@Terry_Sampson
Busy with what, having a relationship with Holy Spirit?
I would claim when I feel busy is when I’m blocking Holy Spirit, then it feels like work, and not rest at all.
Eventually as I’m blocking I’ll surrender and allow Holy Spirit teach me why I’m blocking
and eventually the blocking becomes less as Holy Spirit becomes more.,
that area when blocking and it feels like work does feel busy, but as I allow Holy Spirit I feel more at rest and inner peace. I allow Holy Spirit teach me in the midst of my situations
The topic of panpsychism relates to the improbability of consciousness arising from elements of the periodic table. I would like to expand my comments, which started this discussion, to include a Biblical reference. In the opening to the Gospel of John, the author declares, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” The Greek word for “word” is logos, and by extension, refers to language. Since language is the outer manifestation of inner consciousness, this opening sentence could be interpreted as a declaration that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s consciousness. This consciousness was, and is, God.
Those who insist on the wholly materialistic nature of the universe ignore the profound improbability of the existence of consciousness in a world made up solely of the elements in the periodic table. Carbon is still carbon no matter how it is organized, and we are carbon- based creatures. Yet carbon speaks. What draws words out of carbon is the gift of consciousness that originates with God. Our consciousness is a construct of God’s pure consciousness limited by our physical constraints and imperfections. James Wade
And what if I believe that the stuff in the cosmos consists of point-masses moving through the void. Whereas the consciousness of any single point-mass seems unlikely, something’s going on, IMO, when a flock of those point-masses takes off like a flock of Dunlins (birds) and “engage in” or “perform” murmurations, as seen in this 5:37 video: Murmuration of Dunlin (HD).
In philosophical topics we have had long made an error in confusing language with reality. Just because we have a single word for something doesn’t mean that the reality it points to is in any way singular. Intelligence and consciousness are the principle examples. The evidence tells us that both of these are a collection of many different abilities. And it is likely that a reduction of human consciousness by one or more of these abilities would have results which are hard to recognize as what we usually mean by these words. But a more objective approach would see all of these abilities as parts of a more quantitative measure.
For example, our recent experience with AI, where we have computer programs teaching us how to better play our most difficult strategy games, it looks unreasonable to me to say that these programs have no intelligence. Clearly they have some of the most important abilities which are usually identified with intelligence. Likewise I see some of the most important abilities identified with consciousness in the operation of a single cell. Of course this hardly means that the intelligence of these AI and the consciousness of a cell are the same or even close to our own, and objections are fairly numerous and easy to think of.
With such a more quantitative approach, this judgement of “improbability” becomes similar to like arguments against the evolution of the species. It seems to me this is not so far off judging that snow flakes, crystal caves, and galaxies are improbable results from the periodic table. On the contrary, in mathematics we can demonstrate how infinite complexity can arise from fairly simple processes.
And they would object that such arguments ignore the demonstrable findings in science. Who is more head blind? Those who ignore what can be demonstrated for all to see or those who ignore your personal sentiments and feelings? How can you expect to win any respect for the theistic point of view with arguments which are so easily trounced?
And yet I am a believer because there are better reasons and arguments – at least this is the case if you are willing to back off from making demands to simply suggesting other possibilities. Religion will never compete well with science when it comes to objective observation. But since life requires subjective participation, then why should religion seek that sort of competition anyway. For life we clearly need more than the objective observation which science has to offer and is so good at.
Mitchell, I agree that dogmatic statements can be offensive in a discussion like this. However, I was responding to the theory of panpsychism which does question the idea that consciousness can arise from materialistic elements without those elements having at least a spark of intelligence. Roger Penrose, the well-known Nobel prize winning physicist, has observed that whatever intelligence is, it is not computable. He bases that on Godel’s theorem which proves that human consciousness knows, as true, things that cannot be proven. This has led me to suggest that the term AI is misleading and should be changed to IA signifying Intelligence Augmentation.
1 if consciousness was before matter, then can consciousness continue to make matter?
2 if matter was before consciousness, then consciousness and God would be subordinate to matter.
Both don’t work. Only solution is panpsychism that says both are joint.
The word begininng in john as well as Genesis 1.1 may perhaps be understood as .Beginning of self awareness. Consciousness existed before God but was not aware of itself.
Why do they both have to ‘work’? That is an artificial force fit – it’s not a ‘solution’ but a mirage. One can be true (the first) and the other false (the second). (Panpsychism is false too, in case you missed what #2 being false entails.)
Or the cause of the universe is not yet aware of its action. Sometimes described as an infinite task. Like the becoming of nothing, or nothing coming to be. That which can contradict itself.
Or the cause of the universe is aware of its action.
For anything that happens, there are a handful of possible statements: it just happened (without cause), it was caused to happen by something else that happened (to which the same question applies), or it was caused by something that doesn’t happen (and it is either aware of its action or not).
Agree. Stephen Hawking says we don’t know what existed before big bang. That said, the ab initio creation raises the question wherefrom did the creator arise.
I still think panpsychism provides a possible answer. 1. All matter has consciousness. 2. It is coalesced
3. It self created.
The issue you might have is with something which can affect change without changing.
As in it didn’t exist, and then caused itself to exist?
What if the universe is in an infinite state of becoming? Nothing really ever happens and objects don’t actually exist. The illusion of Maya or the self?
