What matters is that we do see colours, and that seeing colours and talking about colours are two completely different things. I do the former even without the latter. — Michael

Of course they are. I agree with you fully. Seeing and talking are two separate verbs. So they can't be referring to the same thing.

When we talk about yellow generally we aren't seeing yellow externally but referring to our memory of seeing yellow externally.

Unless of course we are seeing something yellow and pointing at it saying look its yellow. In that case we are referring to immediate experience.

Does anyone really want to argue that without a language with colour words such as "red", "green", and "blue", then we would just see a single (non-coloured?) circle, and not a coloured circle surrounded by a differently coloured ring surrounded by yet another differently coloured ring — Michael

Depends, are these people without the colour words in their language because they're colour blind? In which case they truly may only see one circle, or a circle with varying grades of grey.

Language is built on definitions - nouns or actions, and those are based on what we can perceive/detect - objects and motion.

If you cannot detected something, there are no words we have to meaningfully describe or simulate the undetected/unperceived object - for example one with a completely unique colour, texture, shape or substance unlike anything we have experienced previously. As the experience of the object is what ties any arbitrary word to its reference point.

If John and I went to see this object together, we could say how we enjoyed it's brilliant shades of Dumzinkgen (colour) and the rather flentbursh texture. It being made of jaffle-oxide ofc. And you woukd have no idea what it looked or felt like. But john and I can use the words like Dumzinkgen meaningfully in conversation because we both saw the colour.

The second point I want to make is, even if two differences are detectable between colours, for example 2 different shades of green, at what point do we determine when green is no longer a shade of green but a shade of blue.
Some argue turquoise is a tone of blue. Some argue it is a tone of green. Others say its its own unique colour.

There is a tribe in Africa, swahili I believe, where blue and green are but shades of the same colour. Are they any less correct in believing so verses our distinction?

In a spectrum of colour where changes are seamless, fluid and graduating, placing borders to define categories is more or less arbitrary to a point and you could place 100 borders or 20 or 8.

Tetrachromatic people see more shades of colour than trichromats can. A loving Tetrachromat couple may paint each wall of their house slightly different shades of yellow. We would come in and they would say don't you love the different tones, and we would say it's the same yellow what are you talking about. They would insist that it's not. And for them it truly isn't.

Summary: language reflects perception/what can be experienced.

why should he believe the impressions that led him to consider indirectness in the first place? — frank

Oh this is interesting I like this question.

This is a bit similar to "Can a faulty coding machine accurately locate its faulty coding using the programmes run on it?"

Can a delusional person accurately define the distinction between delusion and reality whilst maintaining the status of deluded or can one ever sanely declare their insanity?

Can someone who makes mistakes identify their mistakes while still being considered a mistake-maker?

In my opinion, the reality we all exist in is observed differently for every subject. And that itself is our inherent subjectivity - the impossibility to perceive the same external environment from the same space and time as any other observer without being them. I can't occupy the space you're in right now and still be two separate individuals.

Thus the space-time dimension dictates the fundamental limits to standardising the perceptions and measurements of different observers.

In that case, there is no objective reality that can be perceived unanimously by all observers and the fault in such is not with the observers mind or paradigm for reality but rather the relationship between observed and observer itself.

Reality can only be appreciated indirectly. The bias is being an object.

no problemo Eugen :) thanks for taking the time to read my response.

So in essence what you're asking is can you get from non-consciousness (the substrate) to the product (consciousness) without the process/change in qualities/behaviour of the substrate that leads to the product (ie. emergence).

It's like asking can we get the property of water as a liquid from those of oxygen and hydrogen while skipping the effects of hydrogen bonding, the specific influence of bonds in and between the molecules.

Emergence is the simple idea that 1 has 1s behaviour on its own. 2 has 2s behaviour on its own. And when 1 and 2 are combined: 3s is a new behaviour that does not correlate directly with either of its subcomponents individual ones.

Emergence is imo I guess a "superadditive" effect when things are combined.

So I would say no theory that starts without the product can avoid emergence of the product.

I'm a little Confused.

If the "self" does not exist then "who" is controlling "who"? How is agency affected? Only selves have an agency so no selves, nothing to control or manipulate, no rights or freedoms to erode or oppress.

And if "selves" do exist, then they have agency. And responsibility for their self. What they think feel and do.

Even if the entire system is deterministic and choice is an illusion, that we have no true influence/free will over the path of our life, it would apply to everyone and it would have always been the case.

Whether me saying "hmm I think I'll eat this chocolate bar" is by my own free will or was pre-determined from birth or from the beginning of time itself, doesnt change how delicious that chocolate bar is. And if my desire/ intention to eat it is pre-determined, then having the choice is irrelevant.

So I don't think that fact would change anything, we still wouldnt know what's going to happen tomorrow or in a week or in a month even if its predestined.

As for religions, I'm not sure they tell you to give up or abolish your sense of self or convince you self doesn't exist. At most they try to convince people that all selves are created equally. And thus a moral imperative comes into play to treat other selves like you would want yourself to be treated.

Solipsism is more what you are describing. The idea that one mind possesses all other minds or that all other minds are not real, and that only the persons own mind truly exists.

I'd meditate in Meinong's jungle. — Ying

I hadn't come across this term before I had to look it up.

So as far as I gather the jungle is the holder or place where "non-existant objects" are contained? Am I getting that correctly?

Is this in a sense than like imagination? Like a dimension in which impossible objects can be conceived that wouldn't otherwise be feasible in physical reality?

yeah, "becoming" is always tied a simultaneous "unbecoming" I guess.

Like when you "destroy" a house you "create" a pile of rubble from the same stuff.

Or the sea creates a wave, it rolls, and then the wave disappears into the sea again. But the sea and the wave are essentially the same existant. They're only defined or made distinct "existants" by the different behaviour and size of the wave compared to the sea. With enough energy (from an asteroid say) perhaps the entire sea might become a wave in which case the distinction or differential definition is abolished.

So definitions form and dissolve when we change how we define things or relate to them. Does the "self" change when you decide to redefine it?

Definition is the act of constructing separations, the act of making ourselves aware of differences. And the opposite of defining things is union, or making ourself aware of the connection, links or similarities.

I find this interesting. Destruction and creation occurring mutually and simultaneously. In that sense there is only "change" from one existant to another. And definition is made using change.

I sometimes wonder if birth and death are another one of these becoming and unbecomings.

Where does the "I" link in to all of this?

Does your sense of self (your self awareness or identity) disappear when you die? Or does the self that you sense disappear when it dies, and the "I" - the conscious component continues in some other form?

This has been the big question of so many spiritual practises, philosophies and religions, and the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience.

I would call myself god and create a bunch of twits to pray to me. But I guess that after a long time being existent I might get bored and wipe everything away and maybe start again with something new. — Sir2u

I think as that existant I would also get immeasurably bored and go out of my mind after a time. Even narcissism/god complex would get super old/unexciting

If I couldn't destroy myself, I'd have no other choice but to give myself intermittent amnesia or the illusion of destruction/finality, so I can at least trick myself into thinking my existence was limited/finite and my thus time precious.

Everything would at least feel new and fresh with amnesia, even if I had already done those things a thousand times before. Constant novelty and constant need to be entertained.

Create a film, book, song, watch, read, listen to it. Get tired of it. Create a new one. Repeat.

I believe this is the an ancient Hindu story of creation (more or less). — TheMadMan

I'm not super well versed on hindu creation stories but as far as I know yes it seems to parallel them in many aspects. I'm interested to hear what some of the veteran/regular philosophers here make of the discussion, so we might find how yours and my perspective fall in respect to theirs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In that case the only thing to do is create a "game" where an entity has the ability to become self-conscious thus I become conscious of myself from the entities that I myself have created. — TheMadMan

Very interesting notion. I agree.

I would also likely create a "game" where I "forget" myself. Not only forget myself but fraction myself into multiple forms of self which could interact with one another.

If I was the only existant, I would break myself in into a billion pieces, none of which understand nor can perceive what its like to be the only existant and thus create a mystery for which to give my billion selves individual meaning and curiosity - Not knowing what they truly are nor what beliefs to ascribe to existence.

At best they could discuss and argue their individual perspectives.

In this scenario would death in the living world still be bad and something to avoid like it is now where as far as we know your consciousness ceases to exist when your mortal body expires? — Captain Homicide

Well if paradise is guarenteed then I don't see why death would be feared.

However, as suffering and the lessons learned from such can only be experienced while living in this case, I also wouldnt rush dying nor try to bring it forward (suicide/bad health behavior). I would like to continue living out the potential of my earthly life for as long as I can, even if some suffering is involved.

What your portraying is a blissful afterlife where nothing we do in real life matters. We can be hitler and still enter and enjoy this afterlife paradise. But as it has strict rules about disrupting others joy, I gather that a hitler personality would be well controlled.

In this case. Live until you die, and then paradise awaits. What more could one want?

That doesn’t help at all nor get around the issue I’m having
3d — Darkneos

That's fair. Im sorry I didn't adequately explain/provide enlightenment on the topic at hand. What is the key issue you face so I might come up with something solutional or at least a decent counterargument/view for you to mull over?

. I am anti-religion and a true believer in God. Maybe you think these things don't mix, but they do. — Raef Kandil

I don't believe so also because I'm the exact same. Religions often require/subscribe to a belief in God, but a belief in a God doesn't mean you follow any specific religion. It can be a personal relationship/understandings of the concept

="Raef Kandil;d14151"]Religion is an act of fear. Faith is act of liberation. Prophets are not following dogmas. They are essentially defying all the society rules to favour their truthfulness to the experience they are having.

Again I agree. It's very refreshing to encounter a philosopher that concords with what I believe.

All I am saying is: religion and faith are totally different things. And faith could be related to something different than God all together: like the existence of aliens or animal and environment issues. — Raef Kandil

I agree again. Faith applies to belief. And beliefs are not necessarily religious. Well done on your articulation of such. Bravo.

because the people who believe in one of the popular deities tend to use the word as a proper noun and assume that when anyone says God, he means their god. — Vera Mont

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these borders arbitrary or definitive?

You are trying to mix oil, water, gas and solid imo. Theism, science, panpsychism, dualism, don't have the common ground you suggest imo. — universeness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I currently favour number 5/6. — universeness

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

For me awareness is a gradual amplifying process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The human brain DOES come from such fundamentals as quarks and electrons etc but I think the evidence that some other 'sprinkling' of a yet unknown fundamental, as the 'vital missing spark' for human consciousness, remains very weak.
It's not impossible but, as I have typed many times, the best I can do, based on the current evidence for panpsychism or/and dualism is a small raise, of a single eyebrow of interest.
21m — universeness

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

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

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

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

Thats why I use the term God - that quality of energy to become both the general universe and the sentient occupants that appreciate/are aware of it. It is the perceiver and the perceived.

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

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

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

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

That IS the position of most/many panpsychists/dualists. I currently assign high credence to the proposal that consciousness is what the brain does and is a result of combinatorial brain processes.
A car is an empty shell without it's engine. It's engine's ability only 'emerges' from it acting as a combinatorial. It's parts have no inherent 'fundamental' of the overall engine's function in combination. Each parts presence and independent function is required but they don't all contribute a set of common, quantisable, fundamentals to the overall function of the car. — universeness

I agree.

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

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

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

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

This is what I'm saying. The capability for consciousness always existed, but the existence of consciousness didn't neccesarily exist, only the foundation, the capability for its future emergence.

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

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

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

Carlo Rovelli offers detailed discussion on the notion of time as humans perceive it and use it. I have not heard him complain, that we anthropomorphise time. I have heard him challenge our classical notions of time, in quite coherent ways, but his argument do not have any significant anthropomorphic aspect, that I can perceive — universeness

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

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

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

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

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

. It's very rare, that a TPF member causes another TPF member to significantly, change one or more of their fundamental views. BUT, it is good nonetheless, to regularly take measurements of what others think about 'the big questions — universeness

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't underestimate your little snow drop contributions. Such can tip a balance or cause a melting point to be reached for good or bad. — universeness

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

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

For example, is the scientist who describes nuclear fission and its capabilities responsible for the use of this knowledge to create nuclear bombs? Should they have said nothing to avoid such abuse? Or is knowledge by itself innocent of its applications?

Different sources will define a label in nuanced ways. I am not too concerned about the nuances applied to the term 'anthropomorphise,' for the purposes of our current exchange on this thread. — universeness

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

Why do you choose to project the consciousness/self-awareness of part of the universe, onto the whole of the universe, based on the current, very limited evidence, that such a projection is warranted? This is one of my interests. What convinces intelligent people, to decide to ascribe high credence, to a particular proposal, when the evidence is quite weak. — universeness

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

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

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

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

This is part of the reason I believe the capacity for consciousness is inbuilt into the basic principles of physics. And is where I derive my dualist ethos from.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is a second natural? Is innate to nature. Or arbitrary - a human/artificial construction, something we applied to nature to standardise what we observe? Is the second an anthropomorphism derived solely from our human experience of reality that we project onto all physical processes?

In conclusion, as a response to you saying that I think it's valid and logical to anthropomorphise the universe. Yes. I do. I think it's logical in the capacity of human logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This all seems very imposing. As in you imposing your own personal dislike of theism on someone who finds it interesting, curious.

I don't think I need to be saved from anything. If you do, despite me being happy doing what I do, then perhaps it's a case of accepting other people enjoy things you do not for reasons you may not know.

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

To know exactly what notions are restrictive and woo woo from those that are not would require you to have a full, exacting, precise/accurate understanding of the entirety of reality as it truly is.

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

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

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're not that above case. So I would suggest a healthy openmindedness to other people's ideas and explanations over implying you know with 100% certainty all that is "woo woo".

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

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

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

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

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

All I offer is my views on the universe and its moral or logical aspects as best as I can understand them, and on "my" theology. Not general theology. It's just a categorical think.

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

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

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

That makes it an entity, or even The Entity, but not a deity in any conventional sense. Redefining any word to mean "whatever I imagine it means" may work inside your head, in your dream-log, in poetry, but it doesn't stand up that well in communicating your ideas to another person who speaks a known language and has access only to definitions of its words as conceived by other speakers of that language. — Vera Mont

Yes. Not in a conventional sense correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it's simple; you have observed people die. The universe did not cease to exist when they died therefore they are not the ultimate, mono-existant solipsist.

Therefore, when you die, people will be born after you're gone and live full/complete lives regardless of/uninfluenced by your death.

You are a part of a community of people experiencing awareness in a human capacity.

Yes you are alone. In the sense that nobody will ever experience life as you did. Ever. No one in the past nor in the future will have the same life you did. In that sense you're completely alone.

But we all share common emotions, feelings and naturally developed ideas about living. We can empathise with one another and in that respect we are not alone. Whatever you feel, probably someone esle has felt the same.

As for solipsism, even identical twins don't grow and develop the same way. They don't occupy the same space, they don't have the same perspective, they don't experience the same things nor do they do exactly the same thing. Both are individuals.

One may die before the other for whatever reasons. Even though genetically they're clones.

Consciousness may be one singular phenomenon. Yet it is shared between sentient beings, of which there are many, those that have died, those that are dying, those that have just been born and ofc everyone in between.

Hooe this helps.

Value is relative to biological needs and wants/desires. — boagie

Fundamentally yes. I absolutely agree. However when those needs are secured, do we stop needing or wanting? I think not.

Maslows hierarchy of needs come into practice here.
When water, food and shelter and sex/intimacy are consistent and easily available, we begin to take them for granted and crave further needs and wants - like self actualisation, career prospects, luxuries, entertainment, travel, learning, philosophy etc.

The things we could not afford time for if we were preoccupied with ascertaining basic needs of survival.

It's all relative.

Value depends on what is available to you (taken for granted). If ipads are as common as muck we wouldn't value them as much as someone impoverished who has saved for months to afford it as a luxury (by their standards of living).

No, this is simply not true. Something isn’t precious just because everyone wants it or needs it. — Darkneos

Tell that to someone dying of hunger or thirst.

We cannot escape our biological needs. So ultimately they are precious. Just because they may be currently in abundance, doesnt mean we wouldn't suffer and thus crave them in their absence.

Your health is your wealth. When you take your health for granted, other things become your wealth or lack thereof. But there isn't a single person alive that doesn't enjoy the reward of a cold glass of pure water when they need it.

What you're citing as "simply not true" about that, I cannot comprehend.

If you're still not convinced of my methodology or terminology, I'm entirely at peace with that decision as it is your full right to do so.

But I'm a very playful, imaginative and intuitive person, and I find a purely physicalist view of the universe underwhelming, disenchanting and just basically lacking. It explains a lot. For sure. But not enough.

I want it all.

Everything in your last post, seems perfectly valid and rational to me, so where in the analysis you just offered, do you find a rational space, to label yourself a theist???? — universeness

Because, simply put, I cannot conceive of any idea greater than the capabilities of the universe to not only be an objectively measurable, elegant, objective and consistently rational/logical subject of investigation, but at the same time it can birth all the subjectivity, meaning, feels, uniqueness, irrationalities, deceits, misconceptions, and profound nuances of experience that comes with being conscious.

The universe is able to be aware. I find that exceedingly profound. Its not only dead, inanimate and aimless happenings, a simple automaton of chemical and energetic interactions, but also the entirety of imagination, creativity, mystery, wonder, awe, curiosity, sensuality, love, suffering, anguish. There is a certain element of "magic" - not literally ofc, but rather figuratively; in the wealth of dynamics and abilities it is able to manifest.

The full shebang
It contemplates itself.

Scientific explanations and paradigms have ultimately fallen short so far in explaining the link between inanimate dead mechanistic processes and the living breathing sensation feeling state that is "living".

So my unifying concept of the observer and observed sourced from the same basic fundamental, is nothing less than the greatest depth of innate intelligence, pure potential and capability.

For me the word "God" satisfies both the origin of consciousness or "I- hood" , as well as the environment in which "I" 's exist as unique individual and aware beings.

If science offered a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, over the explanatory ability of Duality, then I would consider another word instead of God. However I don't think science can fully elucidate this due to its limitations as a confined tool/instrument - restricted by its objective basis (irreconcilable with subjectivity - its opposite) and that is where philosophy and spirituality fill the gaps.

But for now thats what I settled on. As I said at the beginning of our discussion, my choice of definition need not encroach or detract from others unique views.

I am but one person - one personal viewpoint. I'm here to explain my choice of definition, to discuss it, to posit it as something hopefully rational to others, to distinguish it from previous notions of other theisms that came before it.

But at the end of the day, we are all free to approach reality however we see fit based on our understanding. And I have little issue with other people's choices.

Everything has truth in it. A word like "God" or "universe" is not actually that important to me. For me it's the significance of an ultimate fundamental principle that gives rise to the multitude of existants, that I'm fascinated with. Words are word. The meaning, logic and relationships underlying words on the other hand, goes much deeper, and is not so restricted.

Definitions are multiplicitous. Each one confines the idea by different parameters (assumptions, presumptions, biases, restraints).

My sole goal, is the unravel the assumptions by integrating them into a mutual coherent dynamic, where apparent contradictions can be resolved simply by re-framing the perspective, and dissolving the emerging conflict.

I am typing against the panpsychist — universeness

I'm very cautious around the word panpsychism.
I not so sure it makes sense to say the entirety of the universe is conscious or aware. More that the universe is capable of consciousness through specific systems (so far organic life, perhaps soon AI) and that these systems are a natural evolution of the laws and principles underlying physics and chemistry and the probabilities and thus possibilities they create in interaction with one another.

Because self and thus a sense of it requires an exterior world for which to perceive. How can the universe as a unit/whole have an external world to develop sense of self, identity etc.

For me anything conscious/aware, must be a thing with temporospatial location, it's surroundings feed it with input , it processes them and then generates output.

If the universe is the input and the processing and storage database/ machine and the output all at the same time, there's no reference point for anything. Input and output in this sense is meaningless because their is no centralised point or "holder of mind".

For example where would this consciousness exist in time and thus have an awareness of past, present and future. Where would it be in space and thus have a sense of location, self/indetity with respect to an environment.

If you're citing me as a panpsychist I want to be very clear that for me it's the ability to become aware that permeates the universe, and not the state of being aware. Certain systems must be employed: first matter must be used to store info, empty space can't be structured into any form of solid lasting code/memory.

Also there has to be some sort of condensation of highly reactive systems into something consistent and stable so that the consciousness it generates has any sense of its on permanence of self and has enough sensitivity (reactivity) to changes in its environment that it can perceive the flow of time with reference to its stable, stored and most importantly "confined" memory base.

So the universe has the potential for awareness. And part of it is indeed aware but I wouldn't say all of it. Consciousness is for me the property of a specific construction or arrangement of energy/matter and the information they carry.

You can convert the energy and mass in food, water, oxygen for example into the matter (neurons) and energy (neuronal firings) required to have conscious awareness. But this doesn't mean that the energy/matter when in the form of food, water and oxygen is in its own right conscious.

As I read back some of my reply's to you Ben, I noticed that I often type 'that' instead of 'then,' in a few sentences. I edited the errors, but It's one that I keep making :rage:
It's a strange one, it's not as if the 't' is next to the 'n' on the keyboard — universeness

Haha its all g universeness. Probably it didn't detract from what you were articulating much. And if you feel it did or I mistunderstood you based on that minor error pleas highlight where and ill have a re-read.

My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of. — universeness

When you suggest such as 'the universe IS god,' or 'god IS spatiotemporal dimensionality,' etc. — universeness

Being part of a totality doesn't mean you influence the totality. Sure. I never pertained to the idea that this is the case.

At most you influence only what falls within your sphere of influence - friends, family, the people you encounter in life, the books or ideas you develop, the career you work in etc.

Of course a human can't influence anything in the andromeda galaxy. It's too far out of reach. At most we can influence our collective understanding of the universe from a human perspective.

As for habitation. You can inhabit the totality. That's all we inhabit. We don't exist outside of thr universe. We are made from it, we live in it, and we abide by its laws and principles whether we like it or not. Even when we die, we don't disappear (energetically and materially speaking). No part of us becomes mere nothingness, other than perhaps our identity and perhaps our conscious awareness as a human that once lived. Our bodies and their energy/content is not going anywhere, they are merely mixed back into mother nature's ecosystem. Reuse, recycle.

I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make. Some elab would help here.

it depends on what "value" we are talking about.
There is innate value of things: the energetic value of a donut (the ability of its energy to do work, the calories) . Physical values exist wether humans believe or apply value to them or not.

Socially constructed values - like fashion, art, money, authority etc only exist as actionable/behaviour influencing values because we all mutually agree that they do. The value is generated through collective desire.

Something is precious or valuable when everyone needs it - water, oxygen, food (these are linked to innate physical values in science).

Something is also precious/valuable when everyone (or the majority at least) wants it - money, fame, authority, knowledge etc.

Something is worthless when it has no use to us, or nobody wants it, or both.

Faith is a belief largely or wholly unsupported by empirical evidence. — Vera Mont

I have faith that this chair will support my weight. Empirical evidence - my weight, the load bearing structure of the chair, its strength, its object permanance (stability as a chair) , the ability of me to sit down. All of which can be measured, quantized, calculated to make a prediction that if I do sit down it will likely support my weight.

Thus "faith" as applied to an expectation/trust/belief in an outcome, can be supported by empirical evidence.

Let's not confuse "faith" in things with only religion alone. Faith = trust. You can have faith in any belief. It may or may not stand up to ridicule/scrutiny.

God" is so badass "God" doesn't even have to exist. (pace Anselm) — 180 Proof

If something exists as "all things", can it's existence be characterised/reduced to "one" thing?

How do we go about that?

Can "potential" for example, be measured directly? Or only through what it does (indirect measurement).

Can energy be fully quantified through direct measurement - when both the act of measurenent, the observer and the measuring device, also contains and uses energy.

These are the limitations of quantification and qualification of a system from within the system using the system to do it.

When we talk about whether God exists. Do we mean as a singular object, thing or person? Do we talk about it as having a locality in space-time, or as the fabric of space-time itself? Do we aporoach it as a concept that applies to the full scope of reality?

If we take the premise does God exist? We already assume that existence is a larger concept that may or may not contain a God as a product which we must find evidence for "within" the universe- time, locality/space, matter (objectivity) and energy (ability).

If we take the premise "god = existence", then the question "does god exist" is redundant as its like saying "does existence exist?" , and instead the sensible questions we would ask is "how does it exist?"

. Hence why science has managed to explain so much through intelligent inquiry whereas many conventional religions will inevitably fail. — finarfin

Yes agreed. Many conventional religions do fall far short of factoring in the elegant tool that is scientific method into their inquiry into the universe. I think philosophy is less rigid than religious dogmas in this respect.

This is because most conventional religions developed a long time ago in a different social landscape - without the knowledge elucidated by science. In essence they did the best with what they had to hand.

But religions come and go. New ones are developed. Old ones are lost to the annals of time. Because their texts are static, whilst the meaning and use of language is not, it evolves. So any texts that are copied hundreds of times over centuries, becoming ever more inaccurate, corrupted by errors and interpretative - the exact nuances of their meaning lost to changes in how we use languages as well as context, some languages too are dying or obsolete or getting there.

This doesn't preclude new theistic views. Ones that can try to integrate science, philosophy, intuition and spiritual archetypes into a framework where they don't all directly oppose one another but are in some sensible relationship.

All of these things are techniques of understanding reality. And whilst I have the highest regard for science, technology and their abilities, they are not without their own dogma and limitations.

That proof is only that which is repeatable, observable and measurable. This does not lend itself to any proofs of rare things, immeasurable things, unquantifiable things, scientific explorations that require being unethical or ones that try to objectify "subjectivity." Or singular unreproducible things - such as the unique individual, or the present moment. Neither are reproducible nor measurable in their entirety. If they were then all things could be predicted.

I believe if a fundamental truth is singular, and manifests all existants, it cannot be fully measured as an object/in an objective way, nor as something repeatable due to the diversity of distinct phenomena that arise from it. It can only be measured based on the presumption or character/restriction of the measurement being used.

Any decent modern approach to theism must acknowledge science and its ability to objectify and standardise features of the universe. It then has to be able to incorporate a mechanism for consciousness, beliefs, subjectivity, art, creativity and imagination - things science finds difficult to reduce to a scientific paradigm alone.

Finally we must accept that scientific paradigm is also not static nor final but always open to more reasoning, experiment and refinement. That paradigm has shifted several degrees many times, completely changing how we see the universe. For example the advent of eisnteins theories revolutionised many previously problematic or irreconcilable measurements.

My point is that being part of does not meant you inhabit or influence the totality of. — universeness

When did I say that was the case