reprimand yes, sadism no.

We can address revenge in a constructive way, focusing less on punishing them and fuelling their sadism, and focus instead on targeting their mal-intention as the source of their desire to harm you.

Let's take an extreme example, if one country nukes another. Should we nuke them back?
Many people say yes.
Personally I say no, despite the rage/fury it may cause. This case would be the practise of the greatest restraint from reducing yourself to their level.

The simple fact would be 2 nukes will harm more innocent parties than one nuke would.

And propagating war is not what we want. If we reduced ourselves to the worst mal-intentions possible it would ultimately spell mutual destruction. And in that scenario no one is the winner.

Instead, I think it would be more prudent to disarm them, sanction them, re-educate and "enforce" peace to the greatest degree that avoids further catastrophe.

Even if it requires invading the country and taking over their missiles to disengage them. It is still better than launching your own in counter attack, that is the easiest cheat, but easy does not mean better.

Interesting outline indeed. Thank you for the insight.

I agree with the process outlined:

knowledge, decision, planning, resolve, execution — Antony Nickles

.

For me a mistake can occur at any stage in that process.
Erroneous knowledge, poor decision, under-strategied plan, inadequate resolve, misdirected execution.

In essence, a failing in any part can lead to an undesired outcome and thus a mistake.
For me, whether a mistake is forgivable or not is primarily based on intent. Intent can be good or bad. How you act out intent can also be good or bad.

Good intentions acted out poorly is in need of attention in that one must acknowledge why their good intentions did not lead to good results.

Contrarily, bad intentions acted out well, are directly malicious/sadistic.

Bad intentions acted out poorly is also malicious (because the intent was bad) but because of one's failing to get the desired result, the damage/harm may be less.
Does that make it less of a mistake? I think not.

Because intention is the most important feature of any act. If you had bad will from the beginning it doesn't matter if your actions were successful or not. It's a mistake. A violation of "good will".

People often conflate poor outcome with bad intention. But this is of course not always true. Usually one with good intentions that commits a bad act will immediately feel guilt, shame or harsh self-criticism/auto-self-punshiment upon the realisation.

Therefore I think there is little need to punish them further. They did enough of that to themselves.

So you're saying there's no meaning to anything that happens without applying human constructions like physics to reflect what we observe?

For me, the happening itself has inherent meaning. It is only use that put that meaning into a communicable language (equations, formulas, speech)

But that meaning is particular is at its most basic - information. Data. Interaction.

If you want to characterise meaning as "information according to a sentient being" then sure, there is no meaning without humans or an awareness as they cannot be untethered from one another.

But the universe precipitated the evolution/emergence of humanity which does have meaning. So if the universe doesn't have direct implicit meaning, it at least has meaning by proxy - by creating the concept of it through humanity.

Meaning does exists. The conditions by which it exists is up for debate.

I think again as I discussed with Banno. There are different levels of meaning. There is the innate objective "meanings" or descriptions/associations/relationships between things that happens.

For example a big asteroid hitting the moon "means" a plume of moon dust will occur. These understandings are innate. Regardless of whether we say the asteroid is a rock or a simulation or a god etc - applied (subjective) meanings.

So we are slaves to the rules of physics. What physics "means" - what happens/will happen.

Just as we are slaves to climate change, we either fix it, or adapt to it. There is no other choice to live with it.

But we also create our own meaning of course: music poetry etc. This is not innate but personal and societal.

So we are in a way "Happy slaves" distracted from the servitude (obedience to universal laws) imposed on us by nature with all of our meaning making entertainment. Distracted to existential threat and the frailty of our bodies by a good song or an interesting film.

So long as we understand and obey universal laws, physics, we can make as much art, music, poetry, food and porn as we like and our continuity of existence will continue.

If we violate the masterplans/blueprint (universe set up), that violation is simultaneously our trajectory towards death/self destruction.

Energy creates and destroys. Physics is the understanding of how and whys of this ongoing process.

Maybe the shame and guilt come from our expectation of our self.
I don't feel guilt or shame when I fail at something I know I'm not good at.
So it maybe be from our self-image and our identification with it. — TheMadMan

Absolutely.
Expectation dictates the success/failure dynamic.
People with the biggest dreams/ambitions fall the hardest when they don't meet them.

I think thats pretty much part of the basis for stoicism. Going through the motions without grappling too much for the good stuff or avoiding to intensely the bad. That only makes for a turbulent roller-coaster, a high amplitude up and down state of affairs.

In either case it's only transient. Mid range expectations probably foster resilience to disappointnent as well as resilience to adversity.

Meaning/purpose" are artifacts of adaptive embodied interests + discursive cognitions which are prior artifacts of local entropy gradients – energy long preceeds and absolutely encompasses ephemeral "meaning/purpose"-making blips in the void like us, Ben — 180 Proof

That indeed may all be true 180Proof.
And finally, in conclusion. How does that make you feel?
Do you suffer because of that rationalisation, or does it make life light, playful, free of serious burdens?

For me, whether we are here completely by accident, as a mere pointless blip in the universe with absolutely no impact, or we are here as the product of the universes process of self evaluation/self perception, and our philosophical abilities are the ability to appreciate the entirety from a tiny speck, for me they're neither here nor there.

For me, I enjoy the process whatever it is. Tiny pointless speck or not. What about you?


Why might 2 people have the same belief, but for one it makes them happy, and for the other it makes them sad. How would you explain that dynamic coming about?

Perfection is a distant and cruel god. — jgill

Haha I like this phrase. I can imagine knowing of/expecting the perfect answer to a formula or maths equation one is working on, and feeling like it proverbially laughs mockingly at you at every failing turn, where the result wasnt sufficient.

Perfection may be "cruel" in the sense that none of us can ever approach it fully. But it is also the great driver behind motivation, desire and passion.

It is the single "ideal" for which we all strive despite knowing the ideal can never be fully realised. Not universally anyways. Personally yes I think so.

Eureka! The maths problem gets solved by someone right? That moment must feel like pure bliss, even if only briefly.

Yeah, in the largest scope and longest run, "energy" (as you describe it, Ben) seems quite meaningless and purposeless since it cannot not do what it's doing. — 180 Proof

Well it creates dichotomies doesn't it?
You can't have one side of something without the opposite.

So we can see something as "futile", "pointless" or "purposeless" because it always has an opposite exerting action against it.

Or we can see it as balanced. As a "justified" equation. That everything sorts itself out/self corrects and comes into balance eventually.

But that is a matter of perspective and personal choice right?
I suspect for every person that thinks the whole thing is pointless or futile. The nihilists. There are an equal amount of people who believe life and existence is full of meaning and purpose.

If I had to choose between the two, I prefer to operate in the optimistic, meaningful side. Because pointlessness seems like a good source of depression/suffering.

And why on earth would I want that for myself or other people. Thus I never try to actively convince people of pointlessness/futility or at least not to focus on that side of a dichotomy between nihilism and existentialism.

Sometimes people may interpret what I say as justification for feelings of pointlessness. But that is aside from my "intent".

My intent would be to elucidate through discussion fascinations, insights, and curiosities regarding existing. To imbue curiosity/passion for learning and wondering why, and if I'm lucky inherit a bit of wisdom for which to help others that are struggling with rectifying the "futility/pointlessness" side of the dichotomy.

I'm sure I'll meet resistance to persuasion along the way. Hence the need for discussion. Philosophising. I would love to hone my reasoning skills to overcome people's reasoning for promoting bad things. What greater purpose in life would I want?

exactly which is left ambiguous — Banno

It's not left ambiguous you just gave up as outlined below:

Meh. I'll leave you to it. Enjoy. — Banno

Even though I offered to discuss it further specifically regarding energy as a fundamental see below:

That's fine we can discuss this now if you'd like. I also have thought about that a lot. Why energy exists. — Benj96

And yet you don't seem to be bothered. That's up to you. But I hadn't given up or exhausted my means of explaining the point of view.

You just decided you don't want to hear them.
All the best in that case. Enjoy your philosophisings

And what of it?

I didn't explain what anything ought to be. What I have described thus far is what I believe it "is". And what I believe it "is" is what you think I'm saying it "ought to be" because you believe it "isn't".

That's a fairly rational axis. If we don't agree. Then you perceive me to be suggesting fiction, whilst I believe I am suggesting fact/reason and vice versa.

What I have been trying to explain exhaustively all this time, is that if one wants to pursue a fundamental of reality. A singular thing. A "monad". One explanatory reason or concept.

Then it stands to reason that getting yourself worked up into a know over classifications of argument is not going to help you. Because a physics argument by itself is not going to explain a spiritual one, a metaphysical one, an economic one, etc.
Not are any of those goï g to explain the physics one.

These categories of approach to reality deny one another to selectively pursue their own methodology.

I'm trying to highlight that it's probably more sensible to unify things if you want a unified answer. Not discriminate and dissect them.

So I ask you Banno, to really exercise your "unifying" abilities, and play the "match-making game".

What are all the similarities between entities or concepts in physics, concepts in metaphysics, concepts in religion/spirituality, concepts in psychology, in economics. Literally pick any topic you want to make analogies between.

Because we get it. These disciplines are not the same. Everyone knows they are categorically different. That horse is well flogged to death. So why don't we for arguments sake do an exercise in proper comparison, find the compromise, the middle man, the center between the biases.

, we ask why energy exists... — Banno

That's fine we can discuss this now if you'd like. I also have thought about that a lot. Why energy exists.

Physics can't provide an answer to questions of meaning — Banno

Of course they can. Meaning is how we understand the physical world.
What's the meaning of speed? Physics: "it means the distance travelled per unit time." Thanks physics!

I think you're conflating meaning with subjective feelings and emotions and the notion of purpose/intent. That's only one side of meaning.

There is objective meaning too. Otherwise we couldn't use language to communicate any of the natural sciences.

Physics can't provide an answer to questions of meaning, of purpose, because such questions are not about physics. They are about intent. it's a different type of question, with different language and presumptions. — Banno

You're right physics can't answer the emotional, purpose and self identity aspects of meaning.

Yet I believe the origin, prime mover, first substance, must be able to satisfy both the emergence of the objective meaning of the world (the purview of physics) as well as the subjective meaning of the world (consciousness and it's content).

Therefore the most rational way to approach the qualities or behaviour of such a primary existant that gives rise to all of these things, is from a combination of descriptors for physics and descriptors for the mind, observation/perception etc.

As both exist as a direct result of it. And have to have a relationship/overlap with one another. The physical world and the mind can't originate and exist completely in isolation if one another.
There is interaction and there is conversion between the two.

So an academic discipline that can unify concepts from physics and metaphysics is what I believe must be better than either individually in their natural restrictions/bias by definition. Their individual dogmas.

"Just-no" stories are honest? They admit "I don't know". — Banno

Just-so stories are also honest. For the converse reason that we also do know things. We understand logic/reasoning. It is how we bind phenomena together/make sensible relationships.
How to rationalise things in a way that reflects what they do/ are expected to do.

You say "just no" stories are honest as it admits one doesn't know. What if someone else does know? Or cones to know in the future? You'd just say they're being dishonest because your "just no" story is more honest.

Essentially then, "Just no" approach (the linear argument that must always have a previous cause in a chronological cause-effect chain) says there can't be ever be an answer.
A fundamental. An origin.

Because if there was, that answer would be "just so" - cause without a previous cause. Or a self fulfilling cycle. A finite and self sustaining, self verifying, self proving answer. A circular argument.

Whether you accept any given "story" or explanation as an answer is up to each indivudual and their personal criterion for what seems logical, rational, moral or acceptable for whatever personal bias they have. What they are expecting the answer to be.

But denying the quality/validity of answers because they are not what you expected them to be, or because they don't answer you the way you wanted them to answer you, is ironically also circular.

Ones prejudice dictating the answer they receive

All you have done is replace notions of spirt with energy, making a pseudo-physics. — Banno

Energy isn't pseudo physics. It's the base of physics.

No, because increasing, LOCALISED organisation/complexity/birth etc, does not slow increasing universal entropy. — universeness

How do we ever make that comparison? What quantity of life or "consciousness maybe" offsets 16 jumbled up galaxies?

If I dream for 1 hour last night did the level of complexity of information exchange offset 100 years of an asteroid breaking up as it hurtles through the void.

Of course this is very far fetched and I don't neccesarily give it much credence myself but am suggesting it more for sh*ts n giggles.

But anyways, gravity pulls shit toghether, energy pushes them apart. Is gravity working with entropy? Or against it?

For it seems like it's tidying things up and keeping them in regular predictable and orderly orbits. How then does that increase the entropy?

Perhaps this is the yin yang equivalence of energy and matter. Energy disperses, and as it does so precipitates mass into solidity and then contracts towards itself into solar systems.

For now it seems like entropy probably still dominates as a whole. I leave a small bit of room for possible states that might see the opposite and balance the books. A neat equation.

In the math profession one achieves favorable results through a convergent sequence of mistakes — jgill

Converging in what sense? From what I understand is converging on the correct answer by process of elimination (series of errors). I feel this is not just applicable to maths but across the board. Probability underlies most of not all interactions/processes right?

yes I see what you mean. Trial and error hones ones skills and ableness.

We see the same in evolution. Except its live or die in that case.

And people will feel regret even if it is a fault-less mistake/error. — TheMadMan

This is true.
People feel guilt for a lot of things they ought not to. Torturing themselves over minor failings.

And similar others feel no guilt/remorse for many things they've done that most other people would feel guilty about.

So it's a dichotomy.
As for any moral value I'm not sure o know what you mean exactly. Some mistakes are not morally relevant. Others are more so.

If guilt and shame are the direct result of mistakes, which you consider unpredictable and unavoidable, are they not similarly unpredictable and unavoidable? I no more want guilt and shame than I do mistakes but somehow my emotions don't give any more a fig for what I want than the vagaries of fate do. — Baden

True, they are part and parcel of the process of identifying the mistake. Realisation of a mistake is a negative experience. It naturally leads to feelings of culpability, inadecuacy etc.

What i was saying is regardless of the fact we will feel bad, we need not dwell on it. Fixate and propagate those negative feelings endlessly and devolve into a depression.

It's a "c'est la vie" response in essence.

Is there a mistake so unforgivable that one ought to die at their own hand, of their intolerable remorse/ guilt or shame they feel?

Or is the intensity of that remorse suffering enough, a sign that they don't deserve punishment because they fully acknowledge the degree of the mistake?

No, it doesn't, borders created via monochromatic shades of light and dark, are just as real as borders created by colour difference. — universeness

Yes I agree theor borders are real too. What I was saying is 2 separate distinct colours can appear as the same "grey" on a monochromatic scale if they are both of the same light/lux value, regardless of their hue/tone or chroma. There's 3 aspects to colour. Brightness is only one of them.

In that sense if a yellow and red of the same brightness is put into monochromacy. They will both be the same indistinguishable grey. They will however be discernible from black or white.

I remain bemused, regarding why you choose to use any of the points you have made in this thread, to justify your declaration that you are a theist and by doing so, think that you have any chance of finding common ground between theism and atheism. You just get rejected by both sides. — universeness

I'm glad it amuses you. It doesn't however upset me that my approach may not firmly be classifiable into that of heavily dogmatic and arbitrary religious views, nor into the stringent "repeatability as provability" paradigm of objective science in a world with variable degrees of constancy (repeatability).

If they both laugh me out /reject inclusion thats fine. As far as I know though, theism doesn't have any criteria for what a god ought to be in order to be included as theistic in nature. You just need to use the G term instead of the term universe or any other.
If I called myself a objectivity-subjectivity or material-immaterial dualist the content of our convo would have remained the same.
I like the term because of the moralistic translation of "balance" we see in nature.

Equilibrium. The design/structure of the it seems both rational and ethical (not by human standards - babies dying of cancer) but by mother nature's ones.
I don't think my "God" theistic view is very human centric, it doesn't favour our human biased perceptions of injustice as absolute /universal injustice.

I've now given several reasons why I like the term God. I can't possibly go on explaining more. I just made a personal choice and more importantly one that I'm not enforcing or insisting anyone else adopt. I don't see any issue with that

but I see no compelling evidence that energy, in any fundamental form/state it is proposed to have, is self-aware/conscious. — universeness

What would be compelling evidence for you?

I see objectivity and subjectivity as an axis with 2 poles. Subjects perceive objects from their subjective end, and objects don't perceive objects on the other end (because of lack of subjectivity).

That's fine but the middle of such an axis is what confuses me. At some point in the transition from object to subject (from food, water and oxygen) into babies brain there is the emergence of awareness or sense of self.

And also in living systems as you said somehwere along from abiogenesis.

I just wonder, could this axis between object and subject not be one of decreasing entropy/ increasing organisation?
For me this seems less arbitrary than randomly selecting a point in our ancenstry or in the gestating foetus where consciousness "All or nothing" suddenly switches on or off.

If its based on orders of complexity, then consciousness may not have even began after abiogenesis. The systems preceding the first cell would have still had to be pretty complex.

The issue with associating consciousness with complexity or negative entropy, is that the most organised and lowest state of entropy was the singularity. And entropy (disorder) has been increasing ever since. If consciousness is based on order/complexity and the decreasing entropy of life systems, then it's not a huge irrationality to think that perhaps the low entropy of the singularity is also conscious

As for proof or compelling evidence? I doubt we would have anything more than reasoning and choice of beliefs or rationalisations at our disposable.

The circular argument solves this by looping the line into itself, still infinite, but not in an endless regressive style but a more self satisfying one revolving around a fixed reason/point/axis or purpose. — Benj96

Also a neat little side note: the circumpunct - a circle with a dot in the center, is an old glyph that has been used around the world in various contexts to refer to monism - the absolute (Pythagoreans), to consciousness as well as in many religions. I believe this is based on circular argument and it's importance/ persistence in human philosophical and spiritual pursuits thoughout the eons.

Then again it may not be connected at all. Just a curious find.

Doing philosophy is not making up just-so stories.
— Banno
@Benj96 Gnomon @Wayfarer et al — 180 Proof

I don't understand how "just-so" stories are any worse than "just No" stories without a beginning, with no reasoning nor conclusion found at all, endlessly aimless and unresolved, no answer ever satisfying enough, never sufficient, never absolute.

Conclusion or mystery, making a choice/determination or living in skepticism of everything, either can be accepted as equally reasonable way of living and philosophising.

In fact the description I offered would have the implication that the story can never stay "just-so". It must evolve/change, be forgotten or redefined, but that isn't to say the "ability to change" isn't a constant, a stable, consistent property and thus the reason for my conclusion based story. Or "just-so" story. The constancy of change. Oxymoronic right?

a vacillation between energy and law, as if the existence of either of those were any better understood — Banno

Not well understood? Because that's what energy is. it's "definition" and it's "action" are synonymous. It "is" the existant that "does".

Unlike me for example: I "am" a human that "does" the laundry. Two separate existant things that aren't simultaneous nor identical in nature. My doing and being can be separated.

I am not doing laundry for the entirety of my human existence, nor does me being human depend on doing laundry, nor am I the same as laundry.

Energy is/does identically. A single phenomenon that can be divided into "is" (being pent up in the form of matter) and does (not being pent up, pushing it's pent up parts around).

It's premise and conclusion or the reason why and the because is entirely self contained/circular. It is because it can and it can because it is.
It is a unique existant in that sense. And a fundamental one.

In the following metaphor we have 2 philosophies analogised as geometry:

The Circular argument can be seen as irrational and unsatisfying from the point of view of an A to B linear argument. Where's the beginning? What's the reason. Where is the "Why?"

The linear argument however is faced with it's own dilemma, an infinity (endless regress in search of a base "why" ).

The circular argument solves this by looping the line into itself, still infinite, but not in an endless regressive style but a more self satisfying one revolving around a fixed reason/point/axis or purpose. In that sense, all the reasons and whys required are contained and sufficient.

So we can think linearly. Or circularly. Or choose to practise both methods in balance/harmony for their individual strengths and weaknesses.

That's up to us.

But thought obeys geometry of the physical dimensions in which it occupies, that is not up to us. So we must choose what stories to tell. And the reason why.

What story do you want to tell yourself about reality Banno? A "just-so" (circular) story or a "just-no" (linear) story?

Doing philosophy is not making up just-so stories — Banno

And the reason for that is that the why is not something found in the world, but consists in what we do in the world. — Banno

So making a best attempt rational story/explanation isn't doing something in the world? You contradict yourself a bit here.

Ultimately if the "Why" everything is the way it is cannot be found out there - in the real world, then the only place left for it to reside is in our minds.

And the only way minds tend to agree on what the "Why" is through debate and reasoning.

I offered my description as I understand, as thousands of people before me have and equally thousands after will do again. They are all stories or reasonings or "whys" we offer to one another regarding the nature of things.

Whether my logic meets the criterion for your logic (accordance) depends on whether we reason identically or in opposition.

with all its implicit logical flaws, — Banno

If they are implicit, pray tell what they are. WHAT. from your personal reasoning or logical paradigm, are the flaws in the explanation I gave can you and why?

Its not enough to say something is flawed and leave it at that whilst offering zero alternative.

No one tend to blindly go oh okay sure without an explanation of your own backing up the errors in need of correction.

The more accesible guns are to the general public, the more their ownership will be abused/misused. The more shootings of innocent parties will arise. This is a natural outcome of arms availability.

My question would then be, why is the government and military so untrustworthy that civilians feel that gun ownership is a requirement to feel safe/protected?

Either one feels that those with guns are their protectors in which case guns can be limited to those protective forces, or one feels the armed forces could turn on civilians at any moment in which case there is concensus to universally possess arms for self defence.

The desire to have lethal force at hand, is a direct reflection of the expectation that it may ever be needed.

interesting it seems like a dimension where anything goes including contradictions that couldn't exist in the physical realm. Paradox heaven. Insensible sensibility. Illogical logics.

I enjoyed the story where the married bachelor was in a marriage with his simultaneous mother, sister and daughter all of which are non existant.

But for me, this space/dimension can be satisfied by imagination - a non local, non physical dimension where concepts, even conflicting ones, can exist as non physical existants - thoughts.

The jungle seems truly chaotic. No rules. No consistency. The "mad hatters teaparty"

As far as "existence" as a whole goes, it must include the jungle, because it can be conceived of, can be communicated, and thus experienced internally as an idea or imagined universe with the specific dynamics of such a place.

Are thoughts non physical existants? Are thoughts non objective objects? Does the thoughtscape exist? Is there existant content in that space?

I think so.

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 — Vera Mont

I absolutely accept this. No qualms here. Its not for everyone for sure. And I dare not impose such ideas as definitive, un-arguable nor fact.

I simply enjoy pushing the proverbial boat out and seeing what people make of it. And I think the term "God" has such a quality of being inherently contentious, challenging and in need of rebuttal in all its forms.

Even if my methods are most unconventional/unorthodox or take the path least tread.

The gap between theological belief and skepticism is one I would ideally like to close or at least reduce. By finding commonality between the two. I would love a theory that satisfies all pursuits and dogmas of the various disciplines we have committed to the pursuit of knowledge, meaning and origin.

I think the only way of unifying such a concept/motivation is to take all roads in equal esteem and focus on the similarities between them rather than the differences that push them apart.

for me the morality/ethics of a phenomenon is dependent on the entity/being or even system to which we concentricise/centralise the moral question.

For example, at a human level of perspective, is it moral for a young, innocent child to die of famine? I think not as we generally feel it needless, unwarranted and harmful.

And thus can we as humans hold general life/existence accountable as a source of unwholesome and merciless states of affairs? Ie is life unfair? Immoral? Antinatalists may believe such a state of existence to be so.

On the other hand, is it moral or ethical for mother nature to endure a parasitic, resource hungry, pillaging and plundering species at the expense of all of her other species and natural existants - all other flora and fauna that make up her balanced, fined tuned and harmonious/equilibric ecosystem?

In that case, earth may reactively become hostile to any existant that disturbs her natural and imperative balance/harmony.

Climate change punishes those most dependent on things staying as they are. So the complexity and thus inherent dependency of humanities endeavours on a steady natural state leaves our systems perhaps most vulnerable to any change in that state/ environment.

And that translates into famine, and thus children in such famine prone areas starving to death.

Whos fault is that? Who is morally accountable. Is it mother nature being hostile? Or is it us being hostile to mother nature and experiencing the equal and opposite reaction.

If "justice" can be equated to natural balance, then our suffering is justice for the woes we commit against nature, just as our ability to foster diversity and ecology would lead to abundance/ prosperity, harmony and peace in nature.

Nature can be our provider or aggressor and I think this is in response to us being it's provider or aggressor. A two way system.

Morality works at many levels not just human ones. Although when inhuman in effect/manifestation, we observe it as imbalance or impaired/dysregulated ecosystem.

We can rationalise toxifying the atmosphere in our own insular human moral struggles against one another in a competitive capitalist society. But then the toxic atmosphere in turn toxifies us. And we can choose to consider ourselves at fault or life/nature at fault.

In the end it is clear that cause and effect work at multiple levels and magnitudes, and thus any immoral, unfair or harmful outcome is not restricted to direct unethical human action but also how those actions ripple out into other systems we would normally consider not within range of morality, and yet come back to bite us in the ass.

Then why does this world even exist? You would assume that no God and no purpose implies no universe, nothing. No creator implies nothingness. Therefore, our world and our lives just sort of "dangle" without any rationale or justification. Life and the universe are then just some sort of anomaly. In other words, Occam's Razor dictates that without a God, nothing should exist, and yet here we are alive, in existence, discussing this very issue.. Something therefore seems wrong with this notion... — jasonm

The world exists because there is a fundamental universal entity, principle or phenomenon with rules/or that is a rule, that involves change/transformation.

This is energy. Energy is not energy unless it does work. If energy is the only existant, then it can only "work on itself". Ie. Change the nature or characteristics of itself.

If this is a rule, then existence absolutely must exist/happen because:

energy =matter (e=mc2). And with both objects (matter-unfree/locked up energy) and actions (free energy) the universe can continue to "do stuff" and so does stuff.

And the stuff it did lead, through evolution (constant change due to persistence of change that continues over changes that don't/are dead ends), to more arrangements and interactions (new stuff). Emergent phenomena. Because nothing can stay the same as before (energy must do work) therefore emergence of novel existants is the only way forward.

Because the first stuff is simple. A single rule or premise. Then the only thing it can do is to complexify. More variations, more interactions, more options thus more complex and sophisticated interactions/systems - dynamics and relationships.

This emergent sophistication is what we call life, agency and awareness. Humans are great at obeying the law of change. Because imagination is a great way to conceive of, do and implement stuff (exert/manifest change).

Imagination is fast, spontaneous, effective and reformulatory in nature - the human equivalent of the "creative force" at work. New thoughts, new ideas, new songs, poetry, fictions, books, films, new emergent phenomena/existants.

We are just doing what energy has always done. Create from itself: reproduction, natural selection, invention, reinvention, change, culture, evolution, "improvement" of the changeable nature of energy.

Onwards and upwards.

Entropy - or the tendency of energy to become more chaotic and disordered, requires the creation of more and more variables for which to "disorder" or jumble up. More and more existants. More and more change. More and more things.

First it was elements, then that stabilised in place of more and more molecules and compounds (combinations of elements) then that stabilised in place of more and more replicators (combinations of compounds) then that stabilised in place of more and more genes/dna (combinations of replicators) , then that stabilised in place of more and more speciation (combinations of genes and dna) , and then that stabilised in place of more and more awareness and agency (combinations of the best/workable aspects of all species - through trial and error) , and thats how humans evolved.

Now it is our mental space and inventions that occupy the subject of energy to encourage change. Every more rapid and fast paced.

The next level will likely be what we create - artificial entities and their products and inventions.

All of it is energy doing what it does best. Change. Creation.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

Why would your personal conclusions about the function of your brain (or mind, even) be treated with any more authority that your first person feelings about gravity, or electromagnetism, or evolution? — Isaac

First person conclusions are what science is built on. As in every theory and hypothesis was someone's original individual first person conclusion or suspicion about reality that then was proven consistent for others too.

So I wouldnt discredit someone solely on their belief or intuition being personal. Einsteins belief in special relativity was at one stage personal/ known/ though about only by him.

You want to say that distinction consists in different 'experiences'.

I'm claiming there's no evidence for that. All there's evidence for is that the distinction consists in a different response, of which 'reaching for the word 'red'' is an example specific to 'red'. — Isaac

They're both correct. Distinction can be at any stage from input, through processing or perception, to output or response.

The input (wavelengths) can be the same and the output can be different (reaching for colours words like green, red, brown or grey)
Or the input can be different and the response can be the same. Two people looking at two separate shades of yellow and saying yellow.