The mind as evidence of god

[JoeyKnothead]

Recently in another thread, someone said such as...

"The mind is evidence of God."

For debate:
Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

Please remember this section of the site doesn't consider the bible authoritative.

[William]

It looks to me like your rationale needs a total overhaul.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #68]

Correct. It's a hypothesis, even has legs. I have argued myself before now that a cosmic mind is not logically impossible. But evidence is needed and us having awareness does not mean that the Cosmos is aware.

Nor does us having awareness exclude the possibility. That is why the hypothesis remains on the table. "The mind is possible evidence of a Cosmic Mind [aka "GOD"]"

Especially as animal evolution is a better hypothesis for human consciousness than sharing in some postulated Space -mind.

What came first - the human specie or the Cosmos? The answer is the Cosmos, and given the argument re the idea that "the more time one has, the more we can appreciate how mind might emerge from matter" - the time involved in the formation of the Cosmos far exceeds the time involved in the formation of Earth-Life, and the principle idea that "time + matter could = emergence of consciousness" can be applied equally to the development of a mindful Cosmos as it is to development of a mindful human.

To insist the one while rejecting the other, smacks of the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's current beliefs or values.

aka: "Confirmation bias"

It is only because of organised religion that I am activist, because a deist god doesn't bother us, man made religions do.

GM: Creatio Ex Nihilo [(Latin for "creation out of nothing") is the doctrine that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act.]
Genius
You Are Nobodies Victim Ever.

William: Yes - being offended by something which may well be deception, makes one a victim of the "offensive". The smart thing to do is to be logical in regard to the data of nature. [DoN]
Atheists support the doctrine of "Something from nothing" as do a lot of Theist Christians. Yet their opposition to one another contradicts itself as one side is saying that Creatio Ex Nihilo proves that a creator mind is unnecessary while they other side claims that Creatio Ex Nihilo proves a creator mind is necessary.
The truth is, Creatio Ex Nihilo as a concept [which is what it is] doesn't inform us either way but shares the same unnecessary magical quality.
As such, the concept is more likely a deception than a truth. {SOURCE}

The thing I appreciate about my daily Generated Messages, it the take-home value these gift to me. I am consistently exposed to and learning from the data said process delivers.

Your problems with religion have nothing to do with whether there is a Cosmic Mind or not, and therefore, do not belong on the table for discussion.

The above is also;
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #70]

[TRANSPONDER]

It looks to me like your rationale needs a total overhaul.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #68]

Correct. It's a hypothesis, even has legs. I have argued myself before now that a cosmic mind is not logically impossible. But evidence is needed and us having awareness does not mean that the Cosmos is aware.

Nor does us having awareness exclude the possibility. That is why the hypothesis remains on the table. "The mind is possible evidence of a Cosmic Mind [aka "GOD"]"

Especially as animal evolution is a better hypothesis for human consciousness than sharing in some postulated Space -mind.

What came first - the human specie or the Cosmos? The answer is the Cosmos, and given the argument re the idea that "the more time one has, the more we can appreciate how mind might emerge from matter" - the time involved in the formation of the Cosmos far exceeds the time involved in the formation of Earth-Life, and the principle idea that "time + matter could = emergence of consciousness" can be applied equally to the development of a mindful Cosmos as it is to development of a mindful human.

To insist the one while rejecting the other, smacks of the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's current beliefs or values.

aka: "Confirmation bias"

It is only because of organised religion that I am activist, because a deist god doesn't bother us, man made religions do.

GM: Creatio Ex Nihilo [(Latin for "creation out of nothing") is the doctrine that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act.]
Genius
You Are Nobodies Victim Ever.

William: Yes - being offended by something which may well be deception, makes one a victim of the "offensive". The smart thing to do is to be logical in regard to the data of nature. [DoN]
Atheists support the doctrine of "Something from nothing" as do a lot of Theist Christians. Yet their opposition to one another contradicts itself as one side is saying that Creatio Ex Nihilo proves that a creator mind is unnecessary while they other side claims that Creatio Ex Nihilo proves a creator mind is necessary.
The truth is, Creatio Ex Nihilo as a concept [which is what it is] doesn't inform us either way but shares the same unnecessary magical quality.
As such, the concept is more likely a deception than a truth. {SOURCE}

The thing I appreciate about my daily Generated Messages, it the take-home value these gift to me. I am consistently exposed to and learning from the data said process delivers.

Your problems with religion have nothing to do with whether there is a Cosmic Mind or not, and therefore, do not belong on the table for discussion.

The above is also;
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #70]

An undisproved possibility does not really add up to a credible Hypothesis. It certainly does not make it the better let alone the default hypothesis. We are in the realm of Faith -claims when you talk of the cosmic Mind (never mind "God")

That is why to try to equate the emergence of life from non -life and consciousness from not consciousness with a Life and Consciousness in the Cosmos is - as I say - in the realms of faith -claims until you demonstrate any such thing to be. It is rather the faith -claim in a Cosmic Mind (Aka "God") that smacks of confirmation bias, not simply sticking to the material world we know as a hypothesis until you can demonstrate Something More.

Unbelievers can make a fair case for Victimisation at the hands of religion, but that aside. It is doubts about it that requires a pushback never mind the only to noticeable bad Effects it has that demands that we push back.

I learn all the time. That's one of my pleasures. It is rather the believers that never seem to remember what they learn. However, learn this, Sunshine - you do not get to tell me what's on the table for discussion.

[Goat]

How do we know this does not mean that all interaction, or even most interactions with each other produce consciousness?

And to the actual point of my writing "It might be that matter/energy [mattergy?] is also conscious and consciousness did not emerge from it, but is a fundamental property of it." this steps around the belief that Consciousness is emergent of Energy/Matter if E/M were never created.
Why?
Because if E/M is conscious, then consciousness must share the same 'was never created' property of E/M.

That is the logical conclusion one would have to make.

We know this though the use of MRI's that examine what happens to the brain when it gets stimulated. We know this from the examnation and effects of peoples thought processes, and emotions when they suffer strokes and traumatic brain injury.

[TRANSPONDER]

How do we know this does not mean that all interaction, or even most interactions with each other produce consciousness?

And to the actual point of my writing "It might be that matter/energy [mattergy?] is also conscious and consciousness did not emerge from it, but is a fundamental property of it." this steps around the belief that Consciousness is emergent of Energy/Matter if E/M were never created.
Why?
Because if E/M is conscious, then consciousness must share the same 'was never created' property of E/M.

That is the logical conclusion one would have to make.

We know this though the use of MRI's that examine what happens to the brain when it gets stimulated. We know this from the examnation and effects of peoples thought processes, and emotions when they suffer strokes and traumatic brain injury.

Yes. The argument has been made that damage or disease of the brain affects consciousness and thought. It can get messed up or cut off. One former opponent excused this as the 'radio -receiver' apologetic which said that the Cosmic Mind was transmitting thoughts into our heads, and our minds (receivers) can fail or garble (his term) the signal.

The thing about such excuses are that the simpler explanation - that the brain itself produces the thoughts (which moreover are individual rather than appearing to come from one broadcaster or "God"), and if the brain goes wrong or gets damaged, the thoughts stop or get messed up. Thus that is the simpler theory and is to be preferred, and the source from the Cosmic Mind (let alone being part of the Cosmic Mind) is the less probable or logically preferable hypothesis. So logically the natural theory tends to be the default and (again) the claim that a Cosmic Mind is doing it is a less probable hypothesis that needs validation, not a 'Given' belief until disproved.

Yet again Theism is rendered illogical by assuming as a given a 'god' that is the less probable theory and which requires better evidence than just a claim that it is not impossible (1) . Again and again it seems to be that Theism assumed 'god' (or the 'Cosmic Mind') as the default which unbelief has to disprove, when logically the natural explanation is the default (because we know that nature is there and much of how it works) and the burden of proof falls on Theism.
They really have a very hard time in understanding or accepting this. It is, of course, why they think (or at least insist) that it is atheism that has the burden of proof.

(1) cue various ID arguments. But no explanation means 'Nobody knows'. It doesn't mean 'God'.

[William]

[Replying to Goat in post #73]

You are only focused on human consciousness and how that can be measured. How does the measuring of human consciousness signify that Cosmic Mind does not/cannot exist?

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #73]

You are only focused on human consciousness and how that can be measured. How does the measuring of human consciousness signify that Cosmic Mind does not/cannot exist?

It shows what is required for mind. When it comes to 'cosmic mind', well, what is the model and theory that shows HOW a cosmic mind might exist. How can it be tested? What statement, if proven true, will falsify the concept of the cosmic mind?


What is the proposed mechanism that a cosmic mind could possibly exist?

Those details are lacking from the claim to show that it is a valid concept

[William]

[Replying to Goat in post #76]

The questions you ask do not in themselves signify that a Cosmic Mind does not exist. What they ask is IF such a mind does exist THEN by what mechanisms can we establish this to be the case?

Not having such mechanisms does not signify that human consciousness is therefore, emergent of the brain.

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat in post #76]

The questions you ask do not in themselves signify that a Cosmic Mind does not exist. What they ask is IF such a mind does exist THEN by what mechanisms can we establish this to be the case?

Not having such mechanisms does not signify that human consciousness is therefore, emergent of the brain.

Maybe not, but I can show that modifying the brain changes the mind. I can not show any mechanism that might allow for a 'cosmic mind'. In fact, no one can define this vague Cosmic Mind in any terms that can be meaningful, except for gobble gook.

I can show medical data that damage to the brain can effect the mind, the personality, and perception.

I can not even DEFINE what a cosimic mind is in a meaningful way.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Goat in post #76]

The questions you ask do not in themselves signify that a Cosmic Mind does not exist. What they ask is IF such a mind does exist THEN by what mechanisms can we establish this to be the case?

Not having such mechanisms does not signify that human consciousness is therefore, emergent of the brain.

The point is that if no velid evidence for a hypothesis (cosmic mind, or intelligent creation), then there is good (logical) reason to regard them as a second -best hypothesis.

If there is not even an explanatory mechanism, that makes it not even a hypothesis, but a mere claim. And it looks very much like a faith -claim, as if Faith wasn't involved, why make the claim?

[William]

[Replying to Goat in post #76]

The questions you ask do not in themselves signify that a Cosmic Mind does not exist. What they ask is IF such a mind does exist THEN by what mechanisms can we establish this to be the case?

Not having such mechanisms does not signify that human consciousness is therefore, emergent of the brain.

Maybe not, but I can show that modifying the brain changes the mind.

I can show that modifying anything changes something. I cannot say that knowing this truth somehow eliminates the possibility that Energy is intelligent.

I can not show any mechanism that might allow for a 'cosmic mind'.

The universe itself. What about the universe do you understand, that you can take that off the table and say that the universe cannot possibly act like a brain for the Cosmic Mind?

In fact, no one can define this vague Cosmic Mind [CM] in any terms that can be meaningful, except for gobble gook.

This would certainly be true in terms of sheer information held in the CM - such cannot be downloaded into a human brain without serious irreversible consequences.
However, small bytes over epochs can be integrated with the individuals understanding processes, and the language [of gobble gook] can be deciphered. All on a voluntary basis, of course...

I can show medical data that damage to the brain can effect the mind, the personality, and perception.

Well of course we can. The information is more accessible to us but this has no bearing on the question 'do we exist within a creation/is there a Cosmic Mind?"

I can not even DEFINE what a cosmic mind is in a meaningful way.

Why not? Is it because you are stubbornly atheist? Or because your brain isn't a capable devise for such purpose? Something else?

Be that as it may, our lack of device does not in any way preclude that a Cosmic Mind does not exist or that we do not exist within a creation.