I am not necessarily referring to the mind-body problem, my question could have been ''can we understand everything understandable?''. Some would say no. It is like an ant can't understand maths, we would be like an ant in comparison with another species, that species would look like a worm compared to a more evolved one, and so on. How plausible is that, why/not? — Eugen

The reason the ant analogy doesn't really work is because we have language and so can build up knowledge and pass it on to next generations. Some things that would have seem unfathomable to understand two thousand years ago, a teenager today could understand in a couple of hours/days. Ants never surpass their biology in the same way.

There doesn't seem to be a clear intellectual limit to understanding things, just that understanding new things requires more effort progressively. There are other limits than intellectual limits though, like the fact that we can only access the world via our senses.

Interesting answer. Sometimes I think that only the fact that we can think of ''there can be an infinite of degrees of knowledge'' is a fundamental difference between us and an ant, not just a quantitative one.

It seems that you are asking is consciousness limited, and the answer would be that consciousness is only limited by consciousness itself, so it is unlimited.

The best justification I've heard for this came from Donald Hoffman, who applied Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness, with the result that there is always something outside the system which is required to justify things within the system. So this suggests infinite consciousness. :starstruck:

my question could have been ''can we understand everything understandable?' — Eugen

One of the smartest people ever, was mathematical genius Martin Gardner. He called himself a Mysterian, but he didn't present a philosophical argument for his position of intellectual humility. I suspect he would answer "probably not" to your question. :smile:

Martin Gardner : I belong to a group of thinkers known as the 'mysterians.' It includes Roger Penrose, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Noam Chomsky, Colin McGinn, and many others who believe that no computer, of the kind we know how to build, will ever become self-aware and acquire the creative powers of the human mind. I believe there is a deep mystery about how consciousness emerged as brains became more complex, and that neuroscientists are a long long way from understanding how they work."
http://martin-gardner.org/MYSTERIAN.html

What's the matter with materialism?
Matter is stuff; it has volume and mass. It has location, and hence velocity and acceleration. There is another type of stuff, called energy. Matter can be changed into energy, but they are different because energy does not have mass.

Materialism is the notion that matter is all that exists. Of course materialists do not think this, they agree that energy also exists. More accurately, materialism is the denial of another sort of stuff, sometimes called spirit. Spirit, roughly speaking, used to be used to explain things like choosing one thing over anther or feeling a pain.

Being a materialist implies choosing to be puzzled as to how the stuff with location and mass can explain why I like vanilla ice cream.

Some folk, finding this all too puzzling, suppose that there is no such explanation. Why I like vanilla ice cream is forever a mystery.

That's mysterianism.

Alright guys, I see that you mostly disagree with mysterianism. But are there some good arguments for or against this ideology? Reminder: I am not limiting myself just to the topic of consciousness.

There are other limits than intellectual limits though, like the fact that we can only access the world via our senses. — ChatteringMonkey

Maybe new senses will arise? Is this even possible, have we already reached the limit of all possible senses? Are there countless senses or just a few of them?

The best justification I've heard for this came from Donald Hoffman, who applied Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness, with the result that there is always something outside the system which is required to justify things within the system. So this suggests infinite consciousness. — Pop

I am familiar with Don Hoffman, and I can say that his theory is very bold, but nonetheless, I find it plausible. But in regard to limits, how would my analogy ant-man would stand in his view?

But in regard to limits, how would my analogy ant-man would stand in his view? — Eugen

I imagine his view would be that your analogy is correct. The notion that we are at the apex of knowledge is a view claimed many times in history, and it has always been proven to be false, so I don't see why this wont continue to be the case.

But I am not referring to that. In Hoffman's view, I believe it is a matter of quantity, not quality. For example, in one of his interviews, he said that a superior conscious agent could see colors that we couldn't. So we wouldn't know how is like to see that color, but we would be able to express this in an abstract way. Well, an ant cannot do that. So my question would be: if between us and ants there's a fundamental difference (the power of abstraction), are there other fundamental differences between us and other species? With all the information needed, is abstraction enough to understand everything?

Oh I see. I agree with some of Hoffman's statements, but there is a lot I do not agree with, so I haven't studied his theory in depth. In my view, a theory of consciousness that dose not answer the hard problem, is not likely to be the correct theory. Of course neuroscience may discover more information that would prove me wrong.

Your question is not a simple one, as a quale may be an abstract thought - a symbol representing something more complex - and this would open up a whole new can of worms.

Is abstraction the only difference between us and other animals. I don't think so. In my view, communication is the main difference. Humanity deposits new ideas and understanding into a collective consciousness, which everybody then draws from. In this way knowledge is distributed and grows over time.

As knowledge and information grows, the paradigm shifts - allowing new perspectives and connections to be made. This would be a never ending process, in my opinion. It means we can never know everything ever. Gödel's incompleteness theorem would agree with this view, I think.

If this is the correct view and consciousness and knowledge is infinite, then for all we know, there may not be much difference between our knowledge and that of an ant.

In my view, a theory of consciousness that dose not answer the hard problem, is not likely to be the correct theory. — Pop

- But in Hoffman's theory, the hard problem disappears.

In my view, communication is the main difference. — Pop

- I agree, but communication is the result of abstraction. So I guess that the ability of abstraction is a fundamental one, not only a matter of quantity. An animal is limited to its immediate environment, while humans have no boundaries in this sense, and we can contemplate the infinite. So I agree with you that if the Universe is infinitely complex, our knowledge is basically 0 (and it will always be that way).

So let's take an example: the Martians are far more developed than us, the quantity of information that they own in comparison with ours is bigger than the difference between our knowledge and an ant's one. So this is for sure a quantitative difference. But is it also qualitative? Do they have something ''extra'' like we have the metacognition (abstraction) whilst ants don't in order to get to that information? Or, if we continue to gather information, we will become like the Martians one day without the need of something extra that is fundamentally different than all the qualities we possess today?

But in Hoffman's theory, the hard problem disappears. — Eugen

Perhaps you have a better understanding of it, but as far as I am aware he still cannot explain the qualia of experience, what its for, why we have it.

So I guess that the ability of abstraction is a fundamental one, not only a matter of quantity. — Eugen

Yes. It is something still fuzzy in my mind, but it seems that the ability to reduce complex sensual information to a single emotional symbol representing a complex of information, is abstract thought, and this might be fundamental, but perhaps not limited to humanity.

But is it also qualitative? Do they have something ''extra'' — Eugen

Yes again. A paradigm shift is like a change of sanity, or like enlightenment, so results in a completely new way of thinking, and so possibilities arise that were previously impossible.
There is already good evidence that different ways of thinking can change aspects of brain structure, from studies on Nepalese monks, so perhaps the process just continues. New thinking leads to new brains, which lead to still new thoughts, etc. :smile:

Yes again. A paradigm shift is like a change of sanity, or like enlightenment, so results in a completely new way of thinking, and so possibilities arise that were previously impossible. — Pop

Thank you for your answer!

I don't have a definite opinion on that, I might open another OP related to this topic, but I've got 3 issues with this:

1. The reality has to be infinitely complex, and it has to become more and more complicated.

2. I simply don't see another extra-step. If the reality is infinitely complex and complicated, we can already state that, so in a way, we comprehend that. An animal cannot do that. I don't think there can be something more than an infinite complex and complicated reality. So if we can grasp that, I think it is just a matter of details. Indeed, an infinite number of details, but nonetheless, nothing fundamental in my opinion. So what fundamental difference can be between us and another ''superior'' creature?

3. Let's call the fundamental difference between us and animals P1, the fundamental difference between Martians and us P2, and so on. In order to be more evolved, Pn must include all Pn-1 properties, plus something extra. I've got 2 problems with that:
a. Too complex - at one point, there will be too many properties, too many layers. The brain structure can, as you mentioned, change, but in order to be infinitely complex, quantity is also necessary. So we will end up with enormous brains. Not only that might not be sustainable after a specific point, but it might be detrimental. We will need, for instance, no limit to speed, so that the information can travel fast and make those creatures act fast, otherwise they'll be slow and inefficacious. Also, the power and speed of computing has to be unlimited.
b. Too many properties = no identity - this is a complicated one, but probably the most important thing, so please bear with me on this one. It is not enough to have the physical capacity to manage all those many properties, but it is also important to have each of them active in parallel, otherwise, a huge number of those properties will become irrelevant in time, thus useless. In order to have them active, the environment in which that creature lives has to constantly provide with all the necessary challenges in order to keep active all the properties. If this condition is not fulfilled, and many of the previous properties will be lost, then we cannot talk about a ''more evolved'' being but just a fundamentally different one.

Perhaps you have a better understanding of it, but as far as I am aware he still cannot explain the qualia of experience, what its for, why we have it. — Pop

The hard problem of consciousness is how do you get from matter to experience, i.e. from the properties like mass, spin, or velocity to pain, happiness, or thoughts. Hoffman does not have the problem of how to get from matter to mind, because in his view, the mind is fundamental, not a result of the matter, and the question of qualia is irrelevant in this case because it is like you're asking why does God have these properties. This is a form of idealism, and there's no hard problem of consciousness in idealism. As an idealist, you have to be careful not to get in conflict with science and not to have a fundamental metaphysical problem. So far, it seems Hoffman's theory is alive and well.

So what fundamental difference can be between us and another ''superior'' creature? — Eugen

Ha, I wish I knew. I cannot predict such a thing unfortunately. But the rate of change of technology and progress generally is ever increasing, and we will have to cope with those changes. My interest is consciousness, and currently the world operates through a materialistic paradigm, and I wonder how it would be if it operated through an idealistic paradigm.

I simply don't see another extra-step. If the reality is infinitely complex and complicated, we can already state that, so in a way, we comprehend that. — Eugen

In my view, reality is something we create in our minds. What if we became fully cognizant of that, and had greater control of that?

Too many properties = no identity - this is a complicated one — Eugen

Since we are wildly speculating:
There are so many identities in the world and throughout history. These are all expressions of consciousness, and they are endlessly variable and open ended. They are the paradigms through which individuals operate. But If consciousness is fundamental, then all of these identities are false, as their true nature is consciousness, not the identity it assumes. Can you imagine such a world?

The hard problem of consciousness is how do you get from matter to experience — Eugen

I have my own theory on this, so I am quite biased when considering the theories of others. Hoffman has recently stated that he can model consciousness mathematically, so in my view, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. He can not model emotions, and from the Philosophical Zombie argument, it is emotions that create consciousness. The hard problem, I believe, is to answer why we have them, as emotion is the force that creates an experience, which we take to be reality, thus driving behavior.

Hoffman does not have the problem of how to get from matter to mind, because in his view, the mind is fundamental, not a result of the matter, and the question of qualia is irrelevant in this case because it is like you're asking why does God have these properties. This is a form of idealism, and there's no hard problem of consciousness in idealism. — Eugen

Yes. Hoffman has taken a bold step in the direction of answering the "hard question". His notion that Mind is fundamental is part of the answer. But my own thesis goes one step further, to analyze Mind & Matter into the same universal stuff : Information. This doesn't mean that everything in the world is conscious, but instead that the potential for consciousness is inherent in every part of reality --- that everything is enformed, with its own characteristic logical structure.

I won't go into the details here, but some physicists have expanded the role of Information, from mere fodder for computers, to the essence of everything : the Qualia (properties; logical structure) that make a thing a knowable object. In their theories though, it's abstract Mathematics that is fundamental. Moreover, in Shannon's theory of Information, every Thing and every Concept can be distilled down to Information, represented by 1s and 0s in a computer. But math is basically Logic without words. Logic is the invisible structure that binds things together in recognizable forms. Logic is embodied in all things.

And where on Earth do we find Logic? It's everywhere. Yet the ability to "see", to "know" Logic, the essence of Meaning, is found only in Minds, primarily human minds. So, it's reasonable to conclude that the immaterial Logical structure of our world is conceived by a higher Mind, a "divine" Mind. You can call it the "Great Mathematician", if you want to personify that mysterious creative enforming Mind. Just don't call it "God", if you want to be taken seriously on a philosophical forum. :joke:


Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".

Fundamental Information : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

To Enform : 1. to form, to fashion, to create

Form : 1.shape, configuration, structure, manifestation.
The Form that a thing takes is how we know what it is.
Plato's Forms are ideas or concepts that define what a thing is, its properties or qualities. Matter is simply the clay that is enformed by design.

PS___Realism has a "hard problem" accounting for Consciousness and Qualia. But Idealism means that material reality is made of abstract Information (icons, symbols), just as Hoffman suggested. But, don't tell anybody --- they'll either think you're crazy, or that we are trapped in the Matrix.

my question could have been ''can we understand everything understandable?'' — Eugen

Humans, with their unique knowledge of Physics and Practical Mathematics, have come to the understanding that our world has not always existed, but had a definite beginning. Presumably, ants don't understand such abstract concepts, so remote from their experience. But since humans can conceive of a beginning of Being, should they also be able to understand the mystery of what, if anything, existed before the beginning --- before physical space-time being? Obviously, empirical science is of no help for such questions, because its methods only apply to things & events occurring after the mysterious emergence of space-time from who-knows-where-&-when. It's as-if such a priori knowledge is in a separate book of information, and written in an un-known tongue.

But some thinkers have employed their reasoning abilities to Theoretical Mathematical Logic, that at the time had no "known" practical application. Its only known value was the aesthetic of pure logic, But eventually, even some of those un-real abstractions have been "applied" to previously un-imagined zones of speculative Surreality, such as String Theory. So, it seems that we can "know", via theoretical reasoning, some concepts that lie beyond the range of unaided human senses. Does "everything understandable" imply everything logical, whether empirical or not?

There's no guarantee that we could theoretically come to know "everything". But it suggests that we should not dismiss un-proven theories out-of-hand. They may be glimpses of future knowledge. For example, Darwin's theory of Evolution sounded absurd to most of his contemporaries. Even Darwin had no idea how the process of evolution itself began to evolve. If he had knowledge of the Big Bang, would he have reconsidered the Genesis account of special creation? Perhaps as creation via evolution? :smile:


Theoretical Mathematics : Theoretical mathematics is the study of abstract mathematical structures which form the basic framework for the rest of the mathematical sciences.
https://math.asu.edu/research/theoretical-mathematics
Note: TM is "pure" or "non-empirical" logical reasoning apart from real-world applications & evidence. It's logic for the sake of Logic.

Sur-reality : having the disorienting, hallucinatory quality of a dream; unreal; fantastic:
Literally : "super", "above", "hyper", plus "real" : the world knowable to the physical senses.

Out of Hand : a concept that has not yet been "grasped", understood.

I wonder how it would be if it operated through an idealistic paradigm. — Pop

I think the same. We sometimes tend to exaggerate the influence of philosophers and ideologies inside the academic world on society. Normal people don't usually pay much attention to these things and people act as they normally do.

Does "everything understandable" imply everything logical, whether empirical or not? — Gnomon

''Everything understandable'' is more like a difference between us and a superior species if that exists. I sometimes ask myself if there are some living beings out there for which Maths would be something trivial and they would be so far from our understanding that even the notion of ''notion'' will be insufficient. In one word, something that we couldn't understand not because we have not enough information, but because our brains don't have the capacity to. Exactly as an ant cannot understand us and our actions. For an ant, seeing us playing the piano is simply meaningless.

So are there creatures that if we looked at them we would be able to understand them as much as an ant understands us? Would their actions be forever meaningless to us because our limited capacities?

''Everything understandable'' is more like a difference between us and a superior species if that exists. — Eugen

Do you think it's possible for a "superior" alien species in our physical universe -- or even in a forever multiverse -- to be Omniscient? That's what "everything understandable" implies. Personally, I doubt that any physical being -- who is limited by the laws of Nature, such as the light speed barrier to communication -- could know all (near infinite) possibilities, let alone understand them. That's why I refer to the hypothetical Being, who created our world from scratch -- not as a Darwinian species -- but as "G*D". That's a Creator whose laws are encoded in Nature, instead of stone tablets.

If you want to go beyond the physical & mental limits of our space-time world, in search of a "superior species", that hypothetical race of beings may not have the same sense of time that we measure by counting Moon cycles. So a timeless singular-or-plural Omniscient Entity would be equivalent to Western (Abrahamic) concepts of a Creator (Elohim or Yahweh). Or, If you prefer a self-existent physical Multiverse -- does it qualify as a collective being or species? -- to be responsible for the Big Bang -- it too would have to possess most of the attributes of an eternal deity.

Among those "divine" properties, we would necessarily have to include the mind-power of Intention (Will), since that teleological property has emerged in our own species in our own world. Would that kind of (super-natural) "superior being" answer your original question? :smile:


Intention : Doing something for a reason involves a belief about one's reason for doing it that constitutes intention in action. And prospective intention, or intention for the future, involves a belief about what one is going to do and why.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intention+philosophical+meaning

Do you think it's possible for a "superior" alien species in our physical universe -- or even in a forever multiverse -- to be Omniscient? — Gnomon

I don't know. There are some things, like the infinite for example, which we cannot understand. But are there things that we wouldn't even be capable to think of without a stronger brain? Maybe Martians can understand the infinite and they have other fundamental questions, questions that we wouldn't be able to ask with our brains. Other species, superior to Martians would understand everything that Martians wouldn't be able to, and they would have another extra-level of incomprehension compared to the Martians.
I am not talking about a God, but about biological creatures.

That's what "everything understandable" implies. — Gnomon

No, I do not think it implies that. I think a true God can understand everything, not only everything understandable. Maybe the notion of infinite cannot be understood by any biological creature, no matter how evolved is it. For me, ''understandable'' limits to biological creatures, not Divinity.

So my issue goes like this: our brains are more evolved compared to ant's brains, so we have an extra-property, i.e. meta-cognition, abstraction, call it how you want it. If our brains continue to evolve, will we get another extra-property?

Would that kind of (super-natural) "superior being" answer your original question? :smile: — Gnomon

You go into the divine realm, I limit myself to biological beings.

No, I do not think it implies that. I think a true God can understand everything, not only everything understandable. — Eugen

I thought this topic was about Mysterianism. But, you want to limit the scope of "understandable' to biological beings? In any case, if an abiotic deity could understand even that-which-is-not-understandable . . . now that would be a mystery! :joke:

my question could have been ''can we understand everything understandable?'' — Eugen

Does "we" include any hypothetical inhabitants of Mars? Does superior understanding require bigger brains, and top-heavy heads? Does size matter for minds?

Would "we" include even earth-bound silicon life-forms (computers, robots, cyborgs)? Current artificial intelligences (AI) are pretty dumb, compared to human understanding, except for their speed in calculation. But faster calculation would not necessarily include superior understanding. The Martin Gardner quote above gave his opinion about computer understanding. For him the mystery was about Consciousness (the ability to know) in general.

Are you assuming that "superior minds" would have solved that known-unknown? Is your topical question about the limitations of natural evolution to create not only conscious beings, but ever-increasingly intelligent entities? If so, you will quickly cross-over into the realm of science-fiction, where boundless Intelligent Clouds of Energy sometimes reach god-like knowingness.

My Enformationism thesis offers a more realistic opinion on that subject : the creature will never be as intelligent or knowledgeable as the unknown Creator. So, the original Cause is more of a mystery than the ultimate Effect. :cool:

New mysterianism : a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia (individual instances of subjective, conscious experience).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism

The Q continuum : He is an extra-dimensional being of unknown origin who possesses immeasurable power over time, space, the laws of physics, and reality itself, being capable of altering it to his whim. Despite his vast knowledge and experience spanning untold eons (and much to the exasperation of the object(s) of his obsession), he is not above practical jokes for his own personal amusement, for a Machiavellian and manipulative purpose, or to prove a point. He is said to be almost omnipotent, and he is continually evasive regarding his true motivations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)

Brain Size : In healthy volunteers, total brain volume weakly correlates with intelligence, with a correlation value between 0.3 and 0.4 out of a possible 1.0. In other words, brain size accounts for between 9 and 16 percent of the overall variability in general intelligence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/

The Singularity : Once the Singularity has been reached, Kurzweil says that machine intelligence will be infinitely more powerful than all human intelligence combined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

PS___Sorry! I got carried-away with this open-ended question . . . . . . .

the creature will never be as intelligent or knowledgeable as the unknown Creator. So, the original Cause is more of a mystery than the ultimate Effect. :cool: — Gnomon

What if the original cause is consciousness, and the ultimate effect is consciousness? And what If consciousness is infinite?

What if the original cause is consciousness, and the ultimate effect is consciousness? And what If consciousness is infinite? — Pop

I do believe that, but my question isn't about that. It limits to living beings inside the Universe.

Ok, I will ask you other simpler things. Do you think evolution will bring us new senses? If yes, can those senses be something that we cannot comprehend right now?

What if the original cause is consciousness, and the ultimate effect is consciousness? And what If consciousness is infinite? — Pop

I think the most general cause is BEING : the power to exist. Once existence is established, then other attributes can be inferred. And I'm convinced that the First Cause of our world was necessarily Intelligent and Conscious, because there can be nothing in the Effect (the Creation) that was not already, at least potentially, in the Cause (Creator). Since that First Cause had the power to create space-time from a speck of condensed Potential (the Singularity), I assume that the First Cause must also encompass all space & all time -- in other words : Infinite & Eternal.

That description sounds suspiciously like some concepts of a world-creator deity. So, for my thesis, I grudgingly call it "G*D", to imply divinity without attempting to define the undefinable. I think ancient sages described their primitive concept of the First Cause in terms of their limited contemporary knowledge of reality (Science). Today, we have expanded our knowledge to the cosmic horizon. But we still are not able to encapsulate the infinitude of BEING in any language. So, a modicum of Intellectual Humility should restrain us from trying to define, or to speak for G*D --- whatever you imagine he-she-it to be. :cool:

The effect is nothing but the cause in different form : https://www.indiapost.com/the-effect-is-nothing-but-the-cause-in-different-form/

Ok, I will ask you other simpler things. Do you think evolution will bring us new senses? If yes, can those senses be something that we cannot comprehend right now? — Eugen

Yes. Modern science has expanded the range of our senses, via artificial sensors, beyond the comprehension of earlier generations. But, we still understand that new information in terms of our inherited five basic senses. So, the only direction in which to find novel sensations is via the sixth sense of Reason, which allows us to infer and seek-out un-fore-known possibilities. This is not natural evolution, but artificial evolution. Yet, who knows where that accelerated process might go? And, how can we speak intelligently of the unknowable? :smile:


'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent' ___Wittgenstein

Ok, I understand your view, I tend to largely agree with you on God, but I think I would disagree on the evolution part. I think between us and a super-evolved alien, the only difference would be in the power and speed of processing the information, but nothing fundamental, like the difference between us and animals. Why? My answer is the abstraction and our ability to contemplate reality with no boundaries. We contemplate the infinite of infinities, so I think there's nothing more than that :)

↪Pop
What if the original cause is consciousness, and the ultimate effect is consciousness? And what If consciousness is infinite?
— Pop
I do believe that, but my question isn't about that. It limits to living beings inside the Universe. — Eugen

If consciousness is unlimited, living beings in the universe are limited only by consciousness itself. An unlimited consciousness is the most powerful concept I can think of. It would be an omnipotent, omniscient consciousness - equal to a god.

If consciousness is unlimited, living beings in the universe are limited only by consciousness itself. An unlimited consciousness is the most powerful concept I can think of. It would be an omnipotent, omniscient consciousness - equal to a god. — Pop

But technological/natural evolution won't reach infinity. PS: out of topic, where are you from?

But we still are not able to encapsulate the infinitude of BEING in any language. So, a modicum of Intellectual Humility should restrain us from trying to define, or to speak for G*D --- whatever you imagine he-she-it to be. :cool: — Gnomon

No disrespect was intended. What was intended was for you to consider the possibility of an infinite consciousness, and whether this violates any conceptions of God. I don't believe it dose, as it contains all conceptions of God. The infinitude of being, I believe, is captured by infinite consciousness. Perhaps this is what God is?

It is a concept that integrates such things as God the creator, and God being within you, God is love, etc so worthy of consideration, I believe. But If you prefer not to speak of these things, for whatever reason, I can respect your wishes.