“The image will be inverted, reduced in size, and real. Quite conveniently, the cornea-lens system produces an image of an object on the retinal surface... Fortunately, the image is a real image - formed by the actual convergence of light rays at a point in space. Vision is dependent upon the stimulation of nerve impulses by an incoming light rays. Only real images would be capable of producing such a stimulation. Finally, the reduction in the size of the image allows the entire image to "fit" on the retina. The fact that the image is inverted poses no problem. Our brain has become quite accustomed to this and properly interprets the signal as originating from a right-side-up object.”
- physicsclassroom

While the image my mind perceives will have the identical quantitative dimensions that a camera would have, there still seems to be some qualia attached to our vision. A camera appears to pass on colour to our brain rather than being the source of the colour itself. A colour-blind person would see different colours when looking at the same camera screen or photograph. However, we’d both agree on the objective spatial and proportional features. What gives?

It seems subjectively inconceivable that the sentient contents of my visual system could themselves be projected onto a screen no matter what brain-scanning technologies one might have in the future. Might an upshot of this be that the real image our eyes receive must somehow be converted into a virtual image in the brain? That is to say an image which “cannot be projected onto a screen because the rays never really converge”. Phosphenes are incongruous entities: “an impression of light that occurs without light entering the eye and is usually caused by stimulation of the retina (as by pressure on the eyeball when the lid is closed).” The apparent irreducible and internal nature of phosphenes makes it hard to imagine them ever being by some means transplanted onto an external screen. Another person can’t see exactly that which I observe in my mind’s eye.

There's a lot of debate about chaos theory and free will; that chaos is still deterministic even if it's unpredictable. But obviously over larger time-scales it becomes even more unpredictable.

Likewise short-term behaviour (like whether I choose to lift my hand or not) might be completely deterministic. But perhaps there's scope for free will to act in a more gradual way that affects long-term memory and personality.

I agree that there can be more to the concept of God than meets our minds; there's a lot of mystery about reality. Certain ideals that we must strive for like mercy and goodness are indeed constant and unchanging. Perhaps there's even a timeless aspect to them.

But consciousness, at least in our first person point of view, is never static. So how does an unchangeable God perceive the world? I don't think reality unfolds to God vicariously like an ensemble cast movie.

Also, how does the theistic God find meaning in life Himself if everyone is just relying on Him to provide meaning for them? Is it a bit circular?

Crash 2005 trailer

I think Pantheism and Panentheism can be synergistic and complementary ideas. In a sense, Pantheism is a “subset” of Panentheism. This is because in both cases God interpenetrates the Universe and there would be an impression of connectedness. Panentheists merely believe that there is an additional element of God that is not captured in the Universe. So to a certain extent a belief in Panentheism “implies” Pantheism.

Subset: all elements of A are also elements of B.
Imply: if A is true, then B is also true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_motion

I've been thinking a bit about dualism. If the mind is fundamentally and ontologically separate from the body, then how does relative motion occur between the mind and the physical world? If someone walks forward 10 meters in space, doesn't their sentient mind also move forward precisely 10 meters with their body? But in order for this corresponding relative motion to occur the mind would necessarily have to be part of the physical world. Only material objects can move relative to each other. Unless the locus of consciousness were somehow forever stationary; that the brain just relays signals to a static and unmoving mind. This would imply that the motion of the mind is illusory and that only the body moves. The mind would solely move through the dimension of time.

If all of our thoughts and actions were preprogrammed and merely passive responses to external causes, wouldn't one expect far more uniformity among people in general? Even if a supercomputer could mimic all of my behaviour, would it be able to copy other people's responses at the same time? We all seem to have a different 'operating system' in the sense that meeting one person is a qualitatively different experience to meeting another person. We have an ability to improvise and deal with uncertainty. There is so much diversity and contrast between people which seems beyond that possible than if our decisions were completely deterministic.

Randomness is unpredictable. — TheMadFool

I'm a compatibilist. I think free will might be a complex interplay of determinism, chaos and randomness.

The mind may well have both deterministic and random elements that counterbalance each other. For instance, lets think about cognitive dissonance. This sensation forces us to reconcile our actions with our thoughts. It's a stressful feeling. If one were to try to act on an evil thought that randomly pops into their head, they will be prevented from doing so by this stress reaction. Maybe this stress is deterministic in nature. So the randomness of our thoughts is counteracted by an instinctive feeling of stress and tension if we act against our true beliefs. This makes us responsible for our actions.

If hard determinism is true, then why can't we go on "autopilot" or "cruise control" and sleepwalk to where we need to get to? Consciousness must have a function.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dont-delay/201106/free-wont-it-may-be-all-we-have-or-need

Perhaps your idea of self-restraint and frugality as an antidote to hedonism may provide a sort of veto power. We're not slaves to happiness and our emotions. This might provide a limited sort of freedom in and of itself.

"Determining the motion and position of every particle within the universe would allow you to predict the future of the Universe and everything inside of it"

- I don't think omniscience will ever be possible. The physical world is not self-aware so the particles themselves don't know what they're doing and are just passively responding to the various forces.

"power of a computer"

- But such a massive supercomputer would itself exist inside the universe and so in order to make predictions it would have to be simultaneously aware of every particle that constitutes this computer and every other particle in the universe. I don't think this would be possible at the same time.

Is there a degree of spontaneity in our interactions with other people? Even if my thoughts occurred deterministically, I obviously don't know what is happening in the mind's eye of other people. So even if my actions and your actions are physically deterministic, isn't there still an unpredictability in our social interactions? And the sheer number of people in the world makes it impossible to predict how the future will play out. There is just so much chance and randomness involved in our mutual communication.

Free will perhaps exists on a spectrum as we stress over some decisions more than others. So doing something trivial like choosing between different options on a dinner menu may be more of a subconsciously automated choice based on your taste buds. But then a more significant decision such as what subject to study in college requires more deliberation and stress to freely weigh up the pros and cons. Sometimes we are forced to randomly choose the least worst option. On other occasions when we are rushed we might take risks to avoid analysis paralysis. So how free a decision is may vary.

If consciousness has no causal role and is merely epiphenomenal, what is the point of the experience of pain? Why would our brains be "programmed" to feel pain if it has no causal function and everything is simply deterministic?

"When I look at the sky, the sky I see is inside my head. This means that my skull must be beyond the sky!"
- Lehar

Superdeterminism: "not only is our behaviour determined, but it is determined precisely in such a way as to prevent us from seeing that the world is deterministic".

So are you saying our own thoughts and judgements are not real; perhaps they are deterministic and not truly our own? That brings up the problem of free will. Perhaps the different issues in consciousness are related. Must an antirealist also be a determinist? It's a big topic.

The mind is still mysterious. It gets deceived while dreaming but then dreams are also mysterious. The external world can only be inferred from one's perception of it.

"Even if I happen to be a brain in a vat at this moment—all my memories are false; all my perceptions are of a world that does not exist—the fact that I am having an experience is indisputable (to me, at least). This is all that is required for me (or any other conscious being) to fully establish the reality of consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion."
- Sam Harris

I understand there can be different versions of antirealism such as epistemic (knowledge) and semantic ("meaning of statements"). I was referring to metaphysical antirealism which is the idea that "nothing exists outside the mind". I was wondering what the scientific implications would be of such a viewpoint.

I think pantheists, deists, agnostics and so on should try more to integrate and find common ground. They could form a stronger middle position that is separate from atheism and theism.

However, I don't think this entity would have any of the other characteristics associated with a personal god.

I don't think pantheism is immutable as everyone dies which is indeed the biggest change of all.

It's not omniscient or omnipotent as it contains many distinct parts. This would also preclude a god that judges people.

Omnibenevolence is missing as some people are kind and some unfortunately are immoral or even evil.

Omnipresence is "the presence of God everywhere at the same time". An impersonal God would have this attribute as everyone and everything (including nature!) would be linked.

Some of these concepts (such as panentheism, collective unconsciousness, etc.) might be interrelated through the idea of an impersonal god. An impersonal god contrasts with a personal one in that it is unemotional and not really able to be prayed to. It seems to be more of an energy that connects us rather than any specific personal god or individual.

Panpsychism is "the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness". This might be a relevant definition in terms of nature worship.

I may have been trying to focus on pantheism's effect on our understanding of consciousness in general. I wasn't necessarily trying to exclude nature and the physical world.

I mentioned monopsychism as well but I can't find too much information about it on the web.

When I mentioned about whether god is always good; I mean if we must have the capacity to do evil in order be free entities then why doesn't this apply to an omnipotent god as well. It's the free will defence in theodicy but in reverse.

I found what you said about our connection to the unfolding universe very interesting. There may exist a spectrum of beliefs. This could range from physicalism to pantheism to yet more of a panpsychist outlook that all matter and light possess some degree of consciousness.

Future discoveries on quantum physics and information processing will hopefully shed light on the relationship of the mind and the physical world. When you look up at the night sky the physical world can be awesome. Indeed there's also an active debate on animal consciousness too.

The personification of goodness as God is again thought-provoking. I think it's a nice concept.

I agree that the problem of evil can be puzzling. Thankfully I've never been the victim of a crime but I still might attempt to understand it. Some would say that in order to have free will people must be allowed to do evil. Sometimes criminals can be brought to justice. If you look at history empires rise and they eventually fall. Also, there is no honour among thieves. So sometimes an avowedly evil individual may become the victim of another evil person.

Collective unconscious: "the part of the unconscious mind which is derived from ancestral memory and experience and is common to all humankind, as distinct from the individual's unconscious".

Yes, that is certainly a very relevant idea. I might be trying to mix it with pantheism. I don't think they're mutually exclusive ideas.

I suppose there's a lot of mystery in the world. So I try to be open-minded to different beliefs and receptive to criticism. I just find my interpretation of pantheism appealing for the reasons I've mentioned above.

(sorry neutral not neutal)

I agree that reincarnation is neutal and isn't necessarily theistic. But under pantheism what happens after one stream of consciousness is reincarnated an infinite number of times? Then we'd all be seperated by not only the completeness and absoluteness of death but a boundless never-ending infinite process.

Indeed.

IIt might be a good thing if pantheistic solipsism can inspire a person to be kind and ethical to others.

Just to clarify; I'm commenting only on the consciousness side of the world. I'm making no claims on the physical side of things. I don't know how the physical world came into being or what was before the Big Bang!

In terms of sentience and pantheism, I get the impression there's a subdued connection between everyone. Maybe there's an unconscious dreamlike spirit that links us; the whole surreality of dreams. I don't know for sure.

Panentheism is "the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it". This may be closer to what you have in mind.

I'm perhaps interpreting pantheism a bit differently. I suppose it depends on how you define God. This is possibly made more difficult by our lack of scientific understanding of what precisely consciousness is.

Under pantheism I tend to view God as the collective sum total of individuals rather than one omniscient all conscious entity.

I was referring to the idea of reincarnation. Even if you are reincarnated, your next life is fundamentally separate to this life by the total erasure of your memories.

Thank you for the reply. I would say we have truly nothing to lose by believing in pantheism if the alternative is meaningless existence and despair.