So one of the biggest issues in a world without God is that we do not observe life from non-life. We have no examples of abiogenesis, andit is a difficult concept to envision for most.
"How did the first life arise?" so the argument goes, "and only God could create life."
I believe I have solved the problem.
God does not fit into any definition of life, or being alive.
God is not alive, even under the most broad interpretation of life, therefore, even assuming that life must come from life, God is a non-living thing that must generate it.
So, the argument that only life can produce life, falls flat even allowing that God created it.
Here is a refresher for those who don't remember what it is to live:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
Special thanks to "DrNoGods" for inspiring this post.
Life from non-life
Moderator: Moderators
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Life from non-life
Post #61Replying to post 59 by William
William: "I understand the mistake you make here in your reasoning is that you are attempting to remove consciousness from this reality and then claim the reality would still exist, but not understanding that in order for anything to be acknowledged to exist, consciousness is required."
I don't think you do understand.
The point is that reality is whether acknowledged or not. For instance, the planet Uranus existed even when no one knew about it.
William: "Are you claiming that this reality we think we are experiencing, does not exist, therefore GOD does not exist?"
No, I am stating that God, whether existent or not, has not been demonstrated, and is not required to explain reality.
William: "It isn't about the definitions which make it pointless to continue trying to discuss. It is that you already have your mind made up on the subject and are unwilling to budge. you believe without a shadow of a doubt that you are the sum total of neural feedback loops and chemical reactions."
Strawman! You are claiming to read my mind and imputing to me your own mindset. I say that neural feedbacks and chemistry can explain my consciousness without any necessity for a deity. Provide evidence otherwise?
You are claiming the right to redefine words a la Humpty Dumpty. If life is consciousness it would be cruel to boil cabbage. If life is God it would be sacrilege.
William: "If I could suggest to you experiments you might be able to perform which may induce doubt in you, I would. But my experiencing in interacting with people of faith is that unless they choose of their own volition to be curious, they will simply stay in their safe bubble of conviction (a kind of 'feedback loop' itself) and no amount of attempt at discussion etc will change that.
I am reminded of childhood: I was going to, but now I won't! It is not for me to suggest experiments. You claim life after death, (whatever that means), is possible. You provide no evidence. Near death experience is brain chemistry and can be induced artificially.
I am willing to accept evidence. You, I think, cannot provide such.
Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or it may be found a little draughty. " The Note-Books of Samuel Butler, The New Quarterly 1908
William: "I understand the mistake you make here in your reasoning is that you are attempting to remove consciousness from this reality and then claim the reality would still exist, but not understanding that in order for anything to be acknowledged to exist, consciousness is required."
I don't think you do understand.
The point is that reality is whether acknowledged or not. For instance, the planet Uranus existed even when no one knew about it.
William: "Are you claiming that this reality we think we are experiencing, does not exist, therefore GOD does not exist?"
No, I am stating that God, whether existent or not, has not been demonstrated, and is not required to explain reality.
William: "It isn't about the definitions which make it pointless to continue trying to discuss. It is that you already have your mind made up on the subject and are unwilling to budge. you believe without a shadow of a doubt that you are the sum total of neural feedback loops and chemical reactions."
Strawman! You are claiming to read my mind and imputing to me your own mindset. I say that neural feedbacks and chemistry can explain my consciousness without any necessity for a deity. Provide evidence otherwise?
You are claiming the right to redefine words a la Humpty Dumpty. If life is consciousness it would be cruel to boil cabbage. If life is God it would be sacrilege.
William: "If I could suggest to you experiments you might be able to perform which may induce doubt in you, I would. But my experiencing in interacting with people of faith is that unless they choose of their own volition to be curious, they will simply stay in their safe bubble of conviction (a kind of 'feedback loop' itself) and no amount of attempt at discussion etc will change that.
I am reminded of childhood: I was going to, but now I won't! It is not for me to suggest experiments. You claim life after death, (whatever that means), is possible. You provide no evidence. Near death experience is brain chemistry and can be induced artificially.
I am willing to accept evidence. You, I think, cannot provide such.
Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or it may be found a little draughty. " The Note-Books of Samuel Butler, The New Quarterly 1908
-
Inigo Montoya
- Guru
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm
Re: Life from non-life
Post #62[Replying to post 61 by TSGracchus]
So when you say, "No, I am stating that God, whether existent or not, has not been demonstrated, and is not required to explain reality.." you're missing the safe space William lives in. Consciousness exists and life exists, and since he equates both with God, then God has absolutely been demonstrated to exist. The idea, if anyone cared enough to do it, would be to show why it's nonsensical to accept the terms as synonymous.Rather I am saying that GOD and consciousness and life are synonymous
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Re: Life from non-life
Post #63[Replying to post 62 by Inigo Montoya]
This goes back to accepted definitions and their critical role in communicating. If William (or anyone else) is free to create his own personal definition of "god", then proceeds to equate that to something that obviously exists such as consciousness, then virtually any concept of god could be demonstrated to exist by definition.
I would argue that it is nonsensical to accept the terms in question as synonymous because this is based on a personal definition that deviates from the commonly accepted definitions of the word "god" as a specific deity or supernatural being (depending on the religion), rather than the very broad definition being offered by William). It expands the definition of "god" to the point that it is almost entirely arbitrary.
...you're missing the safe space William lives in. Consciousness exists and life exists, and since he equates both with God, then God has absolutely been demonstrated to exist. The idea, if anyone cared enough to do it, would be to show why it's nonsensical to accept the terms as synonymous.
This goes back to accepted definitions and their critical role in communicating. If William (or anyone else) is free to create his own personal definition of "god", then proceeds to equate that to something that obviously exists such as consciousness, then virtually any concept of god could be demonstrated to exist by definition.
I would argue that it is nonsensical to accept the terms in question as synonymous because this is based on a personal definition that deviates from the commonly accepted definitions of the word "god" as a specific deity or supernatural being (depending on the religion), rather than the very broad definition being offered by William). It expands the definition of "god" to the point that it is almost entirely arbitrary.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 16401
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non-life
Post #64[Replying to post 61 by TSGracchus]
The only reason we can interact together and discuss anything - including the planet Uranus - is because we exist. Indeed, 'Uranus' gets its name from consciousness as a means of identifying it from every other planet in the universe...or more specifically, in the local neighborhood.
The fact that the planet Uranus exists can only be determined by consciousness. Assuming the planet Uranus is not conscious of its own existence, whether it exists or not depends solely on consciousness acknowledging it.
It is the same with arguments about unicorns and leprechauns and invisible GODs etc. Skeptics argue that these don't exist because they are not consciously observable 'in reality', and saying these things 'do exist' even though we cannot acknowledge them as existing is seen to be fallacy.
The overall point being, is that if consciousness did not exist within this universe, then what would there be to say that this universe existed? Therefore this universe would not exist.
Your argument is that it should still exist anyway, which I also can agree with - understanding, as I do - that we are both existing within this universe, whereby it is impossible for us not to understand that the universe would still exist without us being within it or being aware of it, because we are experiencing it as a reality.
You are arguing that reality is something which doesn't have to be experienced in order for it to exist, and I am arguing that is not the case. It cannot be argued as real, if it is not experienced by consciousness as being real.
Therefore, your saying 'Information on whether GOD exists or does not exist is not required to explain reality' assumes that reality exists without a GOD, and also doesn't seem to take into consideration the possibility that the fact of the universe being a reality might be the very thing which demonstrates GOD exists.
I have read this claim before but have never had it explained to me why GOD is 'not required'. I think the claim is bogus.
Are you now saying that this is not what you believe at all?
...In relation to 'afterlife', what 'evidence' would you expect to see in order that you would change your (implied) belief that when your body dies, that will be the end of your experience of being?
So, with that in mind;
Q: Why do you suppose it would be 'cruel to boil cabbage'?
and;
Q: Why, 'If life is God' would it be 'sacrilege'?
All said and done, all the evidence is not in, so nor is there a need for a jury at this point, let alone a verdict.
Some prefer to interpret the evidence as being conclusive...my experiencing in interacting with people who do, is that unless they choose of their own volition to be curious, they will simply stay in their safe bubble of conviction (a kind of 'feedback loop' itself) and no amount of attempt at discussion etc will change that.
But really...you claim I made a strawman re your beliefs. The reader can clearly see that your position is in fact based upon belief, and while you protested, you also continued on the path of argument I said you were on.
I understand the point you are trying to make and am attempting to show you the error in your thinking, because you are not taking the reality of the existence of consciousness into account.I don't think you do understand.
The point is that reality is whether acknowledged or not. For instance, the planet Uranus existed even when no one knew about it.
The only reason we can interact together and discuss anything - including the planet Uranus - is because we exist. Indeed, 'Uranus' gets its name from consciousness as a means of identifying it from every other planet in the universe...or more specifically, in the local neighborhood.
The fact that the planet Uranus exists can only be determined by consciousness. Assuming the planet Uranus is not conscious of its own existence, whether it exists or not depends solely on consciousness acknowledging it.
It is the same with arguments about unicorns and leprechauns and invisible GODs etc. Skeptics argue that these don't exist because they are not consciously observable 'in reality', and saying these things 'do exist' even though we cannot acknowledge them as existing is seen to be fallacy.
The overall point being, is that if consciousness did not exist within this universe, then what would there be to say that this universe existed? Therefore this universe would not exist.
Your argument is that it should still exist anyway, which I also can agree with - understanding, as I do - that we are both existing within this universe, whereby it is impossible for us not to understand that the universe would still exist without us being within it or being aware of it, because we are experiencing it as a reality.
You are arguing that reality is something which doesn't have to be experienced in order for it to exist, and I am arguing that is not the case. It cannot be argued as real, if it is not experienced by consciousness as being real.
Assuming you are defining GOD as the creator of this universe, then it stands to reason that IF GOD exists, then GOD is required to explain why reality exists.No, I am stating that God, whether existent or not, has not been demonstrated, and is not required to explain reality.
Therefore, your saying 'Information on whether GOD exists or does not exist is not required to explain reality' assumes that reality exists without a GOD, and also doesn't seem to take into consideration the possibility that the fact of the universe being a reality might be the very thing which demonstrates GOD exists.
I have read this claim before but have never had it explained to me why GOD is 'not required'. I think the claim is bogus.
"It isn't about the definitions which make it pointless to continue trying to discuss. It is that you already have your mind made up on the subject and are unwilling to budge. you believe without a shadow of a doubt that you are the sum total of neural feedback loops and chemical reactions."
No, I do not think that is the case at all. Perhaps it is a matter of having misunderstood your position. I thought that is what you were saying. That you believed that you (and by association everyone) were nothing more than an emergent property of the brain due to neural looping and chemical reactions, and that when a person's brain died, then that was the end of the person. Afterlife did not exist and could not be experienced.Strawman! You are claiming to read my mind and imputing to me your own mindset.
Are you now saying that this is not what you believe at all?
See my argument further back in this post re that.I say that neural feedbacks and chemistry can explain my consciousness without any necessity for a deity.
There is no requirement to provide 'other' evidence in relation to GOD existing re my own theology on the matter but you are welcome to say why you think there should be. I imagine it will have something to do with what post #63 is complaining about...Provide evidence otherwise? .
...In relation to 'afterlife', what 'evidence' would you expect to see in order that you would change your (implied) belief that when your body dies, that will be the end of your experience of being?
It is all very well you spurting out this 'if/then' protestations, but you don't accompany these with any supporting examples. Without clarity, it appears to be nonsense.You are claiming the right to redefine words a la Humpty Dumpty. If life is consciousness it would be cruel to boil cabbage. .
So, with that in mind;
Q: Why do you suppose it would be 'cruel to boil cabbage'?
and;
Q: Why, 'If life is God' would it be 'sacrilege'?
I claim that my own experiences coupled with the large amount of subjective evidence in the form of other individual's own experiences to do with the subjective, allow for me to understand that 'life after death' - (as in the continuation of one's experience as an individual) is not just possible, but probable.It is not for me to suggest experiments. You claim life after death, (whatever that means), is possible.
Nor do I need to. If I could suggest to you experiments you might be able to perform which may induce doubt in you, I would...You provide no evidence.
From what I have read up on this, what is being induced artificially is in no way anything near the actual experiences which individuals - including myself - have encountered. There is far more funding going into more practical applications re scientific process which provide not only more definitive results, but are also quite profitable for the investors."Near death experience is brain chemistry and can be induced artificially.
All said and done, all the evidence is not in, so nor is there a need for a jury at this point, let alone a verdict.
Some prefer to interpret the evidence as being conclusive...my experiencing in interacting with people who do, is that unless they choose of their own volition to be curious, they will simply stay in their safe bubble of conviction (a kind of 'feedback loop' itself) and no amount of attempt at discussion etc will change that.
But really...you claim I made a strawman re your beliefs. The reader can clearly see that your position is in fact based upon belief, and while you protested, you also continued on the path of argument I said you were on.
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Re: Life from non-life
Post #65[Replying to post 64 by William]
Ok William, thought experiment.
If all humans died somehow, disease or meteor or something, what happens to the universe? Does it just wink out of existence?
What if all humans disappeared except one person but they are in a coma? Does that count? They're not technically conscious or observing their surroundings but their body and mind are alive. Does the universe still exist?
What if all humans disappeared but animals that have demonstrated higher levels of consciousness remain to observe the universe? Like the great apes, dolphins, etc. These animals have learned to recognize themselves in mirrors, they form memories and have language. An ape may not understand Uranus but if they looked up at the right moment they would observe it in the night sky. Are they conscious enough to ensure that Uranus and indeed the rest of the universe continue to exist?
Ok, what if they disappeared and only fish remain? Or if only insects remain?
Or what if only bacteria remain to observe the universe? What if only amino acids and proteins remain? What if only hydrogen and helium and carbon remain? What if only electrons remain?
My point is, you have arbitrarily decided that for some reason human consciousness is what is somehow keeping the universe going. It is 100% probable that humans will go extinct at some point, so what happens to the universe the moment after the last human dies? Where does all that matter and energy go? For that matter, where was it before consciousness came into being?
Ok William, thought experiment.
If all humans died somehow, disease or meteor or something, what happens to the universe? Does it just wink out of existence?
What if all humans disappeared except one person but they are in a coma? Does that count? They're not technically conscious or observing their surroundings but their body and mind are alive. Does the universe still exist?
What if all humans disappeared but animals that have demonstrated higher levels of consciousness remain to observe the universe? Like the great apes, dolphins, etc. These animals have learned to recognize themselves in mirrors, they form memories and have language. An ape may not understand Uranus but if they looked up at the right moment they would observe it in the night sky. Are they conscious enough to ensure that Uranus and indeed the rest of the universe continue to exist?
Ok, what if they disappeared and only fish remain? Or if only insects remain?
Or what if only bacteria remain to observe the universe? What if only amino acids and proteins remain? What if only hydrogen and helium and carbon remain? What if only electrons remain?
My point is, you have arbitrarily decided that for some reason human consciousness is what is somehow keeping the universe going. It is 100% probable that humans will go extinct at some point, so what happens to the universe the moment after the last human dies? Where does all that matter and energy go? For that matter, where was it before consciousness came into being?
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 16401
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non-life
Post #66[Replying to post 65 by DeMotts]
This has to do with the belief that consciousness is emergent of the brain and basically the product of a 'feedback loop' in neural systems and chemical interactions.
Instead of taking everything I wrote in context, you chose to take one part of what I wrote and slew of the track with that, which resulted in your posting your 'thought experiment' based upon that out of context bit.
Slew on back if you will and make the effort to take everything I write in the context it is written.
But no one can tell just by looking, that consciousness did not exist before the universe, or even before the Earth became what is currently is.
You are missing the point I am making Demotts, and the reason for this is underlined in your very last sentence, where the assumption made is that consciousness 'came into being.'My point is, you have arbitrarily decided that for some reason human consciousness is what is somehow keeping the universe going. It is 100% probable that humans will go extinct at some point, so what happens to the universe the moment after the last human dies? Where does all that matter and energy go? For that matter, where was it before consciousness came into being?
This has to do with the belief that consciousness is emergent of the brain and basically the product of a 'feedback loop' in neural systems and chemical interactions.
Instead of taking everything I wrote in context, you chose to take one part of what I wrote and slew of the track with that, which resulted in your posting your 'thought experiment' based upon that out of context bit.
Slew on back if you will and make the effort to take everything I write in the context it is written.
I label life as that which responds to the reality as a means of acknowledging that reality. Biologists only identify life or 'the living' in that which is biodegradable. Essentially, that which is dying is called 'living' and 'life'.The overall point being, is that if consciousness did not exist within this universe, then what would there be to say that this universe existed? Therefore this universe would not exist.
Your argument is that it should still exist anyway, which I also can agree with - understanding, as I do - that we are both existing within this universe, whereby it is impossible for us not to understand that the universe would still exist without us being within it or being aware of it, because we are experiencing it as a reality.
You are arguing that reality is something which doesn't have to be experienced in order for it to exist, and I am arguing that is not the case. It cannot be argued as real, if it is not experienced by consciousness as being real.
But no one can tell just by looking, that consciousness did not exist before the universe, or even before the Earth became what is currently is.
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Re: Life from non-life
Post #67[Replying to post 66 by William]
Your point is extremely convoluted. You can't or won't define consciousness and then declare that it is necessary for the existence of the universe, lest it would not be observed. Here's the critical part of what you said:
Or are you just making some sort of anthropic principle type argument here, where if we weren't around to observe the universe then we wouldn't be around to observe the universe. If so then yawn.
Your point is extremely convoluted. You can't or won't define consciousness and then declare that it is necessary for the existence of the universe, lest it would not be observed. Here's the critical part of what you said:
When you say "experienced by consciousness" I am asking experienced by WHAT or WHOM? Reality can be experienced by a bunch of quarks and it would still be reality to those quarks. Does it have to be experienced by a living being? Does that living being have to be able to comprehend what is happening?You are arguing that reality is something which doesn't have to be experienced in order for it to exist, and I am arguing that is not the case. It cannot be argued as real, if it is not experienced by consciousness as being real.
Or are you just making some sort of anthropic principle type argument here, where if we weren't around to observe the universe then we wouldn't be around to observe the universe. If so then yawn.
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 16401
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non-life
Post #68[Replying to post 67 by DeMotts]
In relation to individuate human experience - that equates to an aspect of GOD-Consciousness divested into the human form.
Same overall reality being experienced, just different aspects of it. The form is what allows for this to be possible.
No matter, the idea is that it is the same consciousness (GOD) experiencing different aspects of the same reality (universe). LIFE is what is having the experience, rather than LIFE is the forms through which the experience is being had.
Such as thinking that biological critters are the only things 'living' and that the planet itself is 'dead'.
I prefer to understand that there is no reason to think that the earth itself is not a living, self aware creator entity - an aspect of GOD-consciousness imbued within the actual planet, experiencing what is it to BE a planet. The result of the experience is the evolution of biological critters, due to the corresponding factors which allow for the possibility.
My Members Notes go into far more detail regarding this idea; See the following links from more on that.
Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
Timelessness vs infinite regress argument
Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?
Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.
The Earth Entity
No it is not.Your point is extremely convoluted.
I have. I defined it as 'LIFE'.You can't or won't define consciousness...
What I assert is that the declaration that "GOD does not = LIFE", which has been stated re the OP, is not a given....and then declare that it is necessary for the existence of the universe, lest it would not be observed.
Here's the critical part of what you said:
You are arguing that reality is something which doesn't have to be experienced in order for it to exist, and I am arguing that is not the case. It cannot be argued as real, if it is not experienced by consciousness as being real.
A: By GOD-ConsciousnessWhen you say "experienced by consciousness" I am asking experienced by WHAT or WHOM?
In relation to individuate human experience - that equates to an aspect of GOD-Consciousness divested into the human form.
The aspect of reality experienced by consciousness within the form of quarks would be a different experience than that of human. Even the reality of a dolphin would be different from that of a human.Reality can be experienced by a bunch of quarks and it would still be reality to those quarks.
Same overall reality being experienced, just different aspects of it. The form is what allows for this to be possible.
No matter, the idea is that it is the same consciousness (GOD) experiencing different aspects of the same reality (universe). LIFE is what is having the experience, rather than LIFE is the forms through which the experience is being had.
What else can experience anything? the 'living being' is simply that which is having the experience. Conflating that with the form is what causes the confusion and allows for the idea that some things are living while other things are not.Does it have to be experienced by a living being?
Such as thinking that biological critters are the only things 'living' and that the planet itself is 'dead'.
I prefer to understand that there is no reason to think that the earth itself is not a living, self aware creator entity - an aspect of GOD-consciousness imbued within the actual planet, experiencing what is it to BE a planet. The result of the experience is the evolution of biological critters, due to the corresponding factors which allow for the possibility.
On the contrary. The universe has to have been created by consciousness. It simply couldn't have magically appeared out of 'nowhere'.Or are you just making some sort of anthropic principle type argument here, where if we weren't around to observe the universe then we wouldn't be around to observe the universe. If so then yawn.
My Members Notes go into far more detail regarding this idea; See the following links from more on that.
Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
Timelessness vs infinite regress argument
Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?
Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.
The Earth Entity
-
DeMotts
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Re: Life from non-life
Post #69[Replying to post 68 by William]
I guess your argument isn't convoluted, but the language you're using to describe it is extremely convoluted. Example:
The universe MUST have been created by an omnipotent giraffe. It simply couldn't have been accomplished by a zebra.
I appreciate that you've clearly given this a lot of thought and you feel passionate about your explanations. I think what I'm struggling with here is that you are redefining terms to suit whatever purpose you require of them (i.e. what is life, what is consciousness, what does self-aware mean) and then giving a completely untestable, unprovable, and totally immovable explanation that leaps with complete confidence to the conclusion that a god consciousness is somehow necessary to make it all function.
Reality is weird. I'm perfectly fine admitting I don't know how it all works. I don't see the need to assert with total confidence an entity that I can't demonstrate, to satisfy a premise that I've concocted.
I guess your argument isn't convoluted, but the language you're using to describe it is extremely convoluted. Example:
How does god divest humans of consciousness? He's depriving humans of consciousness? He is stripping them of it somehow? It's grammatically impossible to divest into something.In relation to individuate human experience - that equates to an aspect of GOD-Consciousness divested into the human form.
The phrasing of this makes me think that we agree, yes the aspects of reality experienced by quarks would indeed be different but it would be "experienced" nonetheless. The quark is an observer is the same way any particle, or collection of particles is.The aspect of reality experienced by consciousness within the form of quarks would be a different experience than that of human.
Same overall reality being experienced, just different aspects of it. The form is what allows for this to be possible.
This is silliness and throws away any scientific definition of the term self-aware. If you want to think that the earth knows it's a planet then bully for you, but that's just an assertion backed up by nothing testable or falsifiable. What qualities of self-awareness does the earth have? Is it capable of introspection? Can it recognize itself as an individual separate from other individuals? What would this even mean? Can it recognize that is it a planet and compare it's experience to other planets? Can it understand it's own character, feelings, motives, desires? These are the hallmarks of the classic definition of self-awareness. If you want to make up some other definition that suits your comparison then fine, but at least acknowledge that you're redefining terms that have be universally accepted and defined by academia.I prefer to understand that there is no reason to think that the earth itself is not a living, self aware creator entity - an aspect of GOD-consciousness imbued within the actual planet, experiencing what is it to BE a planet.
You're arguing two completely separate things here. Firstly you are asserting that the universe HAS to have been created deliberately, which is of course unprovable. And then you're creating a strawman that suggests the alternative explanation you are debating is that it magically appeared out of nowhere. Nobody said that was the case either. Look I can do it too:On the contrary. The universe has to have been created by consciousness. It simply couldn't have magically appeared out of 'nowhere'.
The universe MUST have been created by an omnipotent giraffe. It simply couldn't have been accomplished by a zebra.
I appreciate that you've clearly given this a lot of thought and you feel passionate about your explanations. I think what I'm struggling with here is that you are redefining terms to suit whatever purpose you require of them (i.e. what is life, what is consciousness, what does self-aware mean) and then giving a completely untestable, unprovable, and totally immovable explanation that leaps with complete confidence to the conclusion that a god consciousness is somehow necessary to make it all function.
Reality is weird. I'm perfectly fine admitting I don't know how it all works. I don't see the need to assert with total confidence an entity that I can't demonstrate, to satisfy a premise that I've concocted.
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Life from non-life
Post #70[Replying to post 68 by William]
I think the confusion arises, William, from your misuse of terms. There is one reality. Reality is conscious because I am in it. But my fingernails are not conscious because they are not alive. My brain is self-conscious (although imperfectly) because it is aware of itself as part of its memory. In fact the consciousness is simply the feedback loops of the neural network. But not all feedbacks are consciousness. I (actually we, trillions of cells) am conscious but only in the sense that neurotransmitters are bridging synaptic gaps.
In any case, no creator god, no supernatural, no metaphysics is necessary.
But to be useful, definitions must carefully limit the subspaces of reality they refer to. Spacetime is all one thing but its subspaces can be more or less distinct, even if continuous.
I think the confusion arises, William, from your misuse of terms. There is one reality. Reality is conscious because I am in it. But my fingernails are not conscious because they are not alive. My brain is self-conscious (although imperfectly) because it is aware of itself as part of its memory. In fact the consciousness is simply the feedback loops of the neural network. But not all feedbacks are consciousness. I (actually we, trillions of cells) am conscious but only in the sense that neurotransmitters are bridging synaptic gaps.
In any case, no creator god, no supernatural, no metaphysics is necessary.
But to be useful, definitions must carefully limit the subspaces of reality they refer to. Spacetime is all one thing but its subspaces can be more or less distinct, even if continuous.
