Who Is God?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3097
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Fooloso4 » April 5th, 2018, 3:42 pm

Belindi:
Ah yes, being strongly absorbed in the present moment is the frame of mind that they call 'mindfulness meditation'. As I reply to you I'm strongly absorbed in replying clearly and thoughtfully as I can. I wonder what is the difference between my awareness when I write something philosophical, and when for instance what I did earlier today for instance when I looked closely at a horse chestnut bud to see how it was progressing, or for that matter when I was attending closely to a new recipe. Is it that being strongly absorbed in the present moment is attending to something that is actually and substantially present, whereas thinking something philosophical is jugggling ideas?
I think that philosophical thinking is very much in the moment, but others think it is not. They tell us to stop thinking so as to be in the moment. But that does not mean that when I am in the moment nothing else exists. I am painfully aware that my dog is sitting in the chair with me taking up too much room for me to be comfortable. But until I checked I was not aware of how much time has passed since I sat down to respond to posts. If eternity means to be outside of time then there is a sense in which to be in the moment is to be in eternity. But my dog is hungry and for her it has been an eternity in a temporal sense since she told me it is time for lunch.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Greta » April 5th, 2018, 6:46 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 12:24 pm
What might be the nature and qualities of this "fundamental intelligence" and how might it compare to ours?
It is the ability to self-organize, to form systems. Atoms are systems. The interaction of sub-atomic particles means that they are capable of forming atoms but I do not know if they are themselves systems. There are many orders of magnitude between the simplest intelligence and ours. At each level - atom, molecule, macromolecules, on up the system is capable of doing things the lower levels are not .
That reminds me of Kaku's proposed measure of what he referred to as "consciousness", citing a thermostat as something with a score of 1 because it does one thing - detects heat. While his idea is too simplistic (a thermostat, like any object, is doing far more on a subtle level than measuring heat) the principle makes sense to me.

I prefer the term "life" or "consciousness" in this context to "intelligent" because, while also being technically wrongly applied to particles, seems semantically more accurate. Even our deepest sleep would seem to be exponentially more complex and aware than our atoms, molecules and microbes. One would expect that a total organism, like any given society, is both more and less than the sum of its parts.
Fooloso4 wrote:
My first thought was the comparison between a bit and an operating system.
An operating system is a top down order. It uses bits as interchangeable “building blocks” that on their own cannot self-organize to form systems. Perhaps it is more like simple robots that combine to create more sophisticated robots that in turn combine ...
A good example of that is the emergence of multicellular organisms though the engulfment of a bacterium by an archaea and the colonial organs they constructed, starting with a metabolism, and then evolving additional supporting structures that became entire organs in themselves. Every organ is a "nation" of subject microbes aka cells, and they themselves have regions of different populations.

I think there is an odd disconnect where, semantically, people think of microbes as being "more alive" than individual cells, which are thought of more as building blocks than discrete beings. I see this view as profoundly wrong, especially as we humans appear to be undergoing an equivalent process of engulfment within our technology. Cells are far more complex than microbes and every bit as alive. It seems that our cells' dependence on the body diminishes them in our eyes but they are no more captive than microbes are by their colonies. Or, increasingly, no more than humans are dependent on societies. We were once more like "free swimming mitochondria" and in many societies, especially advanced east Asian societies, individuals are increasingly retreating from the crowds, traffic, pollution and relative danger of the outdoors for their "cells", which are increasingly self contained, with ever better connections to the outside world and ever more "resources" being home delivered.

Here Dawkins might note that life building themselves "survival machines" is more ubiquitous than novel. The main oddity with humans is that their intelligence allows them to run mental simulations and thus sidestep much of the trial-and-error of natural selection, making our progress in constructing extra survival features "unnaturally" fast. When AI becomes advanced enough to build ever more AI, a great deal more guesswork will be bypassed.

In context with the topic, I'd thus see God as being more likely to be a potential for beings, or maybe a composite being or sentient colony, rather than a manifest entity now (with the usual disclaimer about possible unknown strange dimensional circumstances).

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Greta » April 5th, 2018, 7:27 pm

Belindi wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 1:50 pm
I wonder what is the difference between my awareness when I write something philosophical, and when for instance what I did earlier today for instance when I looked closely at a horse chestnut bud to see how it was progressing, or for that matter when I was attending closely to a new recipe. Is it that being strongly absorbed in the present moment is attending to something that is actually and substantially present, whereas thinking something philosophical is juggling ideas?
I'm unsure, Belinda. There is the notion of "dreaming your life away" but in hindsight that just looks like the practical having one of their many digs at the impractical. In existential terms, it would seem that actions are ultimately differentiated qualitatively only by the connections involved. When people are lying on their deathbeds, they lose interest in trivia and increasingly their minds compress their life's information until they have ultimately boiled their lives down to their strongest connections.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by jerlands » April 5th, 2018, 10:07 pm

Greta wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 6:46 pm
The main oddity with humans is that their intelligence allows them to run mental simulations and thus sidestep much of the trial-and-error of natural selection, making our progress in constructing extra survival features "unnaturally" fast. When AI becomes advanced enough to build ever more AI, a great deal more guesswork will be bypassed.
AI is a pipedream like humans inhabiting mars. Our biology is of the earth and bound to the earth for a multitude of reasons. Intelligence isn't processing data but having physical intercourse with it producing a biological effect.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Greta » April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am

jerlands wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 10:07 pm
Greta wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 6:46 pm
The main oddity with humans is that their intelligence allows them to run mental simulations and thus sidestep much of the trial-and-error of natural selection, making our progress in constructing extra survival features "unnaturally" fast. When AI becomes advanced enough to build ever more AI, a great deal more guesswork will be bypassed.
AI is a pipedream like humans inhabiting mars. Our biology is of the earth and bound to the earth for a multitude of reasons. Intelligence isn't processing data but having physical intercourse with it producing a biological effect.
Humans on Mars is not probably going to happen, more likely AI. AI does not look like a pipe dream to me, despite your misplaced and unsupported confidence; world powers are well aware that the nation that cracks practical general AI first has a huge advantage over others, and much resources are being thrown into it.

January this year "the Chinese government announced that it will spend 13.8 billion yuan (US$2.1 billion) on an AI industrial park — the first major investment in its plan to become a world leader in the field by 2030" http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/ ... s-downside

http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-fi ... llion-2017

https://futurism.com/china-russia-and-t ... arms-race/

Like any computer, even a learning one, AI does not need human consciousness to be potent. A company or government with humans behind provides the consciousness, while AI's advantages are processing power and durability. Our biology, like AI, are not so much bound to the Earth as part of it, a relationship perhaps not miles from that of our cells and bioflora's relation to us.

Human culture and technology are still part of "nature", just that we have applied a semantic to the word "nature" to mean "not man-made". We are as rooted to the atmosphere with our lungs as plants are rooted to the Earth. However, we have learned to manipulate geology and biology to a much greater extent than other species.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by jerlands » April 6th, 2018, 2:21 am

Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am
jerlands wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 10:07 pm
AI is a pipedream like humans inhabiting mars. Our biology is of the earth and bound to the earth for a multitude of reasons. Intelligence isn't processing data but having physical intercourse with it producing a biological effect.
Humans on Mars is not probably going to happen, more likely AI. AI does not look like a pipe dream to me, despite your misplaced and unsupported confidence; world powers are well aware that the nation that cracks practical general AI first has a huge advantage over others, and much resources are being thrown into it.
All the robots in the world to do what? Fight fires, engage the enemy, construct buildings and the list goes on and on how robots can replace human activity but at what cost? Work is a beneficial activity for man and in fact is vital to his well being. What technology has brought is the potential to share knowledge and learn the way man should live his life. We can learn to live actively within our environment rather that ruthlessly on it. One of the greatest aspirations of man is to breath deeply.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am
Like any computer, even a learning one, AI does not need human consciousness to be potent. A company or government with humans behind provides the consciousness, while AI's advantages are processing power and durability. Our biology, like AI, are not so much bound to the Earth as part of it, a relationship perhaps not miles from that of our cells and bioflora's relation to us.
No, our biology is bound to this planet but we can send AI to any realm beyond our ability and that might be it's greatest potential aside from transportation
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am
Human culture and technology are still part of "nature", just that we have applied a semantic to the word "nature" to mean "not man-made". We are as rooted to the atmosphere with our lungs as plants are rooted to the Earth. However, we have learned to manipulate geology and biology to a much greater extent than other species.
All species have the ability to negatively impact their environment if not held in check. Man, being what he is, has the ultimate destructive capacity. I would hope you're aware of the real present threat our ignorance is currently presenting. I love technology for all its potential but I know I'd rather touch wood than plastic and that I'd like to preserve.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1439
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Belindi » April 6th, 2018, 4:37 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
I think that philosophical thinking is very much in the moment, but others think it is not. They tell us to stop thinking so as to be in the moment. But that does not mean that when I am in the moment nothing else exists. I am painfully aware that my dog is sitting in the chair with me taking up too much room for me to be comfortable. But until I checked I was not aware of how much time has passed since I sat down to respond to posts. If eternity means to be outside of time then there is a sense in which to be in the moment is to be in eternity. But my dog is hungry and for her it has been an eternity in a temporal sense since she told me it is time for lunch.

Maybe neuroscientists or psychologists know, whether or not thinking of two matters at once is an alternating or a direct current of thought.In either case I doubt if your hungry importunate dog impaired your cerebrations to any significant degree despite philosophy's being diluted with dog needs.

I'm told that mindfulness meditation is not for example focusing one line of thought upon any matter or two or three, but is allowing thoughts to come and go whilst using some sensory stimulant for sensory control not cerebratory control. What I was thinking about the horse chestnut bud was not mindfulness meditation therefore but was a sort of scientific enquiry. Similarly with you and your two simultaneous ( or alternating ) concerns, both of them involving your focused attention.

I guess that when meditation teachers say "in the moment" what they mean is not focus of thought on to practical concerns but rather application of thought to the selected sensory stimulus alone devoid of interpretation so as to un-focus the thought. I gather that they don't refer to day -dreaming (reverie ) either as that activity can be very focused.

Regarding God, my thought about God is focused and draws upon philosophy, history, and anthropology, and this seems to be the sort of thought that is common to most posters on this website, although some believe it to be okay also to refer to religious authorisation.

It seems to me that our modern cultures have disbanded God religions. That's why the question in the title is an important one, that's to say if religion is necessary for any society's survival. I'd despair if communism, or Americanism, or fascism, were to take the place of religion.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Greta » April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am

jerlands wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 2:21 am
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am

Humans on Mars is not probably going to happen, more likely AI. AI does not look like a pipe dream to me, despite your misplaced and unsupported confidence; world powers are well aware that the nation that cracks practical general AI first has a huge advantage over others, and much resources are being thrown into it.
All the robots in the world to do what? Fight fires, engage the enemy, construct buildings and the list goes on and on how robots can replace human activity but at what cost? Work is a beneficial activity for man and in fact is vital to his well being. What technology has brought is the potential to share knowledge and learn the way man should live his life. We can learn to live actively within our environment rather that ruthlessly on it. One of the greatest aspirations of man is to breath deeply.
I'm not looking at what is nice of helpful or wanted, I'm looking at what appears to be actually happening.

If we could "learn to live actively within our environment rather that ruthlessly on it" I think we would have done. Our track record says that we cannot do it and the trend is actually towards empowerment of those who care nothing for nature and diminution of those who do care. Look at the world leadership - Trump, who spent most of his career taking environmental agencies to court for the right to replace nature with human made things. How about Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin? Do you see people there who give a damn about the environment? Even here in little Australia, our government has formed a breakaway group (the Monash Group) dedicated to increasing coal fired power stations and removing assistance given to the sustainable energy industry. They might as well wear badges saying, "The Fossil Fuel Bought Me".

Still, consider that Hinduism's Shiva the Destroyer was also known as the Renewer. After each extinction event on Earth, life bounced back quickly and produced ever more complex and sophisticated organisms.
jerlands wrote:
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am
Our biology, like AI, are not so much bound to the Earth as part of it, a relationship perhaps not miles from that of our cells and bioflora's relation to us.
No, our biology is bound to this planet but we can send AI to any realm beyond our ability and that might be it's greatest potential aside from transportation
Then again, you can send your sperm outside of your body to fertilise any female sufficiently alluring and compliant :)
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am
I would hope you're aware of the real present threat our ignorance is currently presenting. I love technology for all its potential but I know I'd rather touch wood than plastic and that I'd like to preserve.
Just because I speak about what appears to be the case does not mean that I like it. Do I seem like a salesperson type to you? Do you think I only pitch my preferred options rather than sincerely being interested in what is happening?

This is at least one reason why scientists deride philosophy - to many people saying what they want to be the case rather than what they think would be the case.

For the record, I went through your phase of fear and loathing from the 1980s up to a few years ago. I was angry and upset with inequality, the destruction of nature and unattended population problems. Then I retired, alone and free, and finally had the time to think about all those little questions that I'd put aside while pretending to be busy.

The issue is that the Earth is doomed. In a billion years' time the oceans will have boiled off due to our ageing Sun. Given that surface life will seemingly be eliminated long before that time, this means that the 4 billion year-old biosphere is now in its old age. If the Earth's material does not find its way to other worlds, then this entire journey of life on Earth will be over with no legacy, no aftermath, simply obliterated when the Earth heats up to the point that its surface becomes molten like Venus.

You believe in God. Do you think that It would want such obliteration or would it seem more likely that the deity would rather that intelligence proliferate where it can?

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by jerlands » April 6th, 2018, 6:18 am

Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
jerlands wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 2:21 am

All the robots in the world to do what? Fight fires, engage the enemy, construct buildings and the list goes on and on how robots can replace human activity but at what cost? Work is a beneficial activity for man and in fact is vital to his well being. What technology has brought is the potential to share knowledge and learn the way man should live his life. We can learn to live actively within our environment rather that ruthlessly on it. One of the greatest aspirations of man is to breath deeply.
I'm not looking at what is nice of helpful or wanted, I'm looking at what appears to be actually happening.
You're following a train of thought like log on a shoot.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
If we could "learn to live actively within our environment rather that ruthlessly on it" I think we would have done. Our track record says that we cannot do it and the trend is actually towards empowerment of those who care nothing for nature and diminution of those who do care. Look at the world leadership - Trump, who spent most of his career taking environmental agencies to court for the right to replace nature with human made things. How about Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin? Do you see people there who give a damn about the environment? Even here in little Australia, our government has formed a breakaway group (the Monash Group) dedicated to increasing coal fired power stations and removing assistance given to the sustainable energy industry. They might as well wear badges saying, "The Fossil Fuel Bought Me".
You here are the doom-and-gloomer. It takes a long time to turn a vessel because of the way.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
Still, consider that Hinduism's Shiva the Destroyer was also known as the Renewer. After each extinction event on Earth, life bounced back quickly and produced ever more complex and sophisticated organisms.
I frankly would like to avoid catastrophe.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
jerlands wrote: No, our biology is bound to this planet but we can send AI to any realm beyond our ability and that might be it's greatest potential aside from transportation
jerlands wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 10:07 pm
Intelligence isn't processing data but having physical intercourse with it producing a biological effect.
Then again, you can send your sperm outside of your body to fertilise any female sufficiently alluring and compliant :)
I was talking about man's physiological experience in relation to what a machine might experience. But, go ahead... PM me your photo :)
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 1:23 am
I would hope you're aware of the real present threat our ignorance is currently presenting. I love technology for all its potential but I know I'd rather touch wood than plastic and that I'd like to preserve.
Just because I speak about what appears to be the case does not mean that I like it. Do I seem like a salesperson type to you? Do you think I only pitch my preferred options rather than sincerely being interested in what is happening?
If you were really interested I'd think you'd be more of an activist.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
This is at least one reason why scientists deride philosophy - to many people saying what they want to be the case rather than what they think would be the case.

For the record, I went through your phase of fear and loathing from the 1980s up to a few years ago. I was angry and upset with inequality, the destruction of nature and unattended population problems. Then I retired, alone and free, and finally had the time to think about all those little questions that I'd put aside while pretending to be busy.
Continued education is a good thing. I'll include a couple videos.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
The issue is that the Earth is doomed. In a billion years' time the oceans will have boiled off due to our ageing Sun. Given that surface life will seemingly be eliminated long before that time, this means that the 4 billion year-old biosphere is now in its old age. If the Earth's material does not find its way to other worlds, then this entire journey of life on Earth will be over with no legacy, no aftermath, simply obliterated when the Earth heats up to the point that its surface becomes molten like Venus.
See, there you go again. Baring catastrophe the sun should support life for another billion years.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
You believe in God. Do you think that It would want such obliteration or would it seem more likely that the deity would rather that intelligence proliferate where it can?
It's hard for me to fathom God's plan but rather I'm limited to what I believe my personal responsibility to be.

As promised for both educational and entertainment purposes...

Heal Your Body With Food with Dr. Mark Hyman


GMOs Revealed Dr. Patrick Gentempo - Featuring Dr. Zach Bush
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3097
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Fooloso4 » April 6th, 2018, 8:23 am

Greta:
A good example of that is the emergence of multicellular organisms though the engulfment of a bacterium by an archaea and the colonial organs they constructed, starting with a metabolism, and then evolving additional supporting structures that became entire organs in themselves. Every organ is a "nation" of subject microbes aka cells, and they themselves have regions of different populations.
I assume you’ve read Lynn Margulis? Not only is her work interesting and important, the fact that she did not crumble when almost everyone thought she was wrong is admirable. She was a scientist. My casual armchair speculation is not worthy of such tenacious insistence.

One thing I wonder about sometimes is whether we have found the indivisible units of matter and how “simple” they are.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Greta » April 6th, 2018, 7:53 pm

jerlands wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 6:18 am
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am

I'm not looking at what is nice of helpful or wanted, I'm looking at what appears to be actually happening.
You're following a train of thought like log on a shoot.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
If we could "learn to live actively within our environment rather that ruthlessly on it" I think we would have done. Our track record says that we cannot do it and the trend is actually towards empowerment of those who care nothing for nature and diminution of those who do care. Look at the world leadership - Trump, who spent most of his career taking environmental agencies to court for the right to replace nature with human made things. How about Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin? Do you see people there who give a damn about the environment? Even here in little Australia, our government has formed a breakaway group (the Monash Group) dedicated to increasing coal fired power stations and removing assistance given to the sustainable energy industry. They might as well wear badges saying, "The Fossil Fuel Bought Me".
You here are the doom-and-gloomer. It takes a long time to turn a vessel because of the way.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
Still, consider that Hinduism's Shiva the Destroyer was also known as the Renewer. After each extinction event on Earth, life bounced back quickly and produced ever more complex and sophisticated organisms.
I frankly would like to avoid catastrophe.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am


Then again, you can send your sperm outside of your body to fertilise any female sufficiently alluring and compliant :)
I was talking about man's physiological experience in relation to what a machine might experience. But, go ahead... PM me your photo :)
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am

Just because I speak about what appears to be the case does not mean that I like it. Do I seem like a salesperson type to you? Do you think I only pitch my preferred options rather than sincerely being interested in what is happening?
If you were really interested I'd think you'd be more of an activist.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
This is at least one reason why scientists deride philosophy - to many people saying what they want to be the case rather than what they think would be the case.

For the record, I went through your phase of fear and loathing from the 1980s up to a few years ago. I was angry and upset with inequality, the destruction of nature and unattended population problems. Then I retired, alone and free, and finally had the time to think about all those little questions that I'd put aside while pretending to be busy.
Continued education is a good thing. I'll include a couple videos.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
The issue is that the Earth is doomed. In a billion years' time the oceans will have boiled off due to our ageing Sun. Given that surface life will seemingly be eliminated long before that time, this means that the 4 billion year-old biosphere is now in its old age. If the Earth's material does not find its way to other worlds, then this entire journey of life on Earth will be over with no legacy, no aftermath, simply obliterated when the Earth heats up to the point that its surface becomes molten like Venus.
See, there you go again. Baring catastrophe the sun should support life for another billion years.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 4:42 am
You believe in God. Do you think that It would want such obliteration or would it seem more likely that the deity would rather that intelligence proliferate where it can?
It's hard for me to fathom God's plan but rather I'm limited to what I believe my personal responsibility to be.
[/quote]

You have thoroughly misunderstood pretty well everything I've said. I have tried harder to be a good green than most. People think I am obsessive and weird with recycling, composting, replanting, environmental donations, etc. What you forget is that, while I accept that these changes are happening, change itself is no guarantee of success. If the change is too rapid there will not be time for adaptation so I see great benefit in being trying to slow down the destruction, even though I accept it as inevitable.

Grandstanding about the environment (or anything) tends to achieves the opposite. In the past I increasingly gained the impression that my moaning about environmental irresponsibility tended to turn people more "brown" than "green". Why? Consider how popular those who are said to politically correct are. Most people dislike being made to feel guilty, especially if they think someone is lording it morally over them. Nothing is more guaranteed to build resistance to one's cause. The only way though this is with calm, clear thinking, not by becoming agitated and then chastising those who are less overtly agitated or less inclined to social gesturing.

Still for those offended by my lack of social gestures, just imagine this as a preface for my posts:

"Dear Reader. Apologies for being so boring and obvious but apparently people need to be reassured that I am actually not a vicious and heartless psychopath feasting on schadenfreude as I watch the destruction of ecosystems while nature reforms itself. I love nature (in its relative scarcity), have long voted left wing (since the right hardly needs my help), donated thousands to various environmental causes (increasingly thinking that the education of girls in developing countries may have more potent flow-on effects environmentally than direct donations to environment lobbyists), I've written letters, made complaints and spoken up against environmental irresponsibility.

However, if you hope for me to put my brain on hold so as to join the conga line of counter-productive complainers about the nature of reality, you will be disappointed. Please interpret my posts in that context. Thank you
".

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by jerlands » April 6th, 2018, 8:16 pm

Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 7:53 pm
You have thoroughly misunderstood pretty well everything I've said.
I do appreciate your attempts to clear things up.
Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 7:53 pm
Still for those offended by my lack of social gestures, just imagine this as a preface for my posts:
I am Greta, pearl of the seas, daughter of Poseidon and charged with a myriad of nymphs armed with tooth and spear. Tread not where ye are unwelcome and fear me for the the winds blow at my beckon.

How's that? I'm still awaiting the photo though.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Greta » April 6th, 2018, 8:50 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 8:23 am
A good example of that is the emergence of multicellular organisms though the engulfment of a bacterium by an archaea and the colonial organs they constructed, starting with a metabolism, and then evolving additional supporting structures that became entire organs in themselves. Every organ is a "nation" of subject microbes aka cells, and they themselves have regions of different populations.
I assume you’ve read Lynn Margulis? Not only is her work interesting and important, the fact that she did not crumble when almost everyone thought she was wrong is admirable. She was a scientist. My casual armchair speculation is not worthy of such tenacious insistence.
I had not heard of her, only articles by those who followed her work; the engulfment theory seems to be well accepted these days. Reading Wiki, the grant assessor who declared her research to be "crap" seemed to play a roughly equivalent role to Decca's main A&R man, Dick Rowe, who rejected The Beatles.

As mentioned, humans appear to be following mitochondria as being "power sources" within an enclosed, protected environment, forming a small unit of something infinitely more powerful and capable. It seems inevitable that people will stay at home ever more as the weather becomes less stable and nurturing, as crowds and pollution increase, as traffic becomes ever more time consuming and difficult, as home entertainment and communications systems improve and as home deliveries increasingly replace retail. So we will effectively have "power sources" aka families increasingly captive within their "cells" aka homes.

An issue with the equivalence: engulfing archaea were alive but "engulfing" homes are not. Still, while archaea are biological, they tend to be autotrophs, often lithotrophs, so there is no organism closer to geology than archaea. In each case there is increasing integration and fusing of biology and geology (be it autotrophs or technology) in our species. If what happened after multicellular organisms emerged is any guide, there will be extinction of most existing large species and subsequent emergences of a complexity and sophistication far beyond our ken.

That's why I rather like the unfashionable ideas of de Chardin - overly influenced by theism but the general principle makes sense, given that there may yet be trillions of years left for intelligent life to continue evolving. Maybe something like God will emerge? Maybe God stems from the human capacity to predict possible outcomes in their heads without having to actually do them, even given us the capacity to imagine the potentials of reality beyond the Earth?
Fooloso4 wrote:One thing I wonder about sometimes is whether we have found the indivisible units of matter and how “simple” they are.
Like an extension of Nagle. What's it like to be an electron? Are we electrons?? :lol: I shouldn't laugh, really, because from a large enough perspective over space and time we ourselves would probably look like unpredictable emanations popping in and out of existence too.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by Greta » April 6th, 2018, 8:56 pm

jerlands wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 8:16 pm
How's that?
Splendid :lol:

Being vain, I can only bring myself to provide a photo from thirty years ago:

Image

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: Who Is God?

Post by jerlands » April 6th, 2018, 9:10 pm

Greta wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 8:56 pm
jerlands wrote:
April 6th, 2018, 8:16 pm
How's that?
Splendid :lol:

Being vain, I can only bring myself to provide a photo from thirty years ago:

Image
Woo hoo! You left me speechless :shock:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Post Reply