Incidentally, how on earth can God talk to you if you have never been born? Your identify, your sensibilities are moulded from your lived experiences, so there would be no one for God to talk to. — Tom Storm

This. Cognitive abilities develop over a lifetime. How can I make a decision if my basis for decision making hasn't been established yet?


Even if we were to disregard the problem of "me before birth", I don't think I could make a sensible decision based on information alone. As a being that exists I have learned that "feeling" an experience is essential to understanding it.

In my youth, I was a sad little kid. Often existence would appear as a bother.
A bit older and a bit wiser, having had a brush with death, my whole paradigm changed.
The suffering from yesterday became a lesson of joy today.
Most of all, what I experienced during transition was emotional. Philosophical thought only came after the feeling was chewed through.

If I were to only "know" but not "feel" my life, I doubt I could rationally tell whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa.

There is the theory of embodied cognition, which suggests that cognitive processes are not limited to the brain but draw from aspects of the entire body.

I'm not too involved with the topic but I know there are a good few studies in the field. Maybe someone is a bit more familiar and knows some prominent ones to showcase?

Chemical processes throughout the body certainly affect the brain to some degree. Yet it seems clear to me that "The process of considering or reasoning about something" takes place in the brain. I'd put it that way: Actions that rely on words (like computation, problem analysis, etc.) are formulated as thoughts within our head.

As far as embodied cognition goes, I'd account it for certain types of "thinking" that are more subtle. Muscle memory or the moving of the diaphragm come to mind.

As you said we are animals. What kind of animal is monogamous? — dimosthenis9

A big majority of bird species live monogamously. It's also displayed in monkeys and apes. Gibbons are a notable example. Many canines have a tendency towards monogamy. Beavers are another prime showcase for sticking with a partner for life.

If you subscribe to the idea of love please explain why on earth we would need it. — Benj96

Evolutionary, it makes a lot of sense to band together with a mating partner and bust out one baby after another. So does settling down and raising the children together. I can at the very least imagine how and why this was genetically adopted as "love".

The idea of love that is promoted through culture is a bit of a different story though. There are some notions being "taught" about love that are pretty harmful and self-destructive for the individual. It's a small line between "real love" and the toxic infatuation with another.

If it were not for a built-in fear of death it could not be said to be bad. — boagie

Our relationship with death is strongly defined by our expectations of death, i.e. our beliefs. Fear of death may be humanly intrinsic, blind faith has the power to overrule that though - or at the very least, inhibit the psychological terror of facing death.

What should a person fear when they expect to ascend the stairway to heaven after death?
What should a person fear when they expect to be reborn time and time again?


That's why I opt to be "religiously inclined". Death is the root of fear and master of many mysteries. Simply taking an available answer, be it true or false, can massively shift how we face death and in turn how we face our fears.

There is no downside to death, if one does not see it coming and there is no suffering involved, whether psychological or physical suffering. Suddenly BINK, the lights go out and there is no experience good or bad for that particular subject. — boagie

Now in accord with my personal beliefs, I'd hate a sort of sudden, unaware death. I'd like to face it head-on, a sort of magnum opus to my life. I believe there is something grand to be gained from that, as if our consciousness is most conscious just before it falls apart.

In polytheistic religions, gods are often flawed and no big deal is made out of it. There, it is hardly a matter of incompetence rather than character. In the ancient Sumerian flood myth for instance, Elil deemed humans as too numerous and simply got annoyed by them, resulting in a repeated culling through drought and plague. Humanity endured, resulting in the decision to wipe them out by means of the deluge, a plan which was thwarted by Ea informing his most trusted servant in advance.

The Abrahamic religions are basically the only ones that struggle with the idea of an incompetent god - and I believe this is based on wrong expectation and misconception. The root of all of this is that in the scriptures, god on numerous occasion decides to intervene with humanity, most often in the form of punishment.

This gives us the idea that god has a plan for us, that there must be a certain way humans are supposed to act unless they are to face the wrath of god. In the original sin of Adam and Eve, the snake claims that the forbidden fruit will give them wisdom, that they will be able to discern between good and evil. After they ate the fruit, the first thing they do is cover up their nakedness. Why did they do that? Because of shame? Because them being naked was evil? Hardly. They were made that way afterall.

What the forbidden fruit really represented, the way I interpret it, was the ability to judge gods creation. In a way it was wisdom indeed. The ability to discern things. An ability that allows us to apply logic and philosophize about such matters today. But the essential thing here is that human understanding of "good and evil" likely was different from god's understanding - showcased in the act of covering up their bare bodies.

Now if we move away from Abrahamic religion, which in the end is a grand compilation of numerous texts by numerous authors - not free from contradiction - what is good and evil?

Good and evil are very much human concepts. The judgement of what is good and what is evil is as personal as religious belief in itself. Where did humanity get the idea that they are favoured by god? Where did humanity get the idea that god's job is to look after them, to prevent evil and promote good? Even in the bible that original sin right from the start tells us: That is not god's job. We are endowed with free will. It wasn't earned either - it was there from the start. The lesson here is merely that our actions have consequences.

The beautician, in contrast, realizes that, yes, we're under all and sundry misconceptions about reality but then has an epiphany - reality is more unbearable than maya - and ergo, opts to live on in maya. — TheMadFool

The Buddha does something similar. I'd argue that Siddhartha Gautama very much opted to live on in maya as well.

In terms of enlightenment, there is a distinction to be made between Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddha) and Samyaksambuddhas (perfect Buddha).

The first one finds truth and keeps it to themselves. It is a sort of blissful ignorance that disregards everything that goes on within the illusion of existence.

The Samyaksambuddha on the other hand comes to the conclusion that while blissful ignorance is blissful indeed, this is not true liberation. They opt to live on still entangled in maya, teaching their way to others entangled in maya. They are similar in that way to the Beautician, attempting to make the illusion as nice as it can be.

Only, the principle idea here is different from the Beautician: While the nicest version of illusion for them is one that conceals the truth, for a Samyaksambuddha, the nicest version of illusion is one where everyone can see the truth despite living in an illusion.

How can that be? The Buddha thinks maya is the source of our dukkha; dismantle the illusion and we see the truth...nirvana. — TheMadFool

Buddha Gautama, as far as I am aware, speaks very little of Maya. Maya is a concept that stems from Hinduism and it has changed it's meaning over time.

In the Rig Veda, Maya was a form of "magic" used by Devas and Asura. For the most part you could consider it as something like "divine action". The act of creation is Maya. The changing of things is Maya. The notion of trickery, for example in the changing forms of the Gods, is present already - although I would not call it essential.

In the Upanishads the meaning of Maya had slightly changed, although I think it's easy to see how it evolved from it's Vedic meaning. Maya is to be understood as a projection of Brahman itself. Maya is what gives shape to our world, it's the basis of the universe, of the reality, we know. There is no dismantling Maya, it's an intrinsic part of reality. Yet the notion of trickery, or rather deceit, plays into here much stronger: The Self, the Atman, deceives itself through the means of Maya. It deceives itself to be seperate, to not be Brahman, when beyond that veil of Maya, everything is Brahman.

In Buddhism this later concept of Maya has been adopted, although the focus has slightly changed. Hinduism philosophically takes a look at the metaphysical, while Buddhism is meant as a more practical guideline. In that Buddhistic sense, Maya is more about the act of deceiving the Self - but the original idea still applies - it's still that same deception, the concealment that Atman is Brahman.

Ultimately, there is no escaping Maya. Existence as we experience it is deeply entangled in Maya. It's the illusion of being. To see the truth, one can see through the illusion - be a witness to that universal self that is Brahman - but as a human, you can not be without Maya. This game of hide and seek is essential to our mode of being.


On suffering or dukkha, Siddhartha Gautama said everything that is essential to Buddhism in his supposed first sermon.

"“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."

"“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."

"“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this Noble Eightfold Path..."

You're right that attachment and craving is induced by Maya. It entices us to seek sensation, both pleasure and pain. But again: Maya here is neither good nor bad. It simply does what it does. It's us that act upon these invitations. Because we can not be without Maya, the Buddha gives us step by step. The idea is something along the lines of: "Well, try being without doing this or that, then incrementally, you'll learn that most aspects of Maya that you engage with are not important at all."

It's not Maya itself that we're dismantling here. It's the idea of our Self that we try to deconstruct until there is nothing left. Of course this idea in a way is also Maya - that's why the lengthy differentiation between Maya as our ground of being versus Maya as self-deception was necessary. I'd say a better way to put it is that we're trying to find the truth despite being bound under the illusions of what we perceive. We do so by attempting to take ourselves out of the equation as much as possible - because if what we perceive is an illusion, what we know is not to be trusted.

Eventually, we then come to the point where all cravings and all attachment is dropped. That's when we see Maya for what it is: Our individualistic physical perception of Brahman. We come to learn that there really wasn't much of an illusion to begin with. That you and me, and everyone and everything, is all part of the same Supreme Self. Even Maya itself is Brahman - both the trickster and the tricked. We learn that the only trickery we've ever been dealing with was refusing to see what was always there.

If anything, rather than a Paradox, I think this nicely showcases the validity of the Four Noble Truths.

It's not exactly maya that induces dukkha, rather than the attachment to that illusion. Maya can be a hindrance to truth and to renouncement of desire - but it doesn't have to be. The illusion is neither good nor bad, it's what you make of it. Some are bound by it, while others find truth precisely through - or because of - that illusion.

As such, the Beautician attempts to lift dukkha through tampering with maya. That will never work though. Hence the dissatisfied clients keep coming back to the Beautician, in their vain attempt to lift dukkha within their illusion, where in truth, the cessation of dukkha is found beyond the illusion.

All that standard bullshit lays far behind me already. Show some courage. Calling something just bullshit before even trying to comprehend is the most irrational thing to do. But I understand. — Prishon

Instead of courage, why don't you show us some math? You present your theory as if it was fact without anything backing it up. You didn't observe it, you can't observe it and even if you could, observing it would not tell you the underlying mechanics of what is happening.

The standard model is accepted because it checks out. It is backed by math. Everytime we did notice it doesn't check out, we adjusted it theoretically until the math works out again. Then we went and probed the theory in reality, eventually finding evidence to support the math.

Without any shred of evidence you can present, your theory is about as valid as the Egyptians claiming that their creator god Atum simply spat and sneezed out the universe.

To transcend time is my ultimate goal. — Dante

I'd say if transcending time is a possibility, then you're most likely in the process of doing exactly that, although you wouldn't know it?

Time is another one of these incredibly intangible concepts. But if I had to make just a single guess about it, I'd speculate that consciousness and the experience (or illusion?) of time are inexplicably linked.

Immediately a quote from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad came to my mind. It's not "Know thyself" rather than "Love thyself" but I think it goes in a similar direction. In the very least, it may showcase why it's important to know and understand the self. It also underlines why seeking knowledge beyond the self may be deemed irrelevant.

Therefore, Yajnavalkya says to Maitreyi, “Nobody loves anything for its own sake.” All love is love of the Self, in the pure spiritual sense. Not this self or that self, myself or yourself, itself—this kind of self is not the point. It is the universal Self that is actually pulling you in some form, and you are not able to catch the point. There is an illusion that is presented to the sense organs, and under the impression—due to the delusion—you go to the object thinking that it is beautiful, that it is necessary, that it is meaningful. There is no meaning in anything in this world except the meaning of the Selfhood of that object. — Brihadaranyaka

In accordance to these teachings, knowing thyself will lead to knowing the other. In fact, I reckon one comes to a much deeper understanding of others if they have understood their own self first, rather than simply observing some second or third party.

That means, self-awareness must precede other-awareness. That's the correct/preferred/recommended sequence for awareness (self-awareness first, other-awareness second). However, the current understanding of consciousness (self & other awareness and more) is that other-awareness preceded self-awareness: humans and a few other animals that are/seem to be self-aware evolved very late in life's history given the evidence available to us. — TheMadFool

I do struggle to grasp the common understanding of self-awareness outside of a human context.
Wikipedia says: "While consciousness is being aware of one's environment and body and lifestyle, self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness."

But isn't being conscious in itself the awareness of consciousness? What I'm trying to say is that while I'm sure there is something like self-awareness, at the same time the idea we have of it seems rather artificial. Even the famous mirror test to me, seems to me more of a test of mental capacity, rather than self-awareness.

Consider then being conscious but not self-aware. You've just been told to "Know thyself" and so you go your philosophical quest to do just that. What is is that you do? Likely, you'll be exploring the concept of yourself and all the aspects of it. You'll do so by thinking, with your mind, constructing words in your head that seemingly fit your condition. By the power of the word and your imagination, you may even try to abstract yourself from your own mind and body, as if trying to take a third-person look on your first-person being. You come to one conclusion or the other, in terms of thinking got as far away from yourself as you could possibly get and then proclaim: "I know myself!"

Now my question is: Do you really become self-aware through that? Through putting abstract layer upon layer on your persona, ultimately deciding at some point "this view is an objective enough consideration of myself."? Then let us imagine a hypothetical person that knows no language, no words. If they are unable to articulate themselves as we do, can they never become self-aware?


Here's a theory of mine: While language is the greatest tool of mankind, it can sometimes become a curse. The use of words in everyday life has totally shifted the workings of our thoughts. Since language is inherited culturally, from a point of other-awareness so to say, it may represent a sort of barrier to truly and deeply understanding the self. I believe there's a more intrinsic, natural way of thinking and knowing. Thoughtless thinking, where no words are necessary. Why is it that those who practice meditation claim that to become self-aware, you must still the mind?

Similarly how you don't use words in your head to move your body, it seems obvious to me that they aren't a necessity for thought either. Rather, we may differentiate between two kinds of thoughts:

1. The ones I do not need to formulate. Those are the thoughts for the self. The thoughts the self knows.

2. The ones I do need to formulate. The self still knows these thoughts. However, these are meant to eventually be shared with others. Like how we discuss philosophy here, words for my thoughts are necessary so that I may share those contemplations. These formulated thoughts are for interaction. The issue here is: We learn this from such an early age and engage so much with others, that it becomes our normal mode of thinking.

So when the Self is engaged in thoughtless thinking, is that not the highest form of self-awareness? For when we think without words, we are most aware that the Self simply knows. The more I can rely on myself knowing that my Self knows, the more self-aware I become.


Also I believe that any living being is capable of this thoughtless thought. There are varying levels of complexity of course - but I think it goes hand in hand with consciousness itself. Thoughtless thought is what moves and maintains our body. It's what makes us dream at night. It's what lets an animal differentiate between predator and prey. And it's the silent voice that lets us know that our mind is chattering again when we are sat deep in meditation.

Certainly we have this ability from our birth. How can a baby learn anything if it's not capable of thinking without words? In that sense, I do believe that all life comes into being self-aware. Even the tiniest, seemingly dumbest organisms around us.

As you say, know thyself before you know the other. So perhaps it's just the other way around? Perhaps we're so awfully unaware of our self (by courtesy of blending words into our thought process), that we simply fail to understand the self-awareness of other beings?

There is no programming. In the sense that a program is going on somewhere in other parts of the brain and that directs the flow of information, like in a digital computer. The information just follows a path of least resistance and this resistance is contained in connection strengths between neurons. — Prishon

And does the brain not direct the flow of information? The programming in this sense is the brains chemistry. Sensory input is received, a neuron signal is fired, synapse checks if the condition to jump this particular gap is true or false and if true lets the neuron pass into a cell. The cell then in accordance to the received signal runs a function of its own.

My point again: It's all just a metaphor anyway. A brain is a brain. A computer is a computer. I do believe the mechanics are quite similar. But even if they weren't I could construct a metaphor of it being so because programming languages were made for exactly that: describing any process.

A further difference is that 1's and0's in a computer are driven by an external potential or voltage and current source. — Prishon

Also an external power source is not a criteria for being a digital system. It depends on the signal structure as I explained above. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an internal power source. Yes, our biology does create energy - but why do you think you have to take in sustenance to stay alive?

I haven’t quite worked out how to quote and reference precisely yet… so apologies for that! — Dante

For quotes, you just need to mark the text you want to quote from a user, then next to the marked text will popup a button "Quote".

In reference to dreamless sleep, the consciousness may not be in a lucid state but the brain continues to function and maintain the body’s sub conscious operations and thus the consciousness, whilst dormant, is not absent from reality. The absence I refer to is of course brain death, in which case the consciousness cannot be retrieved or sustained. — Dante

Consider a person in a coma. There are the ones that can react and sometimes recognize external stimuli, which means at least a part of the mind is still there. Then there are the ones who are totally unresponsive. They're in dreamless sleep indefinitely, unaware even of their own existence. Humans have drawn the comparision of sleep being the little brother of death for a couple thousand years now. Not for nothing death is called the "long" if not "eternal sleep". Are they conscious or unconscious, considering that the body maintains itself regardless?

The thing is, there's countless definitions for what consciousness and life are.

For life, I got myself a personal favourite one from a microbiologist, which I reckon captures the essence of life really well: "Life is a chemical system that uses energy to to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibpdNqrtar0)

For consciousness, I'm not so sure on a definitive definition.
Is it a requirement for life? Probably. But I'd argue then that even the smallest of cells are conscious themselves. Perhaps our consciousness is the accumulation of billions of tiny little cellular consciousness? Or perhaps it's all just one big united consciousness and that's where we return to when we're not conscious individually anymore?

The cycle that I imply in my question is the supposed observation of absence then formation. It is perhaps possible that the absence proceeding death is similar in condition to the absence required before the formation of life. — Dante

I'm sure the sensation (or rather the not-sensation) is the same. The Buddhists say something along the lines of: "If you want to know what dying is like, imagine what it was like before you were born."


Generally, I'd say a cycle of life and death as you propose it is possible. Me personally, I'm a big fan of concepts like cosmic cycles and even reincarnation. However, scientifically speaking there is no way to either prove or disprove any such speculation - that's the sole reason why religion is and has been under so much debate through all the ages.

The problem is this: We only know existence from the point of being. We are conscious. We are. This is our being. We can theoretically discuss "dying is like this and that". But we can never experience it because non-being is not supported during the mode of being. We only know that we have been sleeping because we wake up the next morning. The only way to know if you died before is to be born again - but I'm pretty sure by that time you'd have forgotten :P

It's overly simplistic to conclude that neurons must be digital just because they fire all or none. — InPitzotl

It has nothing to do with simplicity.

An analog computer uses an analog signal. It means that I have a continuous input in some shape and form - be it a mechanical motion or an electric current.

A digital signal on the other hand is a sequence of isolated values within a certain range. Neurons must be digital precisely because they fire all or none. It's binary. It falls under the definition of a digital signal.

Here's the difference visualized:


Neurons firing and changing in frequencies only means just that: A sequence. A pattern. Do my senses communicate me "00100100" or "10101010"?

Furthermore, neural firings are affected by their local chemistries, and there's a lot of chemistry going on in the brain. Said chemistries often work at the level of individual gates on the neurons affecting the relative concentration of ions across the cell barrier. — InPitzotl

Now this is where the interesting things happens. Neurons just go "true" or "false". But these "gates" decide what to do with the true or false. This is where the programming, the algorithm of the brain lies.

Not exactly? Exactly not! Enough complexity? Not even a zillionth! — Prishon

See:

The thing is that programming languages are just that - languages. And they're constructed in a way so you can express any process, similar to how we use our own language every day. — Hermeticus

The thing is, we have no access to how our brain produces "us". Most of the brain's activities are sub- or non-conscious. — Bitter Crank

It's true that the process of the brain is intangible.

As the Upanishads put it:
"You cannot see That which is the Seer of seeing; you cannot hear That which is the Hearer of hearing; you cannot think of That which is the Thinker of thought; you cannot know That which is the Knower of knowledge. This is your Self, that is within all; everything else but This is perishable.”"

This stands true for an intelectual and psychological point of view. However, through science, we can now take a physical look at the brain. For instance, we now know about neurotransmitters and synapses. We know synapses have a sort of treshold. They have to gain a signal of X "strength" to let the neuron cross the synaptic cleft and reach either the next neuron or a cell itself. This is precisely what you're describing:

The brain receives a lot of input all the time, from internal and external sources. A lot of what passes through seems to be unexamined. — Bitter Crank

It's not as if it seems to be unexamined. Certainly stimuli are actually unexamined because sensory input isn't strong enough to pass through "presynaptic evaluation". In recent years, it even came to light that this process is a two-way street. Based on experience the brain will adjust these synaptic thresholds. The brain programs its own operation based on what it experiences.


In this sense, our thinking apparatus can be equated to a self-improving algorithm.

I bet you have no knowledge of how the brain actually delivered that material to your fingers so you could type it. I can't explain what part of my brain is generating the text I am now typing. — Bitter Crank

It's like this: I can't actually have a peek into the "source code" but by comparing my inputs with the results that they deliver, over time, I can make rather accurate guesses as to how that source code might look.


Ultimately my point is: No, our brains are not exactly computers. But much of the processes are comparable. And I reckon it's fair to describe the happenings in technological terms for the sake of discussion. It's just a matter of taste. All words in the end are an attempt to infuse a certain meaning into communicational interaction.

Premise One: Death is not simply the process of living and then dying but is perhaps more accurately identified as the absence of one’s consciousness. — Dante

While dreamless sleep is the first and immediate comparison to death that comes to mind, your statement would imply that anytime I go into dreamless sleep, I actually die. I don't think that is what happens to me every night.

Premise Two: All forms of conscious life begin initially with an absence of itself, an absence of its consciousness. Via birth this condition is transformed and the consciousness is developed and woken to reality. — Dante

Where consciousness begins (or what it even is), I believe, is one of the great mysteries of life.
Keep in mind that even cells react to their environment. To light, to heat, to chemical surroundings and all sorts of other factors. They maintain themselves, grow, diverge and multiply. Are they conscious? Science hasn't quite come to an agreement on that question, as far as I know. If our singular cells are conscious, do we even begin life absent of consciousness? Or is it rather just an absence of memory until our brain is developed enough?

Given that I proceed an absence of myself, can we conclude that a return to this absence will encourage the cycle to repeat? — Dante

I don't think it's a conclusion we can viably make. How do we know it's a cycle?

↪Prishon I'm afraid the brain has to be a digital computer, if it's a computer at all, since neuronal firing is all or none (on/off or 1/0). — TheMadFool

This!




The article does well in showcasing how the narrative and context of our time changes the way how we see ourselves. However, discrediting such a brain-computer metaphor is not necessary in my opinion. Here's the deal: It's all about language.

The metaphors that are used might not be accurate - but they're not exactly wrong either in the process they're trying to describe. I'd say they're simply appropriate in the time and place they came to be used. They're the best the language, powered through the knowledge of that time, had to offer. It's simply that the brain works in reference and comparison - it can not evaluate something which is completely unknown, which it has no comparable experience to. So it makes sense to me that we'd use our newest and most complex framework and the language it provides to describe the processes of our brain.

It's perfectly viable then to break down the brain into computer lingo. Your brain might not work exactly like a computer but a computer has enough complexity to reflect the workings of the brain. It's not just that either: The thing is that programming languages are just that - languages. And they're constructed in a way so you can express any process, similar to how we use our own language every day.

Then I noticed how you spelled it. "Hmmm," I thought; "which one is correct." It turns out your spelling is correct. "Lightening" is the present participle of lighten, or reduce the darkness of something. All these years (I'm 75) I've been saying it wrong,

A computer can not ask itself whether it is right or wrong, and can not 'feel' anything, either way. — Bitter Crank

Let's take this as a little example:


1. Brain continuously runs a thread (process) called "SensoryInput".
2. The SensoryInput thread recognizes a new object of the type "Text".
3. Every letter, every word, as well as the whole sentence, get passed over by SensoryInput to
a function named "compare".
4. The compare function checks the object of type Text with the internal reference archive. If a word is in that archive, we'll have a meaning to it. In the same way, this is where our spelling would be stored. In this case, we realize the difference between our own internal archive and the text we have as input (lightning/lightening).
5. The compare function, having found a discrepancy, calls the function "check". We look up the correct spelling for the word lightning.
6. We see that our spelling of lightning was incorrect. The function check calls the function "learn" and updates our internal archive with the correct spelling.

Could this not fulfill Option one - the creator. If you think about it - if the only thing energy can do is change (it’s the only way it proves it’s existence - ie. to act or do something) and the singularity is a singular energetic state at the beginning of time. The only way a singularity can change is to create new phenomena from itself — Benj96

It can as well. As I said, the line between "Creator" and "Essence" are often blurred in that sense. Self-Creation is an essential theme for both of them. For "If God did not create itself, who created God?" The main difference really is whether "God" is interwoven with our universe or if God exists entirely separatately from us. Perhaps it would be clearer to define the possible versions of God as "internal" and "external".

Compare the Hindu concept of Brahman with the Abrahamitic concept of "God, the Father".

Brahman is literally everything. In Hinduism, One is Many and Many are One. The tiniest subatomic particle is as much god as the single individual human is god. As much god as the entire universe in it's whole is god. It's an undivisble unit. This would be an "internal God". Energy as the "thing" that binds and moves everything fits this quite well, I reckon.

The Abrahamitic version of god on the other hand comes across as a separate entity for the most part. Like a monarchical figure, it towers above all existence as a supreme being. He who rules from above. Such a Creator wouldn't require his creation to be a part of him - he could exist entirely seperate from our universe. This would be an "external God".

If you'd want to view these concepts in terms of energy, comparably:

1. Energy always existed in the universe (in the form of a singularity as you say). The process of the universe began when god gave shape to itself (creating a new phenomena as you say). This would be internal.

2. Energy did not always exist in the universe. However, there is "something beyond" the universe. Energy was put there by god, starting the process of our universe. This would be external.

That really depends on your definition of god. Traditionally, in historic religions, there are two types of god.

"The Creator God" - Who put his craft into reality, creating the machinations of existence and all it's functions.

"The Essence God" - Who is the fabric of reality. Anything that is in existence is a part of god.

Sometimes the distinction between the two is not quite clear. Sometimes the lines are blurred - but there really isn't any other options here.

Energy definitely fits the latter description. For the former one, I'd say energy still remains an essential tool for such a Creator God - sort of like the groundwork of existence that implies all rules of creation.