However, I am not sure that the energy from the moment of the Big Bang is not also a unifying energy evolving into self-consciousness. — Athena

That double negative indicates non-dogmatic uncertainty and moderate skepticism. I too, am uncertain about The Hard Problem of Consciousness, because the (yes/no) empirical & reductionist scientific method is inadequate to the task of objectively observing the subjective (self-conscious) observer. Yet some scientists & philosophers are using holistic (both/and) methods to make sense of the simplicity in complexity, and the order in chaos*1*2. They hope to shed light on the mystery of how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of matter.

I too have developed a philosophical theory, based primarily on Information Science (Complexity, Systems, Holism, etc). It postulates that the "unifying energy" of evolution is a combination of Information (direction) and Causation (Energy) : like a guided missile instead of an aimless bomb. It's not Deterministic (absolute certainty), but Probabilistic (optional). The theory has little to do with proving the existence of God. But it does point toward the the necessity of a First Cause/Prime Mover/Programmer of some kind to light the fuse of the Big Bang bomb. :smile:


*1. From Matter to Life: Information and Causality is a 2017 edited collection of essays by experts in various fields, including physics, biology, chemistry, and philosophy, exploring the role of information in the transition from non-living matter to life.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=from+matter+to+life

*2. Information and the Nature of Reality :From Physics to Metaphysics is an edited collection of essays by scientists, philosophers, and theologians, published by Cambridge University Press in 2010 and reissued as a Canto Classic in 2014. Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen, the book explores the growing importance of information as a fundamental concept in understanding the universe, moving beyond traditional views of mass and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+the+nature+of+reality

*3. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Postulates that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

This is a comment about the book made by the online used book store ThriftBooks.

Book Overview
There can be no doubt that as a matter of fact a religious life, exclusively pursued, does tend to make the person exceptional and eccentric. I speak not now of your ordinary religious believer, who follows the conventional observances of his country, whether it be Buddhist, Christian, or Mohammedan. His religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation, and retained by habit. It would profit us little to study this second-hand religious life. We must make search rather for the original experiences which were the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. These experiences we can only find in individuals for whom religion exists not as a dull habit, but as an acute fever rather. But such individuals are "geniuses" in the religious line; and like many other geniuses who have brought forth fruits effective enough for commemoration in the pages of biography, such religious geniuses have often shown symptoms of nervous instability. Even more perhaps than other kinds of genius, religious leaders have been subject to abnormal psychical visitations. Invariably they have been creatures of exalted emotional sensibility. Often they have led a discordant inner life, and had melancholy during a part of their career. They have known no measure, been liable to obsessions and fixed ideas; and frequently they have fallen into trances, heard voices, seen visions, and presented all sorts of peculiarities which are ordinarily classed as pathological. Often, moreover, these pathological features in their career have helped to give them their religious authority and influence.

That seems to explain what I experienced this morning. For sure, I was emotionally unstable and I thought of using shrooms to enhance this trip, but it is not easily available to me. However, for a lot of money I can, and if I have another experience like I did this morning, I am going to lay out the money. Now we are getting into a question of consciousness. Of what can we be conscious, and how do we know it is real if it is beyond our everyday experience? What if what we think is real, is more of a delusion than we believe? Does any of this matter?

My little comment was addressed to the consideration of the existence of God. I feel it's futile to discuss whether God exists. That question, if it is a true question, won't be answered. How or why the universe exists is a question which may be usefully discussed, but if it can be answered it will be answered by science, not by philosophers thinking about it really hard.

What the concept of God means and whether it matters will vary from person to person, I think..

That double negative indicates non-dogmatic uncertainty and moderate skepticism. I too, am uncertain about The Hard Problem of Consciousness, because the (yes/no) empirical & reductionist scientific method is inadequate to the task of objectively observing the subjective (self-conscious) observer. Yet some scientists & philosophers are using holistic (both/and) methods to make sense of the simplicity in complexity, and the order in chaos*1*2. They hope to shed light on the mystery of how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of matter. — Gnomon

Wow, that is delicious. I have a big problem with binary thinking. I did not know that holistic thinking is being practiced by some scientists. That makes me hopeful.

I too have developed a philosophical theory, based primarily on Information Science (Complexity, Systems, Holism, etc). It postulates that the "unifying energy" of evolution is a combination of Information (direction) and Causation (Energy) : like a guided missile instead of an aimless bomb. It's not Deterministic (absolute certainty), but Probabilistic (optional). The theory has little to do with proving the existence of God. But it does point toward the necessity of a First Cause/Prime Mover/Programmer of some kind to light the fuse of the Big Bang bomb. :smile: — Gnomon

I need more information about this. I am limited to ancient Greek thinking of cause and effect, and I am quite sure a better understanding of math would improve my ability to think, but my brain just won't cooperate. The story of evolution seems tied to probabilistic thinking. For sure, plants and animals are not created by a god's whim of what they should look like and how they behave, but they follow the rules of what is possible.

I love the idea of understanding creation as patterns of information that may or may not manifest as matter and life forms. I bookmarked a page for future reference. My brain shuts down when I try to understand too much. I have a book on a shelf that I need to check to see if its information will work with this new information from you.

Are you familiar with "A Beginner's Guide to the Construction of the Universe" By Michael S. Schneider? If you are, what do you think of it?

I'd like to point out that in general the metaphysical arguments for a deistic god create an entity untouchable by logic and metaphysics as a way to solve logical and metaphysical problems. At best this defers the problem, but even if we consider it to be a legitimate solution to the origin of the universe, it follows that nothing could ever be meaningfully be said about this deity anyway.

Of course, I know that I am so influenced by Jung, as you are with Spinoza. I wonder how can the Jungian worldview can be compared and contrasted with that of Spinoza? — Jack Cummins

I just came across this video ("synchronicity?")

(27½ mins)

At times, I side with theists and at times with atheists and some agnostics. I find that the idea of 'God' and what it means for such a being to exist to be one of the most extremely perplexing philosophy problems. — Jack Cummins

Who or what is your god? It is not a question much asked now, as we have become obsessed with mere existence. But it used to be psychologically informative. A worshipper of Zeus puts power at the centre of their life. A worshipper of Athene or Sophia puts wisdom at centre. Eirene - peace, Hephaestus - crafts.

So in this sense, to say one has no god is to say one has no purpose or function at the centre; one lives for nothing, stands for nothing and will die for nothing.

But modern atheists are of course not saying this, they give the word 'god' some other meaning, and then deny its reality. There is probably something they stand for, and something they will stand against, but the word 'god' has become an obstacle they cannot pass by. They stand, in fact, against religion, but do not see that as a religious stance.

So if I perhaps say that I stand for nature, for wisdom, and for love, then people will find that acceptable, as long as I do not use capital letters.

Here is a song, that I like that expresses the unimportance of my life to me in relation to the world. What I know, what I do, my life and death are of no significance in themselves, but become significant in relation to everything else. Alas, many will be deceived by the silly clothes and the extravagant setting. They cannot see past that to an expression of the unknown, the unknowable, a vastness that gives meaning to even this feeble, handwaving post. At this level it is not mere factual truth, but the very idea that god died for me - that an unknowable love is what life is about, that gives meaning to all this human nonsense and horror.

whether or not one believes in God does affect one's approach and interpretation of all that happens in life. — Jack Cummins

Consider 2 scenarios:
1) deism is true: a "God" created the universe, but is indifferent to everything that occurs in it. There is no afterlife.
2) naturalism is true: there is no being that intentionally created the universe.

Would you approach life differently in scenario 1 vs scenario 2?

Wow, that is delicious. I have a big problem with binary thinking. I did not know that holistic thinking is being practiced by some scientists. That makes me hopeful. — Athena

Modern Holistic thinking began in the 20th century along with Quantum physics : entanglement is holistic. But most scientists avoid the term "holism" due to its association with New Age "nuts". Other related terms are Cybernetics (control & communication in complex systems) ; General Systems Theory (interrelated parts that work together as a whole) ; Complexity Theory (systems that are too complicated to understand by analysis into parts) ; Emergence (novel features of whole systems that are not found in the parts) ; Synthesis (combining isolated elements into interrelated systems) ; Synergy (energetic interaction to produce an effect that is more than the sum of parts).

You might be interested in the book that introduced that New-Agey term : Holism and Evolution*1. As the title implies, it was focused mainly on evolutionary mysteries, such as how Life & Mind emerged from the muck of a nascent planet. It inspired Hippies & meditators of the 1960s with hope for a new Age of Aquarius. The holistic god-concept of New-Agers was an impersonal, cosmic life force or consciousness that is one with the universe. Disclaimer : despite some accusations, I am not now, and never have been a New Age hippie.

Another book that is more focused on Consciousness & god-concepts is The Sapient Cosmos by James B. Glattfelder : a thick encyclopedic book "that synthesizes modern science and philosophy to explore the emergence of information, consciousness, and meaning in the universe". It's intended for intelligent laymen, but includes a lot of technical stuff that you may not be interested in. However, it has chapters on "woo-woo" Shamanic traditions and Psychedelic cultures, that may be more appealing to you.

I, personally, have no experience with mind-altering substances, or out-of-body experiences. So my interest was more in the Holistic philosophical worldview, summarized as Syncretic Idealism : "a novel philosophical proposition that merges various idealist philosophies with insights from information theory and physics, while also integrating concepts from other belief systems like shamanism to create a unified, non-isolating worldview about the nature of reality, consciousness, and existence". :smile:


*1. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things. . . . .
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

Thank you. I will follow the Hippie path. The more scientific one causes my brain to shut down.

One of my favorite philosophers is James Williams, and he was good with Holisticism. He is also a hard read for me, but says things my brain really likes. He was an education authority, and education is a subject I am passionate about.

I checked my favorite second-hand book dealer, and the book The Sapient Cosmos by James B. Glattfelder is more than I usually pay. I will have to think about it. I already am behind in my reading.

God is defined as the first creator. God does not matter when it comes to a normal life since it seems that He left us on our own.

Have you ever considered setting aside all the knowledge you've learned and acquired and seeing if you can conjure up the beginnings of an answer from within your own mind? It might not be without danger, but I'd be surprised if the answer isn't there. It seems you've explored every other avenue. If the key to your house isn't outside, it might be inside.

I do agree with you that the idea of 'God' varies in meaning, or meaninglessness, from person to person. The definitive arguments for or against the existence, or non-existence, is problematic. That is because meaning is constructed culturally and individually. The idea of what is 'absolute reality' is relative to a large extent.

Throughout history and throughout the world there may be underlying ideas, such as the idea of God but it is only interpretation. Initially, a person is taught a set of beliefs, which they may accept or reject. In the information age of twentieth first century there is so much choice of perspectives and ideas. A person may choose on the basis of what seems to make sense from a rational, emotional or intuitive level. It may be about pragmatic navigation of life experiences and choices.

The idea of God as the first cause is one amongst many others. This is so different from the idea of a personal relationship with God which is held by many religious believers. The idea of prayer only makes sense from that perspective.

Yes, who is or what is your god? That is a good question if the capital G of God is removed. It doesn't matter if it is nature or a higher, transcendental reality but what it stands for in terms of values and motivation, especially the power of wisdom or love.

Whether one's ideas about reality are 'delusions' or not is culture dependent. The standard idea of delusion is if one's ideas are not shared by others. For example, if someone believes oneself to be a Messiah it is usually thought to be delusional. Generally, those with unusual beliefs are regarded as eccentric, or referred to a psychiatrist.

Even within psychiatry, mental health professionals ideas vary, ranging from fundamentalists to hardcore atheists. This affects the way the professionals interpret the ideas of psychosis and delusions. Nevertheless, one common ground is thinkers about the impact of the ideas. If a person is seen as a risk to oneself or others there is more concern about delusional beliefs.

Of course, it is is possible for people in power or an entire nation to be delusional, in a 'harmful' way. Politics involves ideas about reality, ranging from leaders fighting for religious beliefs to Marxism based on dialectical materialism.

This is so different from the idea of a personal relationship with God which is held by many religious believers. The idea of prayer only makes sense from that perspective. — Jack Cummins

And to which God should one pray?

Obviously, I am sure that many people in philosophy circles would scorn the process superstition. For those who pray, it is to whichever God one believes in but prayer is central to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It may be about focusing on one's own deepest self. A similar process occurs in traditions of meditation, although meditation is not 'inner speech' with any figure but more about stilling one's thought processes. Both may involve going beyond the surface of ego consciousness.

In the two scenarios which you describe it is possible that there is no difference. So, it may be that the idea of an afterlife, which often is associated with the idea of God plays a major factor. Personally, I am inclined to think that the question of life after death matters more than the existence of God. I admit that I have spent more time wondering about the various possibilities of life after death. That is because if one doesn't continue in any form what is the significance of God in relation to one's own personal identity. It becomes rather abstract and more about being known in 'the mind of God'.

Whether one's ideas about reality are 'delusions' or not is culture dependent. The standard idea of delusion is if one's ideas are not shared by others. For example, if someone believes oneself to be a Messiah it is usually thought to be delusional. Generally, those with unusual beliefs are regarded as eccentric, or referred to a psychiatrist.

Even within psychiatry, mental health professionals ideas vary, ranging from fundamentalists to hardcore atheists. This affects the way the professionals interpret the ideas of psychosis and delusions. Nevertheless, one common ground is thinkers about the impact of the ideas. If a person is seen as a risk to oneself or others there is more concern about delusional beliefs.

Of course, it is possible for people in power or an entire nation to be delusional, in a 'harmful' way. Politics involves ideas about reality, ranging from leaders fighting for religious beliefs to Marxism based on dialectical materialism. — Jack Cummins

That could lead to an unpleasant discussion.:lol: I have a few words to say about delusion and political problems, but that would not be philosophical. However, AI's explanation of "Plato's Allegory of the Cave and Political Delusion" is perfect. We should not base our decisions on popular opinions but on truth. That is where freedom of the press and the media comes in. Our journalists were supposed to keep us well informed, and many took this very seriously. But lately, the media has catered to popular interest. Resulting mass delusion.

Getting back to you about the books you listed. I was able to read some of "Information and the Nature of Reality" this morning. I think I have a book about quantum physics that might help me understand the concepts. My mind is kind of stuck back in the day of Newton. When trying to understand quantum physics, it is quickly overwhelmed, but it is clear to me that we must upgrade our thinking. :lol: I have to laugh at myself. My brain doesn't work as well as I would like. My old legs sure are not putting in me in a marathon.

But I will keep working on improvement, just in case the Egyptians were right about the trinity of our being.

This is interesting and essential if one is interested in the history of thoughts about existence and a god.

That is because if one doesn't continue in any form what is the significance of God in relation to one's own personal identity. — Jack Cummins

According to Epicurus, while death is final, "the gods or God" represent moral ideals to aspire to and live by (re: aponia, ataraxia ... "bliss").

How would I know who I am without my personal pain and suffering? What would give my life purpose and meaning? What would hold me separate from God?

Thanks for the explanation of being free. I think I will pursue knowledge.

How would I know who I am without my personal pain and suffering? — Athena

"Personal pain and suffering" define you?

What would give my life purpose and meaning?

E.g. friendship (vide Epicurus), solidarity (vide Camus) ...

What would hold me separate from God?

Well, unless you're an Advaita Vedantist, you are not "God", so ...

Thanks for the explanation of being free. I think I will pursue knowledge.

You're welcome, though I don't believe I've explained anything. Anyway, I do agree with Spinoza that understanding makes one "free" and Einstein's quip "Any fool can know; the point is to understand". :wink:

I agree that the question of an afterlife is more relevant than the existence of a God.

The thought of an afterlife is certainly appealing, but wishful thinking seems to me a poor guide to truth. And AFAIK, there's no evidence of it (unless you buy into claims about houses being haunted). Still, believing in an afterlife is not usually harmful (unless it leads one to risk or forgeit his life, or that of others), and it could be emotionally beneficial.

"Personal pain and suffering" define you? — 180 Proof

Sure. Quite a while ago, I read that we know who we are by checking our feelings. Recently, I came across the notion that our default mood defines who we are. Others know us as basically light-hearted, frivolous, crumpy. Whatever our default mood might be. Explaining this to you makes me think those thoughts are a little crazy, but it works for me right now. Daily, I check in with myself, and think, yeap, I am in the right body. It feels like me. :lol: From there, I work on improving myself as much as I can. My life is driven by eating the right food, getting the right amount of rest, and exercise. And mental exercises that all the vogue right now.

You must understand, I am not the old lady in the mirror. Most of us are not that old person. Our bodies are old, but our personalities solidify around age 30, and we tend to think of ourselves as that person. We know a lot more than we did, but I think our egos tend to solidify in our 30s. Then our egos take charge.

I returned to the forum this afternoon to watch the Spinoza video again. I have played with being egoless with Buddhist thoughts but I think Spinoza's thoughts might be more useful. I can't believe everything my head tells me about me, and I would like to silence some thoughts that have quite a negative effect.

The thought of an afterlife is certainly appealing, but wishful thinking seems to me a poor guide to truth. And AFAIK, there's no evidence of it (unless you buy into claims about houses being haunted). Still, believing in an afterlife is not usually harmful (unless it leads one to risk or forgeit his life, or that of others), and it could be emotionally beneficial. — Relativist

I am quite sure the deceased have communicated to others through me. I am not positive of that, but there is no other way to explain some experiences. So I am sort of on the fence. Maybe there is life after death, and maybe not. Maybe reincarnation is possible, and maybe not. Becoming senile could be the perfect way to prepare for a new life. Like it wouldn't be a new life if we continued to be the person in the old life. :lol:

I am concerned about our souls needing this planet, and what happens if we destroy it? Will we become like refugees looking for a new home?

The medical evidence demonstrates that memories are "stored" (in some sense) in the brain. Disease and physical trauma can result in memory loss. So even if a "soul" lives on, if the individual's memories are absent, it seems irrelevant to me. I regard myself as the person who was shaped by my experiences, including the memories that were formed along the way.

Indeed, but it seems that memories can be stored in other ways. For instance, Saint Augustine goes on at length about memory in the Confessions but he also recounts many of his early memories. And yet now these memories are, in a sense, stored in a text that millions have read and shared in. Likewise, if we write a reminder note for ourselves, and it prompts us to act, it is serving as a sort of medium term memory storage device. A pen and paper do the same for short term memory when doing arithmetic.

Augustine's memories were originally recorded in parchment and velum, but have since spread to paper, hard drives, etc. They are recorded as sound waves on magnetic tapes and optical disks as well, and in a sense, in the bodies of all those who have experienced these and now also remember them. Yet physically, an optical disk is very different from paper which is very different from a sound wave, which is very different from sound waves. The physical substrate does not seem to matter much. It is the information (form) that matters, and arguably this is "immaterial" in a number of senses.