I agree. Media has definitely been a voice, and a loud one, in the shaping and reforming of societal values.

Story telling is a means to address sociologic issues. A platform for self expression which either becomes popular and widely adapted, or heavily criticised, suppressed and diminished. And timing is everything.

I think media and entertainment is certainly a two way dynamic. Where popular opinion/culture dictates media norms and stereotypes, and thus the success of a story in the mainstream, but also emerging and controversial trends in media also inform the public in turn shifting focus and evaluation of important topics.

This interplay is cyclical and reversable, compounding on itself.

So in the end, the stories told throughout time in literature and film, song and poetry, art and dance, are reflections of the state of society at that period.

Movements and novel fads are then just that, sea changes. Alterations in the social fabric, transitions. The birth of something new. A new culture.

So I did predict that answers were going to focus on the idea that animals too have some sort of deliberation, and that may be true, but can you think of how this is different than human deliberation? I am specifically thinking of reasons as motivations, not just intention in general. An animal might desire food, and they might even plan to some extent. But there is still something altogether different regarding this and what a language-bearing being such as a human does. It is this implication of this unique ability that I want to explore. — schopenhauer1

Humans stand out in three particularly striking ways. We can commit suicide, we can sacrifice ourselves/risk life and limb for the "greater good" and we can choose to be celibate.

Those three facts suggest we truly do have the power to completely override every core instinct to survive that has been fostered and nurtured in our bodies through millenia of evolution.

I think that is more significant than it is given credit for. We are indeed free, we have broken away from natural imperative - the continuity of life.

Why? Why would nature ever allow for a level of conscious awareness, of complexity, to undermine its sole drive like that?

In that way we could almost consider ourselves supernatural. No other living thing demonstrates such abilities to such degrees. Perhaps hives/colonies can be considered as disoensibke units in that for example ants can sacrifice themselves for the safety of the colony. But we differ in that we can commit suicide for purely personal reasons rather than to further society.

Instinct seems to predominate for them to a degree that these abilities have not been documented.

I find it interesting to discover what things are uniquely human or at the least shared between humans and only a few other animals.

We do really seem very set apart/ different from any other animals that came before us. As humanitys activities are wildly more diverse and complex than any other animal.
I think despite their complexity, some of them do come down to the same basic impulses/instincts and needs of more simple creatures.

As for the rest, why is that?
Why for example are we exceedingly fascinated with creating and appreciating art unlike most other animals. I say most, because despite maybe not being considered art, many animals do preoccupy themselves with decorating their habitat, usually for a mate.

It could be see as some ritualistic courting display or it could truly be that they enjoy the art of different styles of decoration and find that attractive.

Of course it's near impossible for humans to truly know or gain such depths of insight into the psychology of other animals.

But whatever the case, we are very unique in many ways - our behaviours, values, interactions and awareness/relationship with the natural world.

And I do wonder where that all comes from? Why are we just so damn different in so many ways. What drives evolution to produce such an outlier, one that perhaps can even take charge of their own evolution, shape and recreate/reinvent themselves?

For humans, the sky truly is the limit. And even then, it is not. Blast off.

I never thought about the cigarette/smoking example but its very true. Whatever becomes taboo is usually used as a literary or cinematic device for someone who goes against societal values - namely the villain.

Good spot!

just because death is an inevitable fact does not mean we should cherish or favour it.

Just as in the case that mint ice-cream exists, we do not have to worship mint ice-cream. We can opt for banana, vanilla, pistachio or any other preference.

They may be factual existants. This doesn't mean we must hold them in similar esteem to other existants.

Death is what it is. And it comes to all of us whether we want it or not, at a time that we do not know.

Does that mean we ought to seek it out? No. If it is a definite. Then we are liberalised in the fact that we need not worry about our demise. For it is a sure thing regardless of what we do.

So then it is simply logical to dismiss it as a given and continue doing that which we love until death finds us.

Constants or certainties are gifts in that we need not concern ourselves with them as they're out of our control.

They can be brought into our control if we wish to. But choosing to die now purposefully removed your potential agency for those things that can only be done when living. So in my opinion it's much better to focus on activities that can be done while alive. Be it experiences, emotions or lesson to be had.

For in death, none of these things can be had. Why die at 30 when you can die at 80? It gives you 50 years more of choices to make. Life to live, and hopefully love to be had.

For me, God can be a personal pursuit. Where one's judgement of what they have discovered or been enlightened by does not necessarily translate across general populations of people.

Just as your personal relationship to anything: to any concept, happening or person, is individual and not precisely replicable by other people, simply it may have similarities or overlap, but is never quite identical.

Everyone has a different relationship to the concept of "good", to their mother, to the moon, to income tax, to nature or to "God" - every perspective is unique because it is establish through unique experiences.

So I would not go as far as to say "philosophers will not find God" but rather they will "not find a God that others can appreciate as they do".

And that is a condition ripe for argument and discussion and changing of views, as debating about a concept is an experience that informs our personal knowledge individually.

No it's not enough, this is why workplaces have so much drama and gossip. (I'm a part of the problem!)
We love to feel things even if it's sad and I find that so interesting how in the passed I've looked for sad scenes in movies just to cry for the hell of it! — MojaveMan

I agree. Feeling sadness and joy is definitely more fulfilling than feeling constantly numb, apathetic and emotionless.

And if you crave joy you definitely must be prepared for its natural opposite. As you cant have a peak without a trough.

Shadenfreude is one aspect — jgill

I agree. Schadenfreude certainly has its place, as often misadventure is an enjoyable or satirical source of comedy.

Having said that, there is certainly a line, a distinction I feel in what sorts of "harm" or "suffering" can be appropriately laughed at without being perversely immoral.

I think it often depends on the attitude or experience of the person who has experienced the adversity. If they take it lightly and comically and laugh at themselves in think it's safe to safe participating in the schadenfreude based on their personal expense is okay.

"laugh toghether. Cry toghether"

But then there are things with more dire and severe consequences where I think any such attempt at schadenfreude would come across as crass, cold or even plain sociopathic.

Where exactly that line is, is vague at best. And differs between different people. Probably the best discipline at discerning such a line is stand-up comedians. For if they overstep they would certainly receive harsh criticism from the general public and be cancelled/ shunned.

Thanks for your insights. I think I pretty much agree with all of what you said.

As a small contribution I want to add from a personal perspective: I think stories are ways to experience adversity and triumphs vicariously and in doing so to gain wisdom, knowledge or insight into the dynamics, lessons and meanings behind them.

Just as we tell children moralistically encoded stories so as to show them core lessons in sharing, cooperation and consequence as clear concepts. There are many parallels between the fundamental meaning behind a children's book and an adult novel. The only difference being the complexity of the narrative.

I think entertainment serves a great purpose in that it is an outlet for musings that may/or may not be temptations for action otherwise. A society devoid of fictional dramas is likely to be one that creates them physically.

After all, if nothing good or bad ever happens, there's no takeaway conclusions, no points to learn from, to grow from.

Luckily for us, in general I think society favours the consumption of vast amounts of fictional villainery rather than practicing gross crimes to see what happens.

But I don't see it either balancing or unbalancing the universe: I don't see that mutual destruction causing an equal quantity of creation. — Vera Mont

Well every act of destruction of a state leads to creation of a new state. In essence creation and destruction are just positively/negatively connotated synonyms for "change/transformation".

So I do believe that destruction leads to an equal quantity of creation. For example, when a wild fire burns down a forest, the heat activates dormant seeds in the soil which then germinate - the next generation of trees.

Or closer to home, when you knock down an old building you create ripe conditions for a new construction.

Hit your thumb with a hammer. There, now, aren't you happy that sometime next century, a baby turtle won't be eaten by a seagull?
I believe specific, individual, personal pain when I experience or witness it. I don't believe in karma. — Vera Mont

Not sure its as obvious and transactional as that. I don't think actively causing oneself pain/suffering neccesarily diminishes the pain of another.

Self contained acts lead to self contained consequences. Non self contained acts lead to non self contained consequences.

Basically if you harm yourself, you experience suffering.
If you nurture the environment, the environment nurtures you. If you destroy the environment. The now toxic environment destroys you.

Gods don't have duties — Vera Mont

Are you sure? If a god is universal and all aspects of existence are parts of itself, why would it not have a duty to itself?

That, plus the suffering of all the experimental animals, and the collateral damage of the toxic waste I'm responsible for. Selfish enough to accept the good; not quite hypocritical enough to ignore the bad. (At least I didn't hedge my bets by paying anyone to pray for me.) — Vera Mont

Well, we are human. We are flawed and that is what unites us in the human condition. We look out for eachother because we relate most with one another. That is certainly to the detriment of animals and other things in our quest to practice empathy for one another. I don't think any individual is to blame for this.

All we can do is be grateful that we were spared from whatever struggle we've faced and do our best to do right by our home - earth and everything on it.

People can be the purest, most humble and beautiful beings in known existence. We can also be the worst thing to befall the planet. But we always have choice. And we all make them.

Well, in fact, all organized religious arguments are circular, since they want it both ways: a big enough god to have created everything, but only takes credit for the good half, while shoving blame for the bad half onto its creatures. — Vera Mont

I agree. I don't think any God would be "all good". But I do think such a gods concept of good is not human-centric. And sometimes we fall into the bad books because of our lack of consideration for the non human existants that also deserve life and protection.

That's a "nice" if not very convincing argument for a god who created suffering in the first place. — Vera Mont

Well, we must acknowledge that suffering here is human suffering. Its inherently biased towards "our" wellbeing. For example, the climate changing may lead to detriment for humanity, decreased productivity, more human suffering, but those same dynamics may be protective for other aspects of nature by making it ever harder for us to contribute to toxic or harmful environmental activities.

Just as a fever makes the body less hospitable to a virus (humans in this analogy) , in service to the health of the holistic organism (the planet).

For example rising CO2 and temperature may be detrimental to oxygen breathing organisms that are causing deforestation. And at the same time making conditions ripe for trees (which "eat" CO2 and may enjoy the accelerated metabolism/growth conferred by rising temps).

Checks and balances. If a universal god has a duty to all things' "suffering", as in if the prime directive is to establish equilibrium, and humans persistently push equilibrium into disequilibrium, then of course we are going to see more human suffering as counter measures arise to oppose us.

This natural tendency for equilibrium can be seen in dozens of counts. For example, if a self indulgent government, or powerful wealthy class oppresses too much the majority of the population in favour of self interest, we can ask why would a god cause us to suffer while others live the lux life? But in doing so, people are brought together and united in gross dissatisfaction and desire for revolution, and eventually the government is overthrown and equilibrium is re-established.

In this way, suffering leads to karma (the ré establishment of balance).
Balance being that we suffer a little, and enjoy a little, in equal portion, both very tolerable. If we suffer too much the system begins to operate against that, if we enjoy too much the system also begins to work against that.

Though ideally everyone wants to live in pure bliss all the time, a god or universal principle that demands/enforces balance is still one I can get behind, as I don't see any reason for one cohort of things to be prized any more than another: be it people, animals, plants, the planet itself. A God that works to protect everything from one another will practice scorn when needed.

What do you think the self is? How would you define it? — Andrew4Handel

For me, the self is a complex collection of information that forms a constant self evaluation cycle (default mode network) , either subtracting (forgetting/ignoring), adding (learning/storing) or reconfiguration/change in assembly (altered/adjusted associations/relationships) with each review, conferring a linear continuity/object permanence through time, and thus orientation to time, place and event.

The rate at which this cycle of re-evaluation occurs is dependent on the static or "crystalline" and dynamic or "fluid" aspects of the collection of information, where static information is that which is most memorised and concrete and least likely to change - for example ones age, ones name, who their family is, and fluid information is that which is least concrete and subject to change - the most recently learned information, or the part of the brain responsible for detecting changes in current circumstances - for example the news, the current date and time, what someone just told you.

The fundamental unit of the self for me is a). The set-up: that which allows for the obtaining and integration of external information (experience of the world) and b). Beliefs - the units of content of conscious experience, that which makes up memories.

These two components work symbiotically, in that beliefs dictate what information we can detect, value and take in, and what information we take in dictates formation of new beliefs.

My definition of self thus isn't directly related to humans, but is the product of any complex information system where information can influence its own collective. Meaning that anything from a colony of ants to an AI could indeed be a "self".

interesting. I see where you're coming from. I just have difficulty with believing that science doesn't also begin with rather arbitrary (in the sense that they are largely presupposed without any solid evidence for such a supposition) concepts. Like time, energy etc.

Energy as something that cannot be created or destroyed is a huge assumption to make. As it allows not to establish where it originates from, why it occurs at all. And it being basically the fundamental constituent of all material as well as all interactions, is virtually indefinable. Something that is fundamentally everything cannot really be further defined/restricted in character/properties beyond this vague generalisation.

And yet we do manage to subdivide it and characterise specific types of energy, despite the fact that they can convert from one form to the next. But only because of its presupposed eternality and ability to create anything (sensations/objects/happenings) in existence.

For me, energy is as about as close to magic as science gets. It's both invisible and visible, can be felt and also not felt at all, can take any form whatsoever, we have no idea where it comes from initially or why, and yet we gloss over that so that we may use it as a basic principle of science.

When i search for meaning in a concept of God I'm not referring to some big bearded fellow floating in the clouds. Of course not. It's more nuanced than that. I'm simply suggesting that we don't yet have verification of whether consciousness is a fundamental force that began with the universe or why it is possible for it to emerge from substance (the hard problem).

Many people leave the door open to a god theory to explain such a profound dynamic as this. The fact that us, as parts of the universe, are a direct example of the universe being aware of itself.

I think if philosophy can question its own tenets: epistemology, physika and metaphysics as you pointed out - as in how to define them, what falls within each definition, why they exist as components, are there more components we haven't considered, where they come from, how they may overlap, I'm not so sure everything needs to satisfy all three to be considered worthy of philosophical endeavour.

If one is to consider the universe itself as a "God" and then figure out how to caracterise/understand or explain that, surely philosophy which is not external to the universe, must be applicable to the universe?

In the end it is still a love of knowledge. Is the particular subject of said knowledge so important?

Perhaps you're totally right and there is such cases as pseudo philosophy. Subjects that ought not be broached by the subject. But I have not yet encountered a major topic that hasn't be brought to the attention of this forum to seek insight, or just for general speculation.

What burden? Who invented it? Whose concepts are blame and merit? Gods, if they existed, would not be answerable; would not even deign to contemplate such a question. "I Am That I Am. I Do As I Do." In this, gods are as innocent and sacrosanct as black holes and earthworms. — Vera Mont

Fair. I suppose in coming from it by projecting human conscience onto a deity. There's not reason why a deity if they existed woukd ever think feel or be aware in the same way as humans are.

I guess I always figured anything conscious would feel both positive and negative emotions, both about themselves and about the world around them. But in the case of a universal god, there is no external reality/world or universe "around them" as they are it.

They were good enough at it to cure me of cancer, which prayers notoriously fail to do. — Vera Mont

That's great I'm very heartened to hear it. Some people (not me particularly I'm just spit balling different viewpoints here), would say that a benevolent god, or the benevolent side of an ambivalent one, works through those existants that propagate that - the scientists, organisations and corporations that make it possible to treat diseases etc. Some would pray for a treatment, receive it and then take that to conclude that their positive health outcome is the work of good people, good conditions/circumstances etc - a subset of the manifestation of the good in the universe.

What would you say to that having gone through the ordeal yourself? Is it total tripe or does it hold any credence?

than post-civilized ones, which are more about power, obedience and hierarchy, and that is why civilizations wiped out all the indigenous cultures they could reach. — Vera Mont

Yes I agree we certainly lost/or sacrificed some positive elements of society in favour of competition, self interest etc. The modern world can and sometimes does learn from the ancient eras.

. Even more so, the story of humanity needs to keep flowing or it stagnates, ceases to serve its original purpose, becomes absurd as all orthodoxies do. — Vera Mont

That's quite an interesting view. I'd like if you could elaborate more on it (if you have the time or interest of course). How does the story evolve, or perhaps more importantly how ought it evolve in your opinion?

I don't really see how supernatural concepts that can't be evaluated for their truth value can contribute anything to our Wisdom or our Epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar

Everything in philosophy is in continued contention: like for example what is "truth", how do we "know" something is true/what is knowledge.
What do we mean by supernatural? What's the definition of something supernatural verses natural. Are all things that occur in nature natural?
Is energy supernatural because it is invinsible/indestructible for example?

Philosophy is about thought, thinking, reasoning and defining, ideas and concepts.

That can be applied to literally anything; be it art, psychology, history, economics, maths, science and of course spirituality, religion and consciousness.

Philosophy has the largest scope of any discipline. The minute you restrict or exclude topics from philosophy you already presuppose too much and cut yourself off at the knees.

I am not sure how questions about the supernatural can ever by part of Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

Of course they can be. We can explore whether they are indeed intangible, or supernatural, we can do comparative discussions. We can ask why people ask the question in the first place. We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit.

Does wisdom help to reach happinness? I think yes — javi2541997

It is unwise to fall into the traps of depression.

I also agree that wisdom in general makes one more immune to negative moods/ depression, being manipulated, losing your autonomy to exploitation and just generally being reactionary to everyone's opinion of you, many of which will be judgemental, critical, cynical. Wisdom confers control over the self and ones experience, allowing for growth even trhough traumatic experiences.

Also wisdom is an ability to help/give council to others too which I imagine is also very fulfilling on its own right.

So yes. I agree.

I think it's worth noting that different people attain wisdom at different rates and also reach different levels of their greatest life wisdom, which is not neccesarily when they are oldest. Some people simply never wise up, others are outliers for their young age. "An old head on young shoulders".

haha that's as good an action as any I guess. *shrug*

Possible. Really, nothing can be ruled out can it? — Agent Smith

It seems not for now :)

what choice do we have in the end then in your opinion? When everything is done and dusted, and there is neither proof nor disproof of something.

How do we carry on from their? Do we simply just pick one side of the argument and go with it blindly? Do we forget about the whole thing and never think about it again? Or do we re-examine the subject in desperate hopes that we missed something, that there is an answer?

I don't see what other option we have outside of these three. Accept/reject, ignore, try again.

I don't understand why the brain is so god damn important. When a person goes into shock, as due to blood loss, the first organ to be shut off is the brain (we feel faint and eventually pass out), — Agent Smith

On the contrary, perhaps the brain is so important because it is the first thing to suffer when the body is in a state of crisis. Of all the body components, is the most sensitive to change. Because it is so complex, and thus demands so much control to maintain its function.

The top of the pyramid (brain) certainly crumbles when the base (body) is eroded. The base of the pyramid does not neccesarily fall if the top is eroded. Its a hierarchy of stability and order. The most susceptible to change is the most perceptive which is good. But also the most vulnerable.

What we "know about" (which?) "God" is that it is "the greatest mystery" – the (ultimate) inexplicable "answer" to every question that begs them all. Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) of nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). IMO, to seek explicable wisdom is incompatible with seeking inexplicable "God". — 180 Proof

Wow that's a really great insight. Got me thinking a lot.

Instead, the pursuit of God is a deeply personal and meaningful journey that is often based on faith and intuition rather than logic. — gevgala

It's worth noting that intuition, like instinct, can be valid/correct/useful despite not being able to put precise or exacting words to it. You don't know why or how exactly you feel something to be true, and yet in some cases it is true.

Thus intuition and the subconscious are very closely linked. I do think the subconscious has a set of knowledge, beliefs and level of awareness that the conscious mind cannot directly access and yet is still influenced by.

Intuition is like the deep, visceral, yet permeating voiceless guide that says "yes there is something not quite right about that person, they are unsettling, don't trust them, stay alert" or "yes, this is the right choice for your career, you know this is what you want despite all the reasons against it."

This is why we often use the heart as a stand-in for the source of intuition and the brain as the one for logic.
You dont have proof of how you know. You cannot articulate it. But you do know it.

Intuition of course can also be wrong. Just as some logics are correct and others are erroneous as they presume something, or forgot to factor something into the logical process. Hence why so many plausible theories (ones that seem logical) fail when tested.

Logics can contradict one another (logical paradoxes). Intuition in these cases may be yet another tool to overcome such obstacles.

If civilization progresses in similar ways, aliens, no doubt, will also conceive of god(s). The point is we have different conceptions of god and that speaks volumes as to how we've been so faithful and yet remain unacknowledged for it — Agent Smith

Interesting. For me "faith" or "belief" comes from the self, it is observed at an individual level, its usually personal in character/a specific intimate relationship, internal, whilst "proof" is that which can be collectively observed, and points to general relationships between things.

I'm not sure the faithful always desire acknowledgment for that. Often it is something they hold solely within the privacy of their own mind. As they know that they could never reveal it in a factual manner to everyone else. It cannot be tested or proven. So why bother look for widespread acknowledgment.

Yeah, we're congenital magical thinkers. Up to about a third of us are quite susceptible to the placebo / nocebo effect. — 180 Proof

Interesting association. Never thought of it that way before. I for one am glad for the existence of both sceptics and mystics. I love the idea of magic. But I also love the idea of rationale/reason. Each side offers its own unique aptitudes.

For example if my dying relative is at peace in the process of death because they have a mystic belief, some intuition, that death is not so final and meaningless as a sceptic approach would suggest. I would embrace that with them. I would not dare to rationally argue that away and leave them in doubt and fear in the moment they need the greatest comfort.

Elderly and ill alike often become more spiritual as they approach the end of their life. I think scepticism is important for technology and societal advancement, but I think belief is more important to the individual person. As when you are the only person facing the unknown, alone in dying, the only thing that matters is what you believe.

People pray in the most dire of times. Though later, if they survive, they often don't wish to admit that.

Any god bigger than that will juts make a colossal ass of itself. — Vera Mont

You're probably right. I suspect any such "universal" God would not wish to be found. They would certainly be seen by some as thee most criminal of all criminals. Then again, a universal God, by being all things supposedly, would be both those on the quest to know themself, and those who prefer not to.

Who is accountable for all greatness and all horrors if there is only one "who" to begin with. Who does such an entity answer to? Only themselves I guess. Their own source of guilt and shame, and their own source of pride and joy.

I do wonder, does the existence of multiple sentient beings with their own agency, take the burden off a universal God? Would such a phenomenon be an act of sharing the culpability/blame and merit alike?

Can perfection ever occur as an isolated instance within a larger system of imperfection? Can imperfection ever occur as an isolated instance within a larger system of perfection? In essence where is the original sin and its opposite, the original divinity? Are they the sources of hatred and love respectively? And of course they're both mutual opposites, referential, necessities for one another I guess. Who is who, what is what.

Dogma is a very poor way to present a deity. He needs to be personal, plausible, adaptable and available. — Vera Mont

I agree in a sense. But everything we do has a dogma (a principle or guide to follow). Science has its own dogma. It is rigid and inflexible about exactly how a proof must come about. Religions too have their own dogmas. And perhaps even individual people have a dogma (their motto, ethos, personal mantra of life). Of course some of these are more flexible and subject to change with experience and knowledge so could be considered generally less dogmatic, whilst others are insistent on permanence, on rules, stubborn.

Some people are extremely stubborn and arrogant. Others are aloof, amenable to change, like the tides.

Which is more blameworthy, the one who made it all, or the one who peeked behind the curtain? — Vera Mont

Wow this is quite profound indeed. Its almost like "if one were to know God (if such a thing exists), one would arguably be closer to it, more becoming of it, and thus more responsible, more blameworthy. Just as you cannot blame an ignorant or innocent person (lack of knowledge) for their actions, nor a disabled person (lack of potency/power) as easily as blaming an aware/able person that actively chose to be neglectful despite knowing and being able to do better.

star-stuff.... it's exactly as meaningful as you make it. Star stuff is just atoms. We glorious humans are made of it and so is our excrement once it leaves our glorious god-image bodies. WTF is an image of the universe and is that made of something more special — Vera Mont

Haha that's a very apt way of putting it. What is an image of the universe indeed.

My guess would be the image of the universe would be the "truth" about the universe. The revealing of its nature, how it works, its rules, its laws, how all things relate to eachother. Something that physics, chemistry and biology are very good at elucidating.

As for us, I guess being made "in the image" of the universe, is the discovery of how we relate to it. The questions: who are we, why are we here, when did we arrive, when will we leave, how are we made and from what are we made, where are we from, where are we now, where will we be in the future?

Many of these questions have quite developed answers from medicine, from archaeology, from psychology and sociology etc. But much is left unanswered. And some other questions seem to completely elude us.

Our own nature is just about as unsure as the true nature of reality. And that is both beautiful/enigmatic, and annoying, shitty.

he's just too remote to relate to. He becomes ineffable, unreachable, unthinkable -- and useless. — Vera Mont

Very true. It seems that the more generalised we make an "answer", the harder we try to describe "thee answer", the ultimate one, the more incoherent or contradictory it becomes, the more vague, unimaginable, unknowable it is.

I suppose the thing/phenomenon we know the best (or at least we hope so) is ourselves. As we are the source of our "I". Ourselves is the closest and most constant thing in our experience, and the further we stretch out and expand our questioning and understanding, the further our mind wanders from its source, from the thing it knows best.

I understand your point, but why do you get frustrated? Don’t you think is better to always have debates and questions? The nature of universe looks endless and it is one of the most beautiful and sublime acts inside philosophy. — javi2541997

Of course you're correct. It is a beautiful thing to have curiosity, to wonder "why?" always having more questions to ask.

Having all the answers may be temporarily euphoric, marvellous, self-fulfilling, but would soon loose its novelty, its charm.

One might soon conclude after proving something of that explanatory power, that there's no purpose left in life. That no stone is left unturned, that the playground has become boring, all the games have been played.

Ignorance is bliss and also equally detrimental. Omniscience I suspect is likely also bliss and equally detrimental.

I guess my frustration would come from the same source as it does for many, a constant curiosity/desire to know something better. To understand deeper. To demonstrate a higher level of knowledge and wisdom. And then recognising that I'm just as confused and unsure, as limited in resources and tools to discover as the next person.

But that is also part of the magic. As humans we love mystery and explanation both. Each has its emotional and logical allure to us as sentient beings.

Every possible combination has been tried and none have unlocked the room where God resides ... peacefully. — Agent Smith

It seems so. We've certainly looked at it from as many angles as is probably humanly possible for millenia. There is still no consensus and no matter how advanced our technology and understanding of the physical universe becomes, we cannot seem to shrug the concept of "God" from our collective minds. Even those that don't believe in a God still know what the idea of "God" means and can argue about it, use it in language, discuss it.

We are no closer to a "reason why" reality exists at all nor why consciousness exists at all, or even what the two are exactly.

Why is it that some people are so sure god doesn't exist. And why is it that some people are so sure god does exist.

Finally, I wonder if we created an experimental society, isolated from all human culture, perhaps on another planet. Raised to maturity with absolutely no information on the notion of God, just technology and science. Would some of them still stumble upon/manufacture a God theory?

Is it innate to us to consider such an entity when given no prior exposure to the concept? And if so, does that itself have any implications on the argument for or against such an entity?

Everyone" can't "get behind" the fact that the Earth is round — 180 Proof

That's a very good point. Haha

good to consider how Akhenaton consider the sun as the cult of one god rather than humanized characters. I guess Egyptian culture is the closer to always had more plausible god to understand universe and nature. — javi2541997

I think we can apply this to many gods throughout time. There have been gods of nature, of water, of the sky, the sun, of fire, of love, of war, gods of beauty, gods of fortune, the list is really extensive.

I see them as products of our natural tendency as humans to humanise reality. To take components, laws, principles human conditions, and give them personhood.

The idea of monotheism for me is similar to the physics anticipation/reasoned expectation of a "theory of everything". One unanimous and overruling law that governs all of reality. And explains all phenomena and occurrences

Frustratingly, I don't believe science alone will ever discovery an universal principle that explains all of reality as science is but one discipline and one dogma in the sphere of human means to understand the universe

Let's say I work at the hadron collider institute in Geneva, using the sophisticated machinery I witness subatomic particles interact at the smallest fractions of time. I go outside and encounter an ancient carving on a stone never before seen. Then I look up into the clear night sky and witness the light of a thousand stars streaming into my eyes.

What is the scope of my observations in the past hour?
I've observed information from the most minute, brief moments of the present, I've observed information from ancient humans carved on stone, and I've observed information millions of light years old coming from the stars, the great beyond.

My scope of of awareness here spans eons. I am observing both the immediate quantum interactions and space at large and everything in between.

Where does my awareness end and external unobserved information begin? This dynamic changes constantly.

The sphere of awareness is not fixed but always changing. But it all takes place in a self referential timeframe of "my present" not the present moment from which the any of the above outlined information originated. As info takes time to travel distance.

These are some examples of the Interplay between time and awareness. I don't know if this is useful to your inquiry but its one line of thinking for you to consider.

Take some practical examples of fractals - snow flakes, or the center of some flowers. They are not infinite. — PhilosophyRunner

That's a good point. A snowflake is definitely a fractal and a finite one.

Now I'm thinking that given the right conditions a snowflake could keep growing outwards infinitely no? If it it was given a stable environment with no wind/turbulence to destabilise and fracture it, a cold enough temperature and enough water.

In essence it would no longer be a "snowflake" really because we define them specifically and by a certain size. It would be more just ice freezing outwards.

So we come to crystallisation as a general process. Crystallisation could be infinite no? And its a fractal of repeating molecular structure aggregating on the outer edge, be it salt or ice or any other molecule.

So if crystallisation can continue endlessly as a fractal, the only preventative variables are the lack of space, substrate or adequate temperature. The conditions that are ripe for crystal growth.

So a fractal is as large as the set of conditions that create it are in duration.

I think thats something significant and worth a bit more exploration especially when talking about fundamental rules/constants, the universe and fractality.

ah I see okay. So in essence the big elephant in the room here is the age old discussion of whether true infinities occur practically. If the universe could ever be infinite or is definitively finite.

I don't think there is a universal law that require the universe to be composed of fractals. Rather I would put forward some parts of the universe are fractals as a consequence of other laws (current laws of physics, or some kind of unified law we don't know of yet, or something else). — PhilosophyRunner

That's quite potentially the case. I could see how laws could interact in such a way as to repeat patterns in a fractal manner. Rather than the other way around. It's a good point.

If so, what dictates the end to the fractal so that only parts of the universe behave in this way? For example I couldn't conceive of a reason why a fractal based on pi, for example, would ever end, or derived from any irrational number or recurring number sequence for that matter, like 3.33333333'

What would make a fractal finite? And secondly is a fractal really a true fractal if its pattern ever comes to a stop, if the scale of repetition is ever limited?

It seems to me that Earth’s person Gods are childish creations of human imagination. On the other hand, the absolute, ultimate ground of existence God seems credible to me. — Art48

The foundational ground of existence god, by giving rise to the universe, gives evebtual rise to human polytheism as well as monotheism. It permits such developments/concepts to emerge during existence. It also allows for the emergence of consciousness, self, and the act of personification/anthropomorphism.

Also just as some physical properties are subsets of other more fundamental properties, some gods may be considered subsets of a foundational singular god: for example the god of time (Kronos), god of space (uranus), god of form/substance (proteus), etc. There is just about as many gods as there are concepts in physics, chemistry and human nature/ behaviour (war, peace, beauty, sex/love etc).

So, it seems that if such a foundational ground of existence God truly does exists, and may be called "God" instead of a first law/theory of everything (perhaps due to some discovery that consciousness is indeed as fundamental as time and space), then this God obviously doesn't mind millenia of conceptualizations and imaginings of his/her/its true nature.

I would believe that such a fundamental God would not restrict possibilities in the imagination of conscious beings. As creativity is part of the pursuit of knowledge/wisdom etc.

Thus, in conclusion, I don't think personal gods are so silly afterall. They simply make the universe a little bit more relatable and accesible to human minds. There is usually a kernel of truth in everything.