2 of 12
2
god theory…
Posted: 02 August 2010 01:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
whynot - 02 August 2010 08:53 AM

It is my position that man is seeking a place to plant his feet. To say, “this is where my reality originates”. If I surrender the quest to science I am left with a string of transient theories that are infinitely regressive…that obviate in a final, “we don’t know”. A theory of everything is basically an historical explanation of reality. I can’t speak for you but my reality encompsses many more things than just an endless series of chemical equations, mathematical constituents and cosmological theories. A theory of everything must explain man’s history since it is man who is seeking. A theory of everything must provide a foundation that allows everyone to say…this is our history. It starts there and who knows where it will go from here.

Any such theory must absolve itself in something extremely unique. Else we’re back to infinite regress and “I don’t know”.


`
What’s wrong with just accepting “I don’t know” as the current reality?  (which isn’t to say one should abandon the quest)

Also, if you (or anyone) is truly interested in their beliefs lining up with truth, how can you justify going beyond “I don’t know” if there isn’t enough information to do so?

Why do so many people seem to need to create a ‘story’ of some kind to fill up the gaps in our knowledge?

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2009-11-29
whynot - 01 August 2010 06:23 PM

Hi Folks,
  I’m very impressed with the level of intellectual discourse in this community. I hope you’ll recieve me in the spirit in which I come…as a seeker of knowledge and understanding and hopefully, a free thinker. Having said that, I respectfully request your help. I am working on a theoretical philosophical treatise on unification theory. It is, I think, rather unique in some ways and not so much in others. I am attempting to answer those basic philosophical questions like: why life rather than ~life, why sentience rather than ~sentience, why this universe rather than some other or ~universe. I covet your opinions, criticisms and ideas of this labor.

One key question I think you should ask is why do you need to include a god in your theory. Why god?

If you took out the assumption that god is aware, then i think you would be a a Pantheist.

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

 Signature 

Jimmy Clay

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Axegrrl - 02 August 2010 01:29 PM

`
What’s wrong with just accepting “I don’t know” as the current reality?  (which isn’t to say one should abandon the quest)

Also, if you (or anyone) is truly interested in their beliefs lining up with truth, how can you justify going beyond “I don’t know” if there isn’t enough information to do so?

Why do so many people seem to need to create a ‘story’ of some kind to fill up the gaps in our knowledge?

`

I’m with you Axegrrl, what is wrong with “we don’t know yet?” I don’t know why my dog suddenly dropped dead, but I am not going to invent a god to explain it!

[ Edited: 02 August 2010 08:38 PM by asanta ]
 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 05:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
whynot - 02 August 2010 09:45 AM

What does it mean to be “aware” (one of your points) for “eternity”?

I almost missed this very good question. I’ll try to define it in context with this theory. I’ll do so from three perspectives, so to speak.

On a human level I’ll use analogy to get at the meaning. It’s like the first time we come to our sense of mortality. A teenager who survives a car accident or experiences the death of a friend or close family member. That very sobering sense that says, “hey, I’m not indestructible.”

On a simpler level, say a single celled organism, it’s an interpretational construct derived from observation of the cells behavior. It’s defense mechanisms, niche in the food chain specifics, and procreation or cell division. All speak to a set of drivers we call the instinct of survival. Elements of a sobering sense of mortality/temporality.

In respect to OMS, being eternal mitigates against awareness being a function of survival, thus it must serve some other, more basic, function. On a human level awareness is the foundation of problem solving. One is not motivated to solve a problem one is not aware exists. Thus awareness is the first step towards knowledge acquisition. On OMS level, problem solving is not an issue, thus awareness is simply a matter of existence acknowledgement. If ones existence encompasses everything else that exists then one will simply be aware of everything that exists. When temporality is not an issue, then awareness need not obviate in anything more complex since the problem of continued existence does not reach beyond temporality. In this respect it is not a matter of “being” aware but a simple awareness of “being”.

Just to toss it out there. The mechanism of awareness seems to me to be one of memory. As we recall an experience which includes our own part in the event we are aware of what has occurred. Whatever mental images and impressions that we bring up about an event and make decisions from/alter behavior.

I suspect that we are not actually aware at the exact moment of existing. Awareness happens after the we review the event mentally even if a few milli-seconds after. In which case there is nothing needed for awareness other then the ability to recall images/perceptions from the past.

A computer with sufficient perceptory input and the ability to recall that information would be aware/self aware if it could perceive it’s own involvement if any at the time of the event.

i.e. a computer which recalled making a decision at a specific time would be self-aware.

Being aware for eternity would then require the ability to recall every event the entity(God) experienced. Seems that this is expressed by the concept of omniscient.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 05:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

I’m honestly having trouble discerning whether you’re being serious or not. At best you’re engaging in the worst kind of philosophical sophistry, and at worst you’re a way-too-invested troll.

You skim over all of the important parts, like why naturalism is not a satisfactory answer to why we have something rather than nothing (notice how I can say this without using ~,s. It’s okay to speak colloquially, we aren’t in a formal logic class). Your first mistake is here:

I see no good reason why sentience, life, natural law, even the universe itself, need be anything more than a reflection of something completely basic from within the universe itself…

You’re looking at this backwards. Possibilities mean absolutely nothing. Sure, it doesn’t need to be more, but that doesn’t mean you have any reason to think it isn’t. The right way to frame this is:

I see a good reason why sentience, life, natural law, even the universe itself, should be anything more than the universe itself…

You’re skipping the entire point of your post. You haven’t demonstrated any reason at all that we need this convoluted and philosophically pedantic non-entity, and as such you haven’t demonstrated at all why this is the case. You have neither need nor evidence. Until you present those two your ideas are next to worthless philosophical speculation along the lines of “wouldn’t it be cool if…”

And I object to your characterization of this as a ‘theory’. Hypothesis too, would probably be a bad word. This is neither testable, nor falsifiable, nor scientific at all. It’s a thought exercise, bordering on a Kipling-esque just-so-story. Conjecture is more like it.

I have a standard I live by when talking to strangers. Based on the tone of this response, you fall well outside that standard.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 05:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
jimclay - 02 August 2010 03:38 PM
whynot - 01 August 2010 06:23 PM

Hi Folks,
  I’m very impressed with the level of intellectual discourse in this community. I hope you’ll recieve me in the spirit in which I come…as a seeker of knowledge and understanding and hopefully, a free thinker. Having said that, I respectfully request your help. I am working on a theoretical philosophical treatise on unification theory. It is, I think, rather unique in some ways and not so much in others. I am attempting to answer those basic philosophical questions like: why life rather than ~life, why sentience rather than ~sentience, why this universe rather than some other or ~universe. I covet your opinions, criticisms and ideas of this labor.

One key question I think you should ask is why do you need to include a god in your theory. Why god?

If you took out the assumption that god is aware, then i think you would be a a Pantheist.

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

Why God? Is a good question. I suspect for many it’s because they’ve been told one exists. Conveniently covers all the unknown cause for why reality is hat it is. They probably try to work that into the equation that creates the structure of their paradigm.

However there is also those that claim to have met God. Like Moses for example. The cases were people have an (religious)experience which seems to them real and they report it. Whatever gets reported seems a plausible explanation for existence certainly beyond any thing the follower could be aware of for themselves and gets worked into their personal paradigm of reality.

A little charisma explains the followers. It’s the “Prophets” if you would, which report first hand accounts of communicating with God which provides the fuel of religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

On a human level awareness is the foundation of problem solving. One is not motivated to solve a problem one is not aware exists. Thus awareness is the first step towards knowledge acquisition.

Psychologically speaking,“problem” is purely subjective term:  a “problem” only exists because a person CHOOSES to frame it as such.  Anything can be a “problem” if you define it as a problem; if other people don’t agree it does not necessarily mean they lack awareness.

Is that a criticism of my use of the term “problem”? 

On OMS level, problem solving is not an issue, thus awareness is simply a matter of existence acknowledgement. If ones existence encompasses everything else that exists then one will simply be aware of everything that exists. When temporality is not an issue, then awareness need not obviate in anything more complex since the problem of continued existence does not reach beyond temporality. In this respect it is not a matter of “being” aware but a simple awareness of “being”.

You haven’t answered the question of why such an entity is necessary.

Are you sure? I thought I did in my OP.

 

It soiunds as if you’re talking about the question of where does consciousness come from.  It’s a valid question and there are lots of theories about that.  However, I doubt that the earliest forms of conscious organisms possessed the cognitive sophistication to process “everything that exists”.  Most likely they were aware of “something” but whatever that was would have had to have been on an extremely basic level.

I never said any organism possessed any such cognitive capabilities. Nor did I say OMS processed anything in being aware of everything that exists. I tried to make a distinction between sentience, and two forms of awareness, which I believe is the basic foundation of sentience. 

Have you read the work of people like Daniel Dennett, who are conducting research on the origins of consciousness?

Bits and pieces.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 06:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02
whynot - 02 August 2010 05:45 PM

I have a standard I live by when talking to strangers. Based on the tone of this response, you fall well outside that standard.

Well that’s nice.  For once I am being open-minded and fair to a person with a different worldview (trust me, I am), just as the person who was suggesting Pantheism also, and we get accused of falling outside the standard.  Very interesting.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

It is my position that man is seeking a place to plant his feet. To say, “this is where my reality originates”. If I surrender the quest to science I am left with a string of transient theories that are infinitely regressive…that obviate in a final, “we don’t know”. A theory of everything is basically an historical explanation of reality. I can’t speak for you but my reality encompsses many more things than just an endless series of chemical equations, mathematical constituents and cosmological theories. A theory of everything must explain man’s history since it is man who is seeking. A theory of everything must provide a foundation that allows everyone to say…this is our history. It starts there and who knows where it will go from here.

Any such theory must absolve itself in something extremely unique. Else we’re back to infinite regress and “I don’t know”.

What’s wrong with just accepting “I don’t know” as the current reality?  (which isn’t to say one should abandon the quest)

Nothing. It’s a very big boat which we all share. But, again, what’s wrong with exploring other options.

Also, if you (or anyone) is truly interested in their beliefs lining up with truth, how can you justify going beyond “I don’t know” if there isn’t enough information to do so?

My use of the term “god”  in this theory has become a distraction. I did not set out to create another god, but a focal point for reduction to unify existing theory in a philosophical context. We go beyond “I don’t know” everyday. It’s called inferance. Hume’s criticisms notwithstanding, everytime we make a weather prediction we go beyond “I don’t know”.

Why do so many people seem to need to create a ‘story’ of some kind to fill up the gaps in our knowledge?

If someone actually devised a credible theory that really did unify all existing theories…how would it be expressed? How many people really understand fully Einstein’s theory of relativity, or special relativity? What gaps in our knowledge do you see this theory filling? Which gaps have I missed?

`

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01

One key question I think you should ask is why do you need to include a god in your theory. Why god?

If you took out the assumption that god is aware, then i think you would be a a Pantheist.

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

I take this to be a question of my personal position regarding the subject of gods. I am not a theist nor am I promoting any brand of theism. One doesn’t have to convert to theism to agree with any aspect of this theory. The very attributes I’ve ascribed to this god should be a clue. I tried to articulate, in another response, why I chose that specific title for this theory. The theory has nothing to do with creating a god, but with creating a foundation for unification of theories. Nothing more. If the title of the theory bothers you, change it. Call it whatever you like. But try to fathom the ideas contained in its postulates before you write it off as a search for some new brand of religion. That is all I can ask.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 08:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Gnostikosis - 02 August 2010 05:35 PM
whynot - 02 August 2010 09:45 AM

What does it mean to be “aware” (one of your points) for “eternity”?

I almost missed this very good question. I’ll try to define it in context with this theory. I’ll do so from three perspectives, so to speak.

On a human level I’ll use analogy to get at the meaning. It’s like the first time we come to our sense of mortality. A teenager who survives a car accident or experiences the death of a friend or close family member. That very sobering sense that says, “hey, I’m not indestructible.”

On a simpler level, say a single celled organism, it’s an interpretational construct derived from observation of the cells behavior. It’s defense mechanisms, niche in the food chain specifics, and procreation or cell division. All speak to a set of drivers we call the instinct of survival. Elements of a sobering sense of mortality/temporality.

In respect to OMS, being eternal mitigates against awareness being a function of survival, thus it must serve some other, more basic, function. On a human level awareness is the foundation of problem solving. One is not motivated to solve a problem one is not aware exists. Thus awareness is the first step towards knowledge acquisition. On OMS level, problem solving is not an issue, thus awareness is simply a matter of existence acknowledgement. If ones existence encompasses everything else that exists then one will simply be aware of everything that exists. When temporality is not an issue, then awareness need not obviate in anything more complex since the problem of continued existence does not reach beyond temporality. In this respect it is not a matter of “being” aware but a simple awareness of “being”.

Just to toss it out there. The mechanism of awareness seems to me to be one of memory. As we recall an experience which includes our own part in the event we are aware of what has occurred. Whatever mental images and impressions that we bring up about an event and make decisions from/alter behavior.

I suspect that we are not actually aware at the exact moment of existing. Awareness happens after the we review the event mentally even if a few milli-seconds after. In which case there is nothing needed for awareness other then the ability to recall images/perceptions from the past.

A computer with sufficient perceptory input and the ability to recall that information would be aware/self aware if it could perceive it’s own involvement if any at the time of the event.

i.e. a computer which recalled making a decision at a specific time would be self-aware.

Being aware for eternity would then require the ability to recall every event the entity(God) experienced. Seems that this is expressed by the concept of omniscient.

I suspect memory is one of those brain functions that evolved along with our other mental faculties as a survival mechanism. Being able to recall the pertinent circumstances that led up to an unpleasant experience helps us not to duplicate those circumstances. I’d say awareness, like the sensations from our pleasure/pain centers, is more immediate and ongoing. For a being that is eternal, survivability is not an issue thus memory is too complex a mechanism for awareness on that level.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Mriana - 02 August 2010 06:20 PM
whynot - 02 August 2010 05:45 PM

I have a standard I live by when talking to strangers. Based on the tone of this response, you fall well outside that standard.

Well that’s nice.  For once I am being open-minded and fair to a person with a different worldview (trust me, I am), just as the person who was suggesting Pantheism also, and we get accused of falling outside the standard.  Very interesting.

Whoa, hold on there mriana. That response was not made to you or anything you said. It was a response to a poster who called himself vladimir something or another in post number 13 on page 1. How did you come to the conclusion I was responding to anyone but the person who submitted post number 13?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Mriana - 02 August 2010 12:40 PM

Whynot, why not take a look at Pantheism and see what you think:

http://www.pantheism.net

and

http://www.pantheist.net

I wonder if this might be something you may find more satisfying for you.  Of course, that is, if I understand your post right.  I’m not sure that I do.  It all sounds confusing to me.

Thanx for the recommendation but I’m not seeking another religious expression. This OP is a tad more than another theist angling for a fight over his particular god. I’m not a theist, deist, pantheist, or muslim. No classical gods for me thank you. I’m just an honest seeker exploring all the avenues. But thanks for caring.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  633
Joined  2007-12-10
whynot - 02 August 2010 08:14 AM

[

Sentience is an observable attribute of our reality. If this theory does not account for abstracts as well, then what use is it?

I should have stated more clearly that I don’t believe qualia exist.

 Signature 

Dan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2010 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7593
Joined  2007-03-02
whynot - 02 August 2010 08:24 PM
Mriana - 02 August 2010 06:20 PM
whynot - 02 August 2010 05:45 PM

I have a standard I live by when talking to strangers. Based on the tone of this response, you fall well outside that standard.

Well that’s nice.  For once I am being open-minded and fair to a person with a different worldview (trust me, I am), just as the person who was suggesting Pantheism also, and we get accused of falling outside the standard.  Very interesting.

Whoa, hold on there mriana. That response was not made to you or anything you said. It was a response to a poster who called himself vladimir something or another in post number 13 on page 1. How did you come to the conclusion I was responding to anyone but the person who submitted post number 13?

I took the “you” as plural.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 12
2
 
‹‹ A Religion for Atheists?      LOL... :) ››