Modern philosophy (e.g. here) offers therapy for the ancient delusion that humans have pictures inside their heads.

For gods it may be a different ball-game, of course.

It's not possible for us to know in which form god exists, or if he exists in such a way that he is able to play a scenario in his/it's head or exists at all.

If god was an entity with the same structural consciousness as a human and he played out a scenario in his head,since he is omnipotent and probably has full control over his ability to manipulate matter in time and space, he would also have the power to choose whether his scenario in the head would come true or not.

God has a head?

Who cuts his hair?

God has a head? Who cuts his hair? — unenlightened

Finally, finally, finally we're getting to the theological questions that really matter!!!

God has a head?

Who cuts his hair? — unenlightened

:rofl: Jokes aside, God must have some mental process as part of his being. I don't think God has a head like we do but he surely must be able to contemplate and plan given that he's the putative designer of the universe.

That said, I wonder if god isn't an imbecile because according to a physicist author, all god did was fix the values of just six numbers (six known physical constants). In other words, to create a universe like ours one doesn't require a genius intellect.

On the other hand, it would seem that only a being of vast ingelligence could reduce the entire universe down to the values of six constants.

Whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth, what we'll see in the skies is the exact same thing.

This is my trippy and long winded take on how Gods ideas could manifest.

What if "God" was a panpsychic spectrum between matter and energy. On one side (s)he is particulate/defined/specific and material and experiences the passage of time/change and motion. And on the other of relativity, (s)he is potential/non-specific/immaterial/ omnipotent/ the capacity to do work/willpower and does not experience time (at the speed of light).

In this way (s)he could be the subject (matter) being subjected to the object (surrounding universe/change/fluctuation etc. with consciousness being some kind of connector whereby one only has the power to manipulate the "self" but the assumptions and understandings used to formulate the ego can be redefined to encompass the whole universe.

Then what if (s)he somehow contemplated their assumptions and bridged the gap in conscious awareness between these two states and synchronised his/her personal mental reality with that of the true fundamental universe. Then the only thing dividing what occurs in their mind and what they observe around them would be a certain timeframe.

Perhaps (s)he predicts something will happen and then after a certain timeframe (s)he observes the universe mirroring theor intent. Such as how prophets seem to bear foresight. In this respect the energy one uses to perpetuate their own conscious awareness is so qualitatively in synch with the laws of nature that their reality and actual reality are one and the same.

I feel differently but since you are a very knowledgeable or atleast have a decent understanding on this and feeling/awareness, it would serve neither of us any purpose for us to argue. In short i very much agree with you.

Hi,

Just answering the question posed at the end of the YouTube video (link provided at the top of the page): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fQWCZEbl8

1) Does everything have some mental properties? If so, how do they combine to form conscious minds? (or do they even do this?) 2) How can you explain consciousness arising from objects which are not conscious?

1) No, only living creatures can be considered to have some mental properties. They do not combine to form conscious minds as each living organism has an individual mental state.

2) There are no examples of inanimate objects have any type of consciousness.

Living beings generate consciousness based on the interaction of neurons. Is consciousness present in lower forms of life (i.e. bacteria)? I do not believe so. The presence of a brain is necessary to create a conscious being. Therefore how do bacteria "make decisions"? See Chemotaxis (i.e. Biological programming via DNA tells bacteria how to behave in response to chemical stimuli).

Hi,

Just answering the question posed at the end of the YouTube video (link provided at the top of the page): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fQWCZEbl8

1) Does everything have some mental properties? If so, how do they combine to form conscious minds? (or do they even do this?) 2) How can you explain consciousness arising from objects which are not conscious?

1) No, only living creatures can be considered to have some mental properties. They do not combine to form conscious minds as each living organism has an individual mental state.

2) There are no examples of inanimate objects have any type of consciousness.

Living beings generate consciousness based on the interaction of neurons. Is consciousness present in lower forms of life (i.e. bacteria)? I do not believe so. The presence of a brain is necessary to create a conscious being. Therefore how do bacteria "make decisions"? See Chemotaxis (i.e. Biological programming via DNA tells bacteria how to behave in response to chemical stimuli). — AZAM KHORASANI

So you say feeling or awareness is caused by complex particle collisions? All things are (all matter) is wave and particle collisions (and yes waves due collide and effect each other). Some scientists embrace some forms of pan-psychism because they don't see complex particle collisions (neurons) as a rational explanation for why there is feeling or awareness.

Frankly i think you're jumping the gun slightly, we are looking for evidence of consciousness which we can witness in animals / humans. We cannot measure consciousness in plants and fungi or other objects. Plants / fungi and objects (i.e. inorganic matter) also do not contain nerve cells (i.e Neurons) or a brain.

So what i am stating is that without a cell that is electrically excitable without the ability to connect with other cells via specialised connections called synapses. There is no way of passing sensory information to the brain which itself is made up specialised neurons which pass information to one another forming complex net (branches) creating neural activity (i.e consciousness).

So when looking at particle collisions since electricity is present (i.e. voltage gradients across cell membranes) we there must be an ordered flow of electrons formed in biochemical reactions from nerve cell to nerve cell.

This can be found in an electrical cable but a cable does not have ability to collect external stimuli or a brain to process stimuli.

The unique thing about sensory neurons is the ability to detect stimuli. Human senses such as touch, taste, hearing stem from this interaction of sensory neurons which make up the nervous system.

Therefore consciousness cannot be created through the structural arrangement of particles found in objects but only in specialised biological systems which can detect external stimuli & transfer them to a central hub, the brain which processes the stimuli & generates consciousness.

Frankly i think you're jumping the gun slightly, we are looking for evidence of consciousness which we can witness in animals / humans. We cannot measure consciousness in plants and fungi or other objects. Plants / fungi and objects (i.e. inorganic matter) also do not contain nerve cells (i.e Neurons) or a brain.

So what i am stating is that without a cell that is electrically excitable without the ability to connect with other cells via specialised connections called synapses. There is no way of passing sensory information to the brain which itself is made up specialised neurons which pass information to one another forming complex net (branches) creating neural activity (i.e consciousness).

So when looking at particle collisions since electricity is present (i.e. voltage gradients across cell membranes) we there must be an ordered flow of electrons formed in biochemical reactions from nerve cell to nerve cell.

This can be found in an electrical cable but a cable does not have ability to collect external stimuli or a brain to process stimuli.

The unique thing about sensory neurons is the ability to detect stimuli. Human senses such as touch, taste, hearing stem from this interaction of sensory neurons which make up the nervous system.

Therefore consciousness cannot be created through the structural arrangement of particles found in objects but only in specialised biological systems which can detect external stimuli & transfer them to a central hub, the brain which processes the stimuli & generates consciousness. — AZAM KHORASANI

If something reacts to stimuli that is the effect of something having an excessive ability to show feeling or awareness, not neccesarily the cause of feeling or awareness. What is the cause of feeling or awareness? I don't believe pan-psychism is a complete solution to the problem but simply stating neurons form feeling or awareness is a less complete solution than embracing one of the forms of pan-psychism. Most solutions scientists come up with our never complete solutions.

Have you seen any of the youtube videos on pan-psychism? Plato believed in a form of pan-psychism.