What if the natural way for the human brain to think and see the world is through a creative lens were there is a God and an afterlife? — AngryBear

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding the question.

Do you mean:

What if the intended manner in which human beings perceive and understand their experience of living in the universe (worldview) is founded in a pre-established perspective (creative lens?) that there is indeed a god/deity (gods/deities) and an afterlife?

To be fair I really have no clear idea what is meant by "natural way" or "creative lens".

Meow!

G

EDIT:

I forgot to mention, what do you mean by "natural philosophy"?

The basis of this comes from the idea that consciousness is a soup of natural instincts, emotions, knowledge, emotion etc. So if during sleep our dreams are a natural way to process information, then why is this not the case during waking life to some extent? Like a nutritious diet, this possibly natural thinking in the day could be more fulfilling to our unconscious whereas atheistic views could be damaging like a poor diet. — AngryBear

I'm confused, first off, why "consciousness is a soup of natural instincts, emotions, knowledge" suggests anything about religion/spirituality to you.

And then I don't understand what you're asking about dreaming. You're wondering why we don't dream when we're awake just the same way that we do when we're sleeping?

Yes you're right, by "natural" I'm talking about a predetermined manner of thinking that we are born with, so while our physical bodies have systems for actions such as legs for walking, pain for damage awareness, we could have a predetermined perspective on the world around us and our place there.

The creative lens is a perspective that distorts the incoming information, into an illustrative language where multiple information become merged into a package that the unconscious is able to read effectively.

So i'm saying that maybe the most efficient way for us to view the universe is through artistic manipulation.

I am suggesting that consciousness is fluid were different components such as emotion and knowledge merge together in different ways at different times. Dreams process information retrospectively by combining certain components together into an illustrative narrative. So I am wondering if we need to process information during waking day to a similar extent.

So im not wondering why we dont dream during the day, but wondering if it should at least be similar by creating illustrative narratives, so a little similar yes but the process being different.

What I am getting at is, does our brain require information to be processed into an artistic form in order for it to be completely accepted? Much like how a video file is compressed with a codec.

What I am getting at is, does our brain require information to be processed into an artistic form in order for it to be completely accepted? — AngryBear

A worthwhile thing to contemplate when wondering this is how we could know whether our brain requires this or not. How would you know that what you experience while awake isn't just a direct line to what is the case external to you?

I'm talking about a predetermined manner of thinking that we are born with,... — AngryBear

along side with the physical aspects in most cases (2 arms, 2 legs, 2 lungs, a heart...) there is a large body of work researched and peer reviewed and publish regarding how humans are "hardwired" as pattern seeking beings. Such understanding of patterns and making them familiar are key to survival. From recognizing who are your parents to the differences between food and poison, as well as recognition of dangerous things/activities, all of these are pattern seeking necessities for survival and well being. Addition patterns of recognition are in this matrix from knowing the difference between the front door and 3rd floor window to which key strokes I make on my keyboard as to write a combination of symbols that can be understood as a language holding a somewhat consensus of meaning; thus providing us a means with which we can communicate thoughtsd and ideas with one another.

I'm not to sure what you mean by "predetermined", as that could mean that these are factors (such as information/experiences) predicating adative behaviour or it could possibly mean that there is some sort of puppet master pulling our strings with an agenda and intention.

I tend to side with the former and not the latter, as the former has to do with determination (empirical) and the latter with fate (metaphysical).

The creative lens is a perspective that distorts the incoming information,... — AngryBear

hmm...

It seems as if you wish to state that the "creative lens" is a form of or many forms of Cognitive Biases.

..., into an illustrative language where multiple information become merged into a package that the unconscious is able to read effectively. — AngryBear

This makes me wonder if it is indeed so "effective"?

Ease of reading or assumed understanding does not imply that there is an accuracy or and understanding of what is being read.

Perhaps if this issue has less poetry used in it's explaination and more clarity it is a better point of debate.

So i'm saying that maybe the most efficient way for us to view the universe is through artistic manipulation. — AngryBear

Again... it might be efficient, but is it accurate?

Once more I have a term that makes little sense... "artistic manipulation".

Are we manipulating the artistic as a means to a (prefered) ends or are we being manipulated by the artistic, again... arriving at a prefered ends in that it is simply more efficient?

To be fair, it kind of reads as if one is granted freedom to make up any narrative they care to choose to grant credence to a prefered truth regardless if the patterns are real or not.

On that note, here's an intriguing thought:

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'." - R D

Indeed I still find the terms and the language employed quite opaque.

The problem with poetry is that it's meaning is conditional upon notions/experiences/biases of the one reading it; thus as a means of communication with clarity as an end often falls short.

Meow!

G

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'." - R D — Mayor of Simpleton

Such a narrow and condescending view of spirituality and/or mysticism foregoes the fact that science started out as nothing other than a form of mysticism. As it turns out, a lot of these 'comforting illusions' turned out to be true, however modern science has made these things definitively measurable, and over time came to accept only that which is definitively measurable.

The modern view of the 'spiritual' and 'mystical' is a western woman who attends yoga class and wears tree branches in her hair. This could not be further from what actual mysticism entails. I'm not going to go through the painful labour of explaining what it is, but suffice it to say that many people who have contributed to greatly to the various fields of human knowledge were mystics or had mystical ideas. Freemasonry is probably one of the most well known examples of modern mysticism, and the list of famous Freemasons includes everything from US presidents to inventors to even astronauts (Niel Armstrong, among many others). Some other famous names include Pythagoras, Galileo, Carl Gustav Jung, Nikola Tesla, even Einstein had certain mystical ideas (which is why he called himself agnostic, and expressly not atheist), and don't even get me started on famous philosophers who were also mystics or had mystical ideas.

Mysticism is a way of understanding reality intuitively, empirically, rationally and through a holistic lens. To any degree it does not acknowledge facts or seeks to create a reality that is desirable rather than truthful, it is not mysticism, but delusion.

I think it is completely natural for human beings to see the world through a mythopoetic lens (thinking by means of intuitive forms, myths, narratives, metaphor, analogy, dream images). This is the freedom to think at all, comparative to the freedom to move. The problem lies in the belief that any of our unchecked or provisional intuitions, reified abstractions, say something true about the world (pointing beyond themselves).

It could as well be the case that one might not care much for truth beyond it being a means to acquire or sustain power, to serve others, to be part of a group, to fully express oneself, or to feel less alienated and more at home in the world (or to do anything seemingly worth doing).

I understand that many studies outline how the brain looks for patterns and compares them to its knowledge in order to seek a truth that makes sense. Also what one person believes is truth may not necessarily reflect the reality of the outside world.

But what I am trying to talk about here is how anything can be believed as truth and the mechanics of how the brain accepts information and processes it. And that the brains functionality can be affected negatively or positively depending on how that information was digested.

So when I see Christians mention how the universe was created, they have a very human connection to that story and they feel a level of satisfactory on many emotional levels, the package of information here is built in a way that makes them feel happy. Now when I hear many atheists explain their version of how the universe was created they don't have the same kind of connection to this package and often seem emotionally unfulfilled. This would suggest that when information is processed, there are areas of the brain that require sustenance and if the package of information doesn't provide enough to those areas it could affect your overall happiness.

Again the Ancient Egyptians are a society I like to look back on, and I see how in their sciences they combined the academic studies into one subject to some extent. Some of the architecture combines human anatomy, astronomical data, history, particle physics, sound engineering all into the structure itself. Since those times the separation of the academic studies has allowed us to expand on each one greatly and pushed our technological capabilities to extreme lengths, and yet as we push ourselves further to atheism I feel we have to some degree lost a deep connection to the outside world and therefore emotionally lost.

Some of the architecture combines human anatomy, astronomical data, history, particle physics, sound engineering all into the structure itself. — AngryBear

The insertion here of particle physics as having any plausible relation to the development of Egyptian architecture is at question. This is not a magical leap of dubious New Age speculation? What have you been reading or watching?

Laird Scranton has written books on how the Ancient Egyptians and the Dogon developed similar theories that ran quite parallel with all kinds of Quantum theory, string theory etc. He is a Software Engineer who studied these ancient beliefs.

Laird Scranton — AngryBear

He is a crackpot. You really don't want to bring this kind of crap into a philosophical discussion - it destroys all credibility.

That’s a very aggressive stance you have there. I’m not an authority on his mental health, what’s the diagnosis?

Either way, the idea of merging academic subjects into a single one interests me.

That’s a very aggressive stance you have there. I’m not an authority on his mental health, what’s the diagnosis? — AngryBear

Crackpottery is not a diagnosis - well, not necessarily - it is loopy pseudoscience in this case. Whether the guy really is off his rocker or whether he is just peddling this crap in a bid to make some money is really none of my concern. And I wasn't being aggressive - on the contrary, just wanted to give you some well-intentioned advice. When someone sees you citing a crackpot, they might think: "This person is not to be taken seriously. I better not waste my time listening to what he has to say."

Yes, it could be that we're designed to be spiritual, and by ''design'' I inlcude evolution through natural selection and also, the favorite, God.

If you ask me both spirituality and science seem to share a common denominator viz. our sense of wonder and our ability to rationalize.

The irony is that science is used to attack and discredit spiritiualism as magical thinking. They have become foes though they have the same origin.

Although I respect science I think everything has its limits and that of science is its extreme physicalism. There may be things which science can never discover but are real.