Who (or what) created the creator?

[CplFerro]

Dear Tricky,

Cusa is as dumb as a post if you’re not willing to read him. But ultimately our discussion will go nowhere beyond the rattling of a bag of bones of contention given that you hold to the following statement.

“If you wish to convince me, you need to use evidence and logic, not legend and metaphor.”

For metaphor is all classical science and art ultimately are. Logic is the petty child of reason, like the modern cherubic Cupid to the ancient Aphrodite. So long as you shrug off metaphor, well, Cusa will forever be beyond your ken.

In case you do become interested, here is the first book of “On Learned Ignorance.” Note that every time I check the link in this post as in the post, it forwards me to some Google page. If this condition persists, I'm sure if you're actually interested you'll be able to track the book down yourself. I found it on the Wikipedia, and elsewhere.

On Learned Ignorance (Book I)
http://cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/DI-I-12-2000.pdf

Cheers,

Cpl Ferro

 

[Tricky]

Dear Tricky,

Cusa is as dumb as a post if you’re not willing to read him. But ultimately our discussion will go nowhere beyond the rattling of a bag of bones of contention given that you hold to the following statement.

“If you wish to convince me, you need to use evidence and logic, not legend and metaphor.”

The funny thing is, CplF, that I am reasonably skilled in legend and metaphor. I write quite a bit, including lots of poetry, and I am a big fan of mythology as well as science fiction. It is not that I don't understand what Cuso is saying. It is simply that legend and metaphor have their place in art and song, but in determining the nature of reality, you need to deal with cold hard evidence. If you are describing a woman poetically, you might metaphorically call her a rose, but if you are treating her medically, you don't feed her fertilizer.

So if you wish to display Cusa in his legendary and metaphorical glory, then fiction is the place to do it. If you wish to display him as a true representation of reality, then you'd best hope he comes up with something objectively demonstrable, otherwise I have no reason to accept his legend metaphor any more than Cthulhu's.

For metaphor is all classical science and art ultimately are.

Classical science doesn't work. Astrology, Alchemy and "the four elements" are classic science. The reason they are "classic" instead of modern is because they didn't work.

And all art is not metaphor. You would really have to stretch the definition of metaphor to make it fit all art, classic or otherwise.

Logic is the petty child of reason, like the modern cherubic Cupid to the ancient Aphrodite.

I'm afraid that this is a very poor metaphor. Cupid is not Aphrodite, although they are both gods of love. Cupid, is Eros in Greek, and is completely separate from Aphrodite/Venus. (I told you I like mythology.) Of course, I realize that you are saying that the old meanings of things have become corrupted. Well, that's just what time does. Get over it. Hades/Pluto was not the devil either, but lots of people equate them. If you're going to go all Miniver Cheevy on us, then expect nothing but disappointment. (I told you I liked metaphor.)

And if you dismiss reason, how can you ever expect to reason with anyone?

In case you do become interested, here is the first book of “On Learned Ignorance.” Note that every time I check the link in this post as in the post, it forwards me to some Google page. If this condition persists, I'm sure if you're actually interested you'll be able to track the book down yourself. I found it on the Wikipedia, and elsewhere.

On Learned Ignorance (Book I)
http://cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/DI-I-12-2000.pdf

I'll try to have a look at it. I have read much in the way of spiritual writings, and I mostly find them to be baseless babble. If this is any different, I will be greatly surprised, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

 

[bpesta22]

quick derail to say: Tricky, you are the man. I still think I woulda, coulda, shoulda beat you in flame wars, but indeed, "look at the brain on tricky" here in just about any post on religion.

Good work!

 

[Tricky]

You're argument would be more convincing to me if you could show me where meaning and reason are not natural events.

In a sense, they are, because humans are part of the natural world. But meaning and reason have only been shown to exist in animals with higher brain functions. To try to explain meaning and reason to a rock, well, you might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Or more, that meaning or reason can exist outside the natural world. If God is truly nature (by the way I don't subscribe to this belief, but it is interesting to me) and meaning occurs in nature, then they don't really contradict naturalism.

No, they don't, but meaning and reason have pretty solid definitions which don't apply to most things in our world. It is mostly we humans who assign meaning and reason to things.

As to reason, even without conscious beings I'm guessing the rules of logic still apply, although I'm not smart enought to really demonstrate that.

Logic is another tool posessed by creatures with higher brain functions. We humans, and some other animals, can apply logic to non-conscious things, but there is no evidence that the non-conscious things can do so.

You are right, it potentially tells us nothing about our reality. But if the parameters are set or determined by us, it potentially plays a huge role in the reality we find ourselves in tomorrow.

That's assuming we have a reality "tomorrow". (I'm taking "tomorrow" to mean after this life. Excuse me if that was incorrect). There is no evidence that we do, so it makes little sense to me to prepare for it.

I may be mixing potential theologies. Even so, a naturalistic god would be just as concerned with humans as any thing else.

I'm really not the one to be defining specific philosophies. I only know what I've heard hear. I've never had any formal training, so whatever I say should be understood to be my opinion only, not textbook.

That being said, I agree a naturalistic god might be just as concerned with humans as anything else, but there is so much "else" that humans would have to wait their turn in line with quails, quagmires, quasars, quarks and... um... suffice it to say "a lot of other stuff". It makes no sense to me that a naturalistic god would give humans more attention than any other natural thing, yet many humans seem to think it is all for our benefit.

The ideology of god would not be capable of regarding anything until the naturalistic world completes its evolution, in which case should we be in positions of authority to alter it thousands of years from now, the ideology would be quite important.

I don't see why the god would have to wait until the end to 'regard' anything. This is of course assuming the god would ever regard anything. And there is likewise no reason to assume that we will be in positions of authority, or indeed even extant thousands of years from now.

The moment time is traversed it may or may not be subject to the rules of logic or physics.

There is no reason to suspect that time is ever free from the rules of logic and physics.

Further, multiple time lines are not illogical, nor is a multiverse in current theory.

I am not familiar enough with multiverse theory to comment knowledgably. My observation is that a lot of people who are also not well versed on multiverse theory comment quite a bit. It is sort of like quantum physics in that lots of non-scientific people sieze upon it to try to lend a professorial air to their proclamations.

Nope.

A pity. I would have liked to know what an "altered time event" entails.

And that is an ideology that may or may not be fruitful. On the off chance that I'm right, it would mean our ideologies in this matter constitute more than just feels good today.

And in the more likely chance (IMO) that you are wrong, we would have wasted our time. Better to spend you ideologies on things that can be demonstrated in this reality. Again, In my opinion.

Consider it Pascal's trifecta wager--
(Tricky's comments in red).

If God is real outside of the natural world, you win.
Only if you are right about his reality. He could be real, but a terrible homicidal maniac.

If God is the natural world and humanity's ideologies decide to give rise to him-- you win.
Again, depending on which ideology. Many Christian ideologies of God sound horrible to me.

If God is non-existent-- you don't really lose anything at all.
Unless you wasted many of what could have been more productive parts of you life planning for a future that doesn't exist. I would consider that a great loss.

Would make a great sig...

Tanks!

 

[stamenflicker]

To try to explain meaning and reason to a rock, well, you might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Haha! I've been around these forums enough to know that's true.

It is mostly we humans who assign meaning and reason to things.

Well that's our common reasoning for sure. I'm not going to keep this discussion going by asking how this fits with determinism, but it might be fun.

Logic is another tool posessed by creatures with higher brain functions. We humans, and some other animals, can apply logic to non-conscious things, but there is no evidence that the non-conscious things can do so.

But for all extents and purposes non-conscious things have to obey these laws whether they know they are obeying them or not. That was my point a long while back about the "necessities" or "needs" of god.

That's assuming we have a reality "tomorrow". (I'm taking "tomorrow" to mean after this life. Excuse me if that was incorrect). There is no evidence that we do, so it makes little sense to me to prepare for it.

No "over the rainbow" for you Tricky. Awww.
So where is hope derived?

It makes no sense to me that a naturalistic god would give humans more attention than any other natural thing, yet many humans seem to think it is all for our benefit.

I get your point, but I disagree.

I don't see why the god would have to wait until the end to 'regard' anything. This is of course assuming the god would ever regard anything. And there is likewise no reason to assume that we will be in positions of authority, or indeed even extant thousands of years from now.

You're right of course, but it there is no reason not to assume anything. And I enjoy tinkering.

There is no reason to suspect that time is ever free from the rules of logic and physics.

Well, not entirely true. First of all, if they were, we probably wouldn't understand the whys and hows of it. The event horizons of black holes are about as close as we can come to theorizing about it. However, it seems fairly accepted that the internal structure of the black hole is a place in which the laws of physics and logic do not apply with regards to time and space. Other areas are also theorized by modern comsologists, but I'd have to go digging for them.

A pity. I would have liked to know what an "altered time event" entails.

Ahh don't fret Tricky. As soon as you did know what one was, it would be altered again so that you couldn't know that you know, or knew, or ummm.

Look it really is simple-- if there are deep anamolies in time, we can't know them nor could we at this point measure them. Stephen Hawkening once theorized that the reason we remember the past and not the future may be due to the temperature of mental processes.

I don't pretend to understand any of it, but I'm not going to be writing-off a deity given how little we know. But that's just me and I respect the other side of the ballpark.

Better to spend you ideologies on things that can be demonstrated in this reality.

Like mushroom clouds? I'm just not sure the species is mature enough to drop theological ideologies right now. I also recognize that these ideologies are a great source of conflict. But if we weren't bombing each other over religious differences, we'd find another reason to bomb each other. For me, religion is like a scapel that is fully capable of killing a patient, but in the right hands it could be the most beneficial tool we have for our species.

Unfortunately, in this age, we have a bunch of morons with it in their hands flashing gang symbols with them. I just wanted it changed and i'm working inside-out to do it.

Flick

 

[Tricky]

But for all extents and purposes non-conscious things have to obey these laws whether they know they are obeying them or not. That was my point a long while back about the "necessities" or "needs" of god.

Logic and reasoning aren't "laws". They are tools we use for understanding the laws. I still disagree that this could be called "needs" of god.

No "over the rainbow" for you Tricky. Awww.
So where is hope derived?

My hope is derived from the observation that humans are getting better every day at understanding how things work, so that one day, maybe soon, we will stop buggering up the machinery. Also, I get great hope from seeing how we have come to learn and share. Less than two hundred years ago, most humans couldn't even read. Now I routinely write and share ideas with people in other countries. I regard that as a very hopeful sign. A lot more so than pinning my hopes on a place "where troubles melt like lemon drops."

I get your point, but I disagree.

In what way do you disagree? How do you suggest that God might allocate His attention to various things?

You're right of course, but it there is no reason not to assume anything. And I enjoy tinkering.

My only assumption is that what we can objectively observe reflects the actual nature of reality. And I assume that only because any other assumption than that is even more unreasonable.

Well, not entirely true. First of all, if they were, we probably wouldn't understand the whys and hows of it. The event horizons of black holes are about as close as we can come to theorizing about it. However, it seems fairly accepted that the internal structure of the black hole is a place in which the laws of physics and logic do not apply with regards to time and space.

No, I don't think that is true at all. I think that we agree that we don't yet understand how the laws of physics operate in black holes, but not that they don't apply. It is similar to saying that the laws of general relativity are accurate enough for most cases, but in extreme cases (such as approaching the speed of light) the laws of special relativity describe differences that were once subtle and are no longer subtle. And I expect that as we learn more about black holes, we'll see a similar expansion of our knowledge. Logically.

Other areas are also theorized by modern cosmologists, but I'd have to go digging for them.

No need to do that. I understand your point, I just disagree. Besides, I don't want to have to re-learn calculus (whimper whimper).

Ahh don't fret Tricky. As soon as you did know what one was, it would be altered again so that you couldn't know that you know, or knew, or ummm.

LOL. Okay. But I do know what it means to imagine time as altered. Ten minutes in my bosses office is like an hour, while ten minutes talking to a beautiful woman is like a second. But my watch shows that objectively, ten minutes have passed in both cases. Sigh.

Look it really is simple-- if there are deep anomalies in time, we can't know them nor could we at this point measure them.

LOL. Well isn't that convenient. For some reason, I am reminded of "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity."

Stephen Hawking once theorized that the reason we remember the past and not the future may be due to the temperature of mental processes.

I'd be very surprised if he said that in the same context as you are saying it.

I don't pretend to understand any of it, but I'm not going to be writing-off a deity given how little we know. But that's just me and I respect the other side of the ballpark.

I'm not "writing off" any, but considering how many deities are described and how many more are probably undescribed, I just have to give a blanket statement that "I could be wrong". But given a detailed description of several deities, I can see why they don't make any sense to me.

As for "respect", I think we had a thread on that recently. My position was, you respect the person, not the idea. Politeness is required if you respect a person. Ideas stand on their merit alone. For example, you and I seem to be able to discuss and disagree (disrespect?) about ideas without losing any respect for each other.

Like mushroom clouds? I'm just not sure the species is mature enough to drop theological ideologies right now.

No, probably not. Maybe never. It is possible that a significant segment of the population has a hard-wired need to believe in magic. But I don't think that lessens the possibility of mushroom clouds. Quite the reverse.

I also recognize that these ideologies are a great source of conflict. But if we weren't bombing each other over religious differences, we'd find another reason to bomb each other.

Very likely we would. But religion sure does make a whole lot of people certain that they are right.

For me, religion is like a scalpel that is fully capable of killing a patient, but in the right hands it could be the most beneficial tool we have for our species.

As a tool for teaching morality, it can be quite beneficial. As a tool for enforcing morality, it is more like a lawnmower than a scalpel.

Unfortunately, in this age, we have a bunch of morons with it in their hands flashing gang symbols with them. I just wanted it changed and I'm working inside-out to do it.

I salute you for your dedication to this. Do you have to go undercover and take on a false persona?

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Tricky,

Just to clarify, I did not dismiss reason, I dismissed the emphasis on logic. No amount of logic about your predicates will prove that you exist, for instance.

Metaphor is certainly is the basis for classical (as in "classical humanist" circa the Renaissance and later, DaVinci, Cusa, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, et al) science, and art as well (DaVinci, Rembrandt, some of Oscar Wilde's work, et al). If you're genuinely interested in that, I recommend the following essay on the matter by Lyndon LaRouche.

A woman is a rose, of course, and requires nourishment like any rose does. There is a difference between literal/symbolic "metaphor" and geometrically precise metaphor. Cf. the latter in the essay below.

On the Subject of Metaphor
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/fid_923_lhl_metaphor.html

Cheers,

Cpl Ferro

 

[stamenflicker]

I still disagree that this could be called "needs" of god.

Then would you accept "requirements" of god?

A lot more so than pinning my hopes on a place "where troubles melt like lemon drops."

((Stamen whistles along))

In what way do you disagree? How do you suggest that God might allocate His attention to various things?

If you'd like to keep going, then sure. I wouldn't suggest it is an allocation in the way that you or I understand allocation. It's sort of like saying I am allocating my attention on my red blood cells right now, which is nonsensical. If the natural world is god (again its not my theory) then allocation isn't as relevant as presence. So if human beings are the ones doing the ascriptions of meaning and doing the reasoning, and if human beings are in fact natural, then logically a natural "god" is doing these things as well. Only this "god" does them collectively, not independantly of each other. Unless rocks are somehow ascribing meaning, then to a natural "god" sense of allocation, what the rocks have to offer is useful only in the ways in which they support human beings. Hence, indirectly the allocation of a natural gods attention could argueably be human beings, or at least consciousness.

I recognize that you would be quick to argue that meaning has no real pre-requisite in the natural order to demand a higher placement in the order of things, and that it is arrogant for us to assume it does. However, it is this very meaning and reason that at the very least effect and quite possibly ultimately shape the rest of matter. Further, since consciousness has been obtained, there really is no going back (short of those pesky mushroom clouds). Thus it is somewhat hypocritical to say that consciousness is of little regard to the natural "god," while maintaining it is of ultimate regard to us.

My only assumption is that what we can objectively observe reflects the actual nature of reality. And I assume that only because any other assumption than that is even more unreasonable.

I believe your assumption is valid, however I find it to be more anthropomorphic than my assumption, which is that the actual nature of reality requires a view that we'll never have (but in the meantime we can pretend and make great strides for humanity).

No, I don't think that is true at all. I think that we agree that we don't yet understand how the laws of physics operate in black holes, but not that they don't apply.

Quite simply, if they don't apply we couldn't talk about them anyway. Most things that I read indicate that we will have no tool for really comprehend what is going on. It may likely be out of our mental range.

And I expect that as we learn more about black holes, we'll see a similar expansion of our knowledge. Logically.

I certainly hope that we do. But at some point there is an unbreachable wall, most cosmologists would agree I think. Perhaps quantum computers or something of the like can take us where our minds cannot go.

For some reason, I am reminded of "Only the true Messiah denies his divinity."

Was not the miracle of the juniper bushes enough for you?

I'd be very surprised if he said that in the same context as you are saying it.

O have no doubt he wasn't referring to any sort of theistic argument. But the reality is that time and consciousness is a door cracked open a bit wider than what you seem to allow.

Do you have to go undercover and take on a false persona?

Haha, no. I have the greatest job on the planet. I love everything about what I do... and I believe it. Jesus, resurrected bodies, the whole nine yards. Great stuff.

Flick

 

[Tricky]

Dear Tricky,

Just to clarify, I did not dismiss reason, I dismissed the emphasis on logic. No amount of logic about your predicates will prove that you exist, for instance.

It is true that logic is based on the assumptions, however I would (like Descartes) say that self-existence is one of the most fundamental of assumptions, supported by every piece of evidence you will ever gather. Assumption of the existence of a divine being is a far more poorly supported assumption, supported by poor or no evidence.

Metaphor is certainly is the basis for classical (as in "classical humanist" circa the Renaissance and later, DaVinci, Cusa, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, et al) science, and art as well (DaVinci, Rembrandt, some of Oscar Wilde's work, et al). If you're genuinely interested in that, I recommend the following essay on the matter by Lyndon LaRouche.

Somehow, having Lyndon LaRouche vouch for it doesn't inspire me with confidence. So what, in your own words, is metaphorical about the Mona Lisa?

A woman is a rose, of course, and requires nourishment like any rose does. There is a difference between literal/symbolic "metaphor" and geometrically precise metaphor. Cf. the latter in the essay below.

Yes, and she has thorns like a rose does, and bugs like to fly into her just like a rose, and she drops her petals after a short while like a rose does, and she get's her reproductive organs cut off and stuck in pots just like a rose does. And don't get me started about "rose hips".

Metaphor has limits, CplF. Major limits. It is foolish to try to build an entire body of knowledge based on metaphor.

There is a difference between literal/symbolic "metaphor" and geometrically precise metaphor. Cf. the latter in the essay below.

I disagree. Metaphors by definition are symbolic. If it is literal, then it is not a metaphor.

On the Subject of Metaphor
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/fid_923_lhl_metaphor.html

I'll add it to my list.

Regards,

Tricky

 

[Tricky]

Then would you accept "requirements" of god?

I would say that in this sense, 'requirements' and 'needs' are synonymous. How about 'definition' of god?

If you'd like to keep going, then sure. I wouldn't suggest it is an allocation in the way that you or I understand allocation. It's sort of like saying I am allocating my attention on my red blood cells right now, which is nonsensical. If the natural world is god (again its not my theory) then allocation isn't as relevant as presence.

Okay, let's run with that. Humans need blood, but they are rarely aware of their blood. You seem to be saying that a naturalistic god needs his "body parts", even if he is not aware of them most of the time. I can buy that. Now let's say that certain body parts were self-aware, like say, the brain. It might believe that it was a part of some greater organism. So If body parts were self aware and intelligent (in the same way that we are), then they would discover very strong evidence that they were in fact part of a larger organism. In the same way, we have become aware that we are part of nature. But for a blood cell to say "The organism is like me" would be foolish and erythrocentric.

It still seems to do nothing to separate the concepts of nature and a naturalistic god.

. So if human beings are the ones doing the ascriptions of meaning and doing the reasoning, and if human beings are in fact natural, then logically a natural "god" is doing these things as well.

I disagree. That is called the fallacy of composition. If red blood cells are collected in the liver, is it logical to assume that the body is collected in the liver too?

Only this "god" does them collectively, not independently of each other. Unless rocks are somehow ascribing meaning, then to a natural "god" sense of allocation, what the rocks have to offer is useful only in the ways in which they support human beings. Hence, indirectly the allocation of a natural gods attention could arguably be human beings, or at least consciousness.

I'm not sure I understand this. It seems again that the distillation of the argument is that other things like rocks exist to support human beings. I seriously doubt that's what you meant, so I must not be getting it.

I recognize that you would be quick to argue that meaning has no real pre-requisite in the natural order to demand a higher placement in the order of things, and that it is arrogant for us to assume it does. However, it is this very meaning and reason that at the very least effect and quite possibly ultimately shape the rest of matter.

I disagree with the second sentence. If creatures which could not experience meaning and reason did not exist, the rest of matter still would. In fact, this seems to be the case for the vast majority of the universe.

Further, since consciousness has been obtained, there really is no going back (short of those pesky mushroom clouds). Thus it is somewhat hypocritical to say that consciousness is of little regard to the natural "god," while maintaining it is of ultimate regard to us.

It is not hypocritical at all. Consciousness is the survival tactic that our form of life uses to persist in the universe (until mushroom cloud day). It should be of great regard to us. That in no way implies that other things require it.

I believe your assumption is valid, however I find it to be more anthropomorphic than my assumption, which is that the actual nature of reality requires a view that we'll never have (but in the meantime we can pretend and make great strides for humanity).

At the risk of sounding Iacchian, I would say we can only observe that which can be perceived directly or indirectly (without pretending). To presume another higher-level observer who sees more than we do is... well... presumptuous. But I agree with the "great strides" part.

Quite simply, if they don't apply we couldn't talk about them anyway. Most things that I read indicate that we will have no tool for really comprehend what is going on. It may likely be out of our mental range.

I'd agree we have no tool for collecting data (at this time). As for the "out of our mental range" part, I believe that we still have a lot of space at the top end of our mental range. Quantum physics is out of the range of most individuals, but as a body of science, it is becoming better understood each day. I have no reason to suppose that it would be any different for black holes, assuming we could collect data on them.

I certainly hope that we do. But at some point there is an unbreachable wall, most cosmologists would agree I think. Perhaps quantum computers or something of the like can take us where our minds cannot go.

Like you, I hope our knowledge increases. Perhaps there is an unbreachable wall of data collection (like talking about "before the big bang") and that would be a pity. But I'd put my bets on science to gain a much better understanding of them, realizing that we can never know everything.

O have no doubt he wasn't referring to any sort of theistic argument. But the reality is that time and consciousness is a door cracked open a bit wider than what you seem to allow.

I might allow it. As I say, I am not well schooled in physics. But I believe "remembering the future" is simply a contradiction of everything we have ever observed about time. I could be wrong.

Haha, no. I have the greatest job on the planet. I love everything about what I do... and I believe it. Jesus, resurrected bodies, the whole nine yards. Great stuff.

I have a great job too. It's wonderful when you can enjoy what you do.

Trick

 

[Piscivore]

Didn't know that God was one of the Shmod clan . . . .interesting!

The Schmod Schquad, actually. God performed under the pseudonym Schlarence (Schlink) Schwilliams III, by the way, not Schpeggy Schlipton as Iacchus will try to tell you.

 

[Pauliesonne]

The answer to the question this thread is based on is;

William Shatner

 

[ynot]

Hi Tricky

I am impressed with the content and volume of your replies - Thanks

Ynot

 

[Tricky]

Hi Tricky

I am impressed with the content and volume of your replies - Thanks

Ynot

Thanks. It is good to know that the things you say are heard and appreciated.

But perhaps I should turn down the volume.

 

[ynot]

But perhaps I should turn down the volume.

Don't you dare!

Also thanks to all others that have contributed as well.

 

[stamenflicker]

How about 'definition' of god?

I suppose I can settle there, however definitions are prescriptive which in a sense is applying "need."

So If body parts were self aware and intelligent (in the same way that we are), then they would discover very strong evidence that they were in fact part of a larger organism. In the same way, we have become aware that we are part of nature. But for a blood cell to say "The organism is like me" would be foolish and erythrocentric.

But meaning and logic wouldn't allow the blood cell to say anything, only the brain to say what it wanted about the blood cell. Just as we say what we want about rocks.

If red blood cells are collected in the liver, is it logical to assume that the body is collected in the liver too?

Not at all. Nor is it logical to deny you have a liver.

It seems again that the distillation of the argument is that other things like rocks exist to support human beings. I seriously doubt that's what you meant, so I must not be getting it.

Yeah I think you got it. The allocation of thoughts about rocks are determined by what meaning human beings give to them. It doesn't mean they don't have other properties that are important, only that the ones that are important are the ones we are able to distinguish. Therefore, I'm back at the reasoning for human beings receiving more attention than 99.9% of the rest of the universe.

I disagree with the second sentence. If creatures which could not experience meaning and reason did not exist, the rest of matter still would. In fact, this seems to be the case for the vast majority of the universe.

It would still exist, no doubt. But it would have no meaning to a naturalistic god because nothing natural had prescribed meaning onto it. The fact that human beings can tinker with other forms of matter and cause it to behave in ways it wouldn't normally again points to a cause for "more attention" than an anthropomorphic cricticism of theistic naturalism seems to allow.

Consciousness is the survival tactic that our form of life uses to persist in the universe (until mushroom cloud day). It should be of great regard to us. That in no way implies that other things require it.

Indeed, no requirement at all. But suddenly there are implications for unconscious matter due entirely to consciousness.

But I believe "remembering the future" is simply a contradiction of everything we have ever observed about time.

I know. It was an absolutely amazing bit of thinking. I think it was in Brief History of Time, but I will look up a link tonight if I time.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Tricky,

http://newton.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/h.html

The chapter where the idea was discussed the first time I read it. Hawking recently retracted his statement that "no information could escape a black hole." As the author of this report states, the retraction, if it holds "has important philosophical consequences."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5452537?GT1=4244#storyContinued

While time travel via black holes has never been readily accepted, Hawking all but rules it out now, apologizing to science fiction fans. Kip Thorne, who Hawking lost his bet to, has a new book out that I've read, but to be honest I need more time (haha) to think about.

In short however, all this crazy time business opens the door to many interesting possibilities. One of these was explored by Frank Tipler in the late 1990's and he is still currently kicking them around. Feel free to laugh at the guy, some of his contemporaries don't take him that serious when it comes to a futuristic view of humanity's place in the cosmos, yet none of them that I know of have said his theories break any physical laws.

http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/wired.html

You might notice a lot of what I tend to write here has a Tipler influence. I like the guy, even if I understand less than half of what he writes. He brings a creative, playful element to physics that keeps me engaged. Oddly enough, so much of what Tipler predicted is coming true, even faster than he said it would.

I thought this guy gives a pretty fair review and critique of Tipler. If you are pressed for time, just check this one out because it sums it more than the rest:

http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/tipler_page.html

So I'm a bit out there I suppose, but not so far out as to have left the building just yet. Again, if Tipler is right, our ideologies (and our theologies) may be much more important than we realize.

Flick

 

[Tricky]

I suppose I can settle there, however definitions are prescriptive which in a sense is applying "need."

LOL. Okay, deal. If a god is defined a certain way, then he "needs" to satisfy the definition in order to exist.

But meaning and logic wouldn't allow the blood cell to say anything, only the brain to say what it wanted about the blood cell. Just as we say what we want about rocks.

I think I see what you are saying. Certain "parts" reason (like brains and humans) and certain parts don't (like blood cells and rocks) and so the organism/nature focuses more attention on those parts that reason.

That would seem to make sense, but I'm not sure it does. Although our brain is the (main) part that reasons, we don't need to focus attention on our brain for it to think. It just does so naturally. Nature/god wouldn't have to focus more attention on its reasoning members in order to make them reason.

If I've misrepresented what you meant, I'm sure you'll correct me.

Yeah I think you got it.

I did? Must have been accidental.

The allocation of thoughts about rocks are determined by what meaning human beings give to them. It doesn't mean they don't have other properties that are important, only that the ones that are important are the ones we are able to distinguish. Therefore, I'm back at the reasoning for human beings receiving more attention than 99.9% of the rest of the universe.

I have to disagree with this. It seems born of anthropocentric thought. While it is true that humans may not give rocks much meaning, that doesn't show that they don't require the same amount of "attention" as humans from nature. ('Course, I'm a geologist, so I'm prejudiced in favor of rocks. )

It would still exist, no doubt. But it would have no meaning to a naturalistic god because nothing natural had prescribed meaning onto it. The fact that human beings can tinker with other forms of matter and cause it to behave in ways it wouldn't normally again points to a cause for "more attention" than an anthropomorphic criticism of theistic naturalism seems to allow.

I still disagree. Other things "tinker" with matter and energy to make it do unusual things. The trick of turning sun energy into mass via photosynthesis is quite a nifty bit of tinkering. The fact that our tinkering is "conscious" or that we do it much more quickly (as opposed to using evolution) makes little difference, I think.

And I reiterate, it seems impossible for humans to do something unnatural. To do so, they'd have to do something supernatural.

Indeed, no requirement at all. But suddenly there are implications for unconscious matter due entirely to consciousness.

Yes, but there are consequences for unconscious matter due entirely to other unconscious matter, and conscious from unconscious and every other combination. I see no reason to elevate the conscious-affecting-unconscious relationships to any special status.

I know. It was an absolutely amazing bit of thinking. I think it was in Brief History of Time, but I will look up a link tonight if I time.

I read a bit of the links you provided, but it's quite a slog and I don't have time for it right now. I'll get back to you later.

 

[stamenflicker]

If I've misrepresented what you meant, I'm sure you'll correct me.

It's easy to misrepresent me since I'm just kind of putting thoughts down as we move along. Of course you probably are aware that I don't really subscribe to much of this in any real sense. I just learned last night while nosing around for more info that there is a whole philosophy out there that embraces some of it in a much more serious way:

transhumanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

It seems born of anthropocentric thought. While it is true that humans may not give rocks much meaning, that doesn't show that they don't require the same amount of "attention" as humans from nature. ('Course, I'm a geologist, so I'm prejudiced in favor of rocks. )

A geologist? That's cool. I'd love to hear your take on Dolemite sometime. Have you read Ian Hacking's article, "The Social Construction of Rocks?"

At any rate, I guess I'm quite "anthropocentric" in the scheme of things. A hunk of Tipler's thought is rooted in the Weak Athropic principle:

Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."

***

The weak version has been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination for assuming no other forms of life are possible (sometimes called "carbon chauvinism", see also alternative biochemistry). Furthermore, the range of constants allowing evolution of carbon-based life may be much less restricted than proposed (Stenger, "Timeless Reality"). The weak anthropic principle has also been cited by both critics and supporters as a tautology. The strong version is also criticized as being neither testable nor falsifiable, and unnecessary. The final version is discussed in more detail under final anthropic principle; Barrow and Tipler state that, although it is a physical statement, it is nevertheless "closely connected with moral values".

from Wikipedia.

And the final anthropic principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle

Other things "tinker" with matter and energy to make it do unusual things. The trick of turning sun energy into mass via photosynthesis is quite a nifty bit of tinkering. The fact that our tinkering is "conscious" or that we do it much more quickly (as opposed to using evolution) makes little difference, I think.

And I reiterate, it seems impossible for humans to do something unnatural. To do so, they'd have to do something supernatural.

I disagree, I guess by matter of definition. I'm not sure that unnatural and supernatural are equivalent. But I'm sure my disagreement is only a matter of degree, not outright disagreeing.

Yes, but there are consequences for unconscious matter due entirely to other unconscious matter, and conscious from unconscious and every other combination. I see no reason to elevate the conscious-affecting-unconscious relationships to any special status.

For me, it is due to the reality of technology, while all of it is natural, that's true, the sum of all natural manipulation is greater than its comprising parts. Suppose that the wayward ideology of "good luck" in human beings forced us to pick so many four-leaf clovers that we consciously selected them out of existence. (Far-fetched I know. I don't even know if four-leaf clovers are a product of genetics, I'm assuming they are.) Still consciousness in this case while still natural is effecting the natural world in a way unconsciousness would never affect it.

Should technology increase at the current rate, our ability to allow our ideologies to affect nature will rapidly increase as well, making what we do somewhat out of proportion with what the rest of unconscious nature does. Again, while natural sure, should we manipulate natural laws to a great extreme as conscious beings, we begin shaping that which unconscious in permanent ways.

Flick

 

[CplFerro]

So what, in your own words, is metaphorical about the Mona Lisa?

Dear Tricky,

Regard an image of the Mona Lisa, and ask yourself what you can say she is doing, beyond all doubt. Ascertain that first, then get back to me.

Cpl Ferro