I don't think such could be expressed in words. And I do think we may be surprised to what an extent one human's experience of being may be different than another's depending on culture, upbringing and biology.

Can list some special capacities we have that known earth animals seem to lack:
Metacognition. Thinking about thinking
Long distance future contemplation and planning and dwelling on long distant past.
Feel more refined or exalted emotional states such as reverence, or the feeling of the sacred, as well as appreciation for art and music, as well as humor and irony.
Higher levels of self-discipline and moral considerations.
Care about and seek meaning beyond base survival and pleasure gratification.

I think very few people have attained full human development. Most of us suffer from arrested development, mostly acting like animals. — Yohan

Differences are the basis for each individual's existence. If there is no difference then there is no individuality.

But for essence, you need common characteristics or origins for the foundation of entities. Essence could be abstract concepts such as ones existing in the platonic idea world, if you are an idealist.

Or essence would be character or purpose or function in teleological perspectives such as will - for willing happiness, good, peace, knowledge and prosperity.  Human being is a willing animal, as compared to Aristotle's political animal.

Essence could be narrowed for certain situations and groups or parties such as the essence of a car is riding and getting A to B, essence of Buddhism is enlightenment of self, essence of science is truths for practical life etc.   So, I feel there are different types of essence for the situations and objects and entities, which can be defined from different perspectives and views of the thinkers for their intentions and aims of essence establishing.

Yeah. I don't see why it would be hard to define essential outer human characteristics. At least while there are not many species that resemble us, on earth at least. — Yohan

Yeah, it is just one of the philosophising topics that we could engage for the discussions and reflections.

But there may be some commonality between all humans of what it I like to be human, even if its also unique to each. — Yohan

Yes, that was what I asked on my 1st question.

It doesn't really say much to say that what makes humans humans is an internal quality. That's why external definitions are more pragmatic. — Yohan

As long as they are meaningful enough.

Kind of losing me — Yohan

Each individual's and living being's DNA is different, unique and exclusive. How could it be the essence of human being?

Doe this mean your being-yourself-ness is constantly changing as the content of your experience changes? If so, who or what is registering the changes? — Yohan

It would be registering in one's own memory as it changes. But the change is not the point. The point is that it is all unique and exclusive. So how could it have anything to do with the essence of human being?

For instance, I don't know your being-yourself-ness at all. Only you know it. How could that concept have anything to do with my essence of human being? and vice versa.

Perhaps "form essences" as I called it, might be more pragmatic than truly essential. It may not be possible to find a perfect fit definition for what is minimally required to be a human. On the other hand, I imagine the closest thing, if we want to be very scientific about it, might depend on human DNA. — Yohan

Again the uniqueness and self contained exclusion of each DNA can be problem for being universal essence.

It may be that being-one-self-ness is a shared universal quality present "in" all beings. — Yohan

The name "being-one-self-ness" seems totally meaningless without the content of it, which is bound to be all different and unique.

Just as my being-myself-ness was always here through the various stages of my biological and psychological development or de-development. (Unless the memories of having been myself in the past are illusions and I am a new being which has inherited another's memories and have mistaken them for my own) — Yohan

I think your past memories being illusions are not issue here, but the unique-ness and closed-ness can be, for its being foundation of essence of human being.

Problem would be the fact that each and every human being is different in its psychological state, personalities, experience and even bodily structure in strict sense. In that case, would it be possible to apply the concept of form to define human essence?

But there are some common points in human beings such as they have 2 arms and 5 fingers and 1 head ...etc, but then there are cases that they don't, even if minority. Therefore would it be meaningful attempt for reaching essence in this regard?

You talk about your being-yourself-ness. But what is that? It is something unique to your own self, which is contingent and syllogistic belief or emotion within your own closed world. What significance can it give to the rest of the others in terms of reaching essence of human being?

I thought you asked me what the definition of essence is? I would have to use concepts to define it. But what if concepts are lacking in essence? Then what use would a conceptual definition of essence be? — Yohan

Forget about the concept. Just explain what essence means from your thoughts. That is your concept of essence.

We are basically making order of our concepts. But what is the essence of a concept? And where do concepts come from? — Yohan

I was asking you that question.

So then, how to "reach" essence? — Yohan

Remember? You asked how to "reach" essence?

Things aren't defined by labels. labels are defined by things — Yohan

Labels? It is an unusual naming. Label is a piece of blank sticky paper, you write on something, and stick to something for ID.

We use concepts, definitions and names. You define things and concepts with words and more concepts with logical clear meaningful linguistic expressions.

So then, how to "reach" essence?
The only path left may be intuition. — Yohan

I could keep going with every response given. Which, would either lead to an endless cycle of going from one concept to another, or to a stripping away of concepts until essence is arrived at. — Yohan

How can one reach to essence, when the essence is not define-able?

But can the essence be expressed in words? — Yohan

If you could, then the rest course of the investigation and conclusion would be more straight forward.

What is your definition of "essence" and essence of something? For instance, if I ask you, what is the essence of human being, then what would it be?

Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Handbook-Philosophy-Mind-Handbooks/dp/019959631X
has a variety of essays covering wide topics from the top philosophers of Mind all around the world.

The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again

View from different aspects and logical clarity on the issues.

Live at ACL Lightning Hopkins

Lightnin Hopkins ~ Trouble in mind

The Power of Being Alone | Sadhguru

New Essays on The A Priori - Boghossian and Peacocke
Does God Exist? - A. E. Taylor

Ultimately, this discussion has many built in assumptions, and relies upon those to build up new ideas. One of those assumptions is that our process of scientific discovery is true. This also entails mathematics, physics, etc. To reject these fields of study is an argument for elsewhere, but yes, if you can undermine them as you seek to do you would undermine a portion of my argument. — Derrick Huestis

This type of reductionist claims had been long before in history, and usually they only get mentioned as the historical significance by the contemporary readers and academics in these days.

If you recall the ancient pre-Socratic Greeks, they have tried to see the world as one underlying element, like Water by Thales, Air by Anaximander, Fire by Heraclitus, Numbers by Pythagoras, and Atom by Democritus. Yes atom by Democritus !!

It just sounds so similar to hear your assertion of underlying quantum field or space, for the evidence of God, and the ancient Greek philosophers fundamental element for the world.

The only difference is that they were in 500 BC, and your claim is in 2021 AD making roughly 2500 years apart. But the Greeks already had their rich mythic Gods needing no proofs, and looking far more sophisticated world / God view than the 2021 version.

Perhaps a certain arrangement of atoms, yes, but the underlying matter, no, and the underlying space, also no. The sophist doesn't believe in an absolute truth, it is subjective, up to the individual. For this I criticize you. You keep making claims you uphold, but no supporting logic, and you don't directly attack the logic others present, but say "I do not see." There is a lot you can criticize in this way, you can go back to Descartes "I think therefore I am" and reject that we know about anything more than our mind. — Derrick Huestis

I have been pointing out the problems in your logic, and also asking you to clarify the ambiguous  and vague concepts such as underlying matter and underlying space in your posts.  There are different type of space concepts.  I am still not sure what exact your definition of underlying space and also underlying matter are.

As I have said in the previous post, I have not been asserting any theories or principles of my own, so why do I need my own logic, and how could I be a sophist without claiming anything at all?  It is you who are claiming that the underlying matter and underlying space is the evidence of existence of God, and replacement of God.

My point was that it needs more concrete and solid clarification for your assertion of replacing God with some unknown nature of underlying matter and underlying space.

Have you read it ? — Amity

I haven't. It is on my reading list. Seems quite a challenging book to read, but looks interesting.

Don't Try - The Philosophy of Charles Bukowski

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMTDAHK-tkE

Paradoxes That No One Can Solve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AHUeXkCw3o

Why should you read James Joyce's "Ulysses"? - Sam Slote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7FobPxu27M

It's doubtful that an Eternal Fundamental Existence with no beginning and thus no input could have any purpose. The only trait is that it cannot not be; that is the complete message: being is a must. — PoeticUniverse

All beings is contingent. They may exist now, but they might not exist tomorrow, or any moment. That is what existence means.

Sidepoint, but to me it sucks that our culture embraces pointlessly drawn-out and painful deaths for no reason that I find valid anyway. Obviously I wouldn't want death forced on other who felt the need to cling, but I do wish I could set up some auto-destruct feature for myself in case I'm unlucky enough to be trapped in some ugly state. For instance, maybe a stroke destroys my autonomy, or I'm paralyzed by an accident and physically can't choose to leave this world on my own terms (just having the choice would make post-accident life more endurable, I think.) — Zugzwang

Suffering is painful, but it is also a part of life. It must be a difficult situation for anyone going through that stage in life. However, I still feel all life is precious, and better than death even if going through the suffering. I oppose to ending life by artificial means, or giving up hope for possible recovery from the ill health no matter how terminal it is.

You say I draw illogical conclusions without tearing apart any of my logic. You are quite the sophist, like I said you argue with emotion. — Derrick Huestis

By definition sophist is the one who brings out his fabricated theories with loose logic and jumpy conclusions.  Sophist also tries to influence others to follow his dogmatic assertions for his financial motives such as writing books or just to boost his own ego by trying to convince others with his made up stories as if it is a newly discovered truth.

I am just a reader who has never made a single penny from my studies and readings all my life, and never intending to make a single penny from it or writing books or anything like that.

I am just a student of philosophy and literature learning by readings purely motivated by a love of wisdom.  The only thing I have done was having read your stories about the nonexistence and God, found the problems with your logic, and just pointed out some problems in the logic and asked a few questions about them by replying to your points.

Now anyone with a common sense can say about this situation, and will see the truth. Who sounded like a sophistic poster, and who is a Socratic student in this thread?

Perhaps you forgot you were finite? Hence, we are forced to use our imagination which you so despise, yet even then we can't truly "find" infinite because our minds themselves are also finite. Based on your current arguments, I get the feeling you might be a flat earther because you've never seen the roundness of the Earth anywhere you've gone... — Derrick Huestis

No one really witnesses and experiences roundness of the earth directly.  Their daily life sensing of the earth is the flatness of the land.  It is the scientific education and learned observations, which gives the knowledge of the theory that the earth is round. Asserting as if one's sense of the earth must be round in one's daily life, and suggesting others for being flat-earther for no evidence or ground does sound pretentious.

Well, many religious 'God' followers believe in the 'immaterial soul' and the rest of the 'supernatural' in the way of having hopes and wishes. It's a whole nother story of why they want it. — PoeticUniverse

Replacing the quantum field as God on one hand, and then bringing up immaterial souls exchanging energies with the physical bodies on the other sounded inconsistent.

Well, QFT doesn't prove 'God' as a Person with Mind but rather replaces and gets rids of that type of 'God' idea to leave us with just a Ground of Determination (G.O.D.) type basis. Even the Deity 'God' becomes unnecessary as redundant.

QFT needs to be expanded to include quantum gravity and dark matter (unless neutrinos are already it) and then it will become the Complete Theory of Everything rather than very nearly. — PoeticUniverse

God as a personal being who is believed to be caring and salvaging the world would be beneficial for the followers and believers for giving the possible psychological comforts in their daily lives and hope for the possible immortality after death.

It is doubtful if quantum field as a replacement for God could serve any purpose at all.

LIGHTNIN' HOPKINS Live 1964

John McDowell interview: Avoiding the Myth of the Given and other philosophical thoughts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXw2mJTF-Y

I Did The Wim Hof Method Everyday For 30 Days And This is What Happened
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDhdbt-l5eI

The closest I can think of that is of our real life is Descartes' declared separate and distinct categories of the mental and the physical. This fell apart because then the mental and the physical would not be able to interact. — PoeticUniverse

Descartes' dualism is only significant in the history of philosophy, and no one really takes seriously his theory of the immaterial substance soul these days. It was more for his methodical doubt which gets mentioned for the revolutionary way of philosophizing at the time in the historical point of view, rather than his dualism.

Quantum fields are such, as fundamental, with no deeper parts, and omnipresent, as everywhere, with all the omnipotence they can have, as power to form the elementary particles, and omniscient, in the way of what all can become from it.

An example of what is not fundamental would be such as a proton, for it has quark constituents that have to be prior. What is fundamental, then, is of an even more lightness of being, such as fields.

No one knows if there is 'God' or what its nature would be if there is 'God', such as Personhood. — PoeticUniverse

It sounds too imaginative and naive judgement to conclude that quantum field is God for all the reasons listed up there. It would be a good idea to go back to Kant and then Kierkegaard if one wants to find God, rather than futilely trying to prove God using the quantum field.

"Exchanging energies" means to be able to interact with the material. If something 'mysterious' is inert or of a distinct and separate category, then it's as if it isn't even there. If not, then it's material, too, since it can interact.

So, no 'intangible', 'non-physical', etc., affecting us and we back. 'Supernatural' would thus seem to be out and not there, or if it is then never the twain shall meet.

There's no 'space' as nonphysical. The quantum fields exhaust reality. "All is field", as Einstein claimed. There is also no space as something separate from the fields that is just there to hold the fields. — PoeticUniverse

Again, exchanging energies between matters sounds vague and ambiguous. It doesn't sound like a philosophical, logical or scientific statement at all.

I could have understood better if it said "communicating", "having conversation", "engaging" or "making use of". But then these are terms for actions or events between some beings with linguistic abilities or at least the animals with emotional and intelligent communication capabilities.

I have re-read above post a few times just trying to grasp what it actually means, but you have lost me. Exchanging energies between immaterial and material subjects sounds and all the rest of it, just don't make sense because it is abstract and empty in the content, and is hard to imagine what it could actually be in real life. Do you have any real life examples for these events?

Not "randomly" promoting.

Quantum Field Theory is the most successful, accurate, and important Theory in the history of science, giving us the Standard Model and a myriad of devices that work.

The quantum fields accord with Derrick’s points in his OP, and further inform us in physical actuality of labels and associations that have been also used for ‘God’. — PoeticUniverse

The OP was not trying to prove God using quantum physics.  If you read the OP again, it starts with Non Existence and its meaninglessness.  The OP is based on philosophy of logic, not quantum physics.  Then OP talks about space, and its properties before going into God and proof.

I think trying to trust everything qp says blindly feels irrational.  It can fall into the trap of trusting anything a famous person said, scientist said or science said.  The tendency itself can degrade into some sort of pagan religion.

Since the quantum fields are already fundamental, the hypothesis for ‘God’ would want to attend to that. — PoeticUniverse

I am not sure if that statement is correct. What do you mean by "fundamental"? In what sense? What is non fundamental?

(yes, I know you hate the word infinite). I argue that power to create is greater than power to destroy, and destruction ultimately takes away power the more it is enacted thus it wouldn't be a principle of omnipotence. In this way, the Christian notion that we are eternal makes sense, regardless if good or bad (aimed at destruction). — Derrick Huestis

It is not that I don't like "infinite", but I just cannot find anything which is infinite in the real world. :)
So when someone says "infinity" or "eternity", I just wonder what it is denoting. Is it poetry? Or is it some rhetoric? But I usually understand it as verbal expressions for the emotions of a long and unmeasurable length of time for the subject who used the words.

As said earlier, destruction shouldn't be regarded always as bad. Because before you build or create something, you might need to destroy what has been the past, and the presence, in order to clear and make space to build or create the new afresh.

We can own the idea or concept even if we don't own the manifestation of said concept. This is what philosophers do. Questioning why someone would own, discuss, and argue for a concept they see manifest in the real world could be easily turned into a question of why you might be on a philosophy forum. There is some emotional element to many of your posts, untangling them from the logic requires a bit of work. — Derrick Huestis

Sure, one can own any idea one wants. It is the freedom of one's imagination and thought. But it is one thing to own the blank concepts, and totally different thing altogether actually to draw some imaginative conclusions from them when there are no logical or tangible connections.

Yes. The immaterial can’t exchange energy with the material unless they speak each other’s language, but if they can, then there is no distinct category of immaterial at play in the first place. — PoeticUniverse

The suggestion was to define the nature of your God in its substance. Is it physical, spiritual or conceptual? Or non physical something like space? I am not sure what exchanging energies mean. Could you please elaborate on that, if relevant. Thanks.