Thread: Gods Cannot Have Consciousness

Originally Posted by Xei

Same applies to omnipotent cheesecakes.

My point exactly. its so pointless to argue about something that is supposedly "omnipresent" if by that very definition they can act how they want in reality. I dont buy the invisible sky god either, Im just saying from a logical standpoint using reality to argue against something that can control all reality seems a little flawed to me.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Yes, awareness is a simple process of gathering information from the senses. Thats what I said. Consciousness, on the other hand has no known (empirically speaking) cause or purpose and is subtly but profoundly different from awareness.

Wrong, there are many empirical hypothesis about this. There is numerous evidence in psychology to show that consciousness is the facilitation of attention. It functions on an evolutionary sense to determine which things require awareness/attention and thus developing the senses and consciousness for further survival.

Now, of course, there is much empirical debate over the functions of this. However, in the world of neuroscience, there is most definitely evidence of what the purpose of consciousness is.

What does it even mean to be conscious? How does one recognize consciousness in other things? If a conscious being was unable to communicate with you in any way, how would you become aware of its consciousness? If something does communicate to you that it is conscious, does that necessarily mean it is true?

I think what you are describing is the exact reason why we have consciousness - to communicate with other humans and thus create a community which solidifies our survival. Realize that I am utilizing consciousness as an evolutionary tool. I do this only because it is what the contemporary neuroscientists do with consciousness.

Consciousness, simply, is the knowledge of self. We can guess at how humans arrive at this knowledge, through awareness of the things around us, but a god embodies all things (in my view anyway) and so would seemingly have a knowledge of itself (if one can use such a term to encompass everything) through the innate knowledge of its creation. The 'birth' of reality and the god would immediately be accompanied by all knowledge of the totality of existence.

I don't think we disagree here but I do not make the leap of saying that a God embodies all things. Here is where we differ, allow me to simply express my ideas to make better sense;

I hold that the idea of God comes from the humans incentive to look at absolutes (eg. absolute beauty). Thus, when we look at our own consciousness, we imagine what an absolute consciousness is and this is the typical God. However, the limited conscious mind is not what a God would be.

I think I can see us potentially agreeing here as I get the impression that you do not imagine a "God" to have a consciousness of any sorts relative to our own, no?

I'd like to make it clear also that this is only to argue against your assertion that consciousness requires time. I take issue with many of your other assertions as well.

From what I gather, I think you will find that you and I do not differ in many ways.

For instance, much of this argument is based on your idea of 'static energy' which I don't see as a priori and must itself be justified. In my view, the statement, "what caused kinetic energy to begin? During the timeless state of static energy, an event must occur to cause motion; kinetic energy" makes no sense. How can an event occur in a timeless moment? Any causal chain of events would require a timeline, and this includes any beginning you might attempt to argue for. Even without the issue of time, how can you expect to rationalize any beginning for a causal chain? What caused the event that caused motion? What caused that and what caused that? There is no end to this line of inquiry.

What you are asking is why I deliberately stated the sorts as such. I do not know what can initially cause kinetic energy, but it makes the most logical sense to frame it as such as no theory has an explanation of this yet. No one can explain it, so the best we can do is reference it as a 'static' time as the beginning of everything also had to be the beginning of time.

I think what you ought to be pointing out to me is if there really is a beginning to time. If there was no beginning to time, then there is a flaw in my argument. However, there are many problems with that argument. If you'd like to pursue that, then I think there is fruit to bear.

I have a question. Do you believe that consciousness requires a brain? If the answer is yes, then that would be a much simpler argument against the consciousness of a god.

You are right. However, we both know that far too many people do not think consciousness requires a brain. I am going around this argument and getting straight at the point that, if there was a God at the beginning of time, then it ought not be subject to what it has created.

It really boils down to this;
- God created time and time created consciousness
- Thus, God cannot have consciousness because it then requires a creator

Originally Posted by drewmandan

This thread suffers from the same problem as asking "Can God create a rock he can't lift?". You're certainly not going to change anyone's minds here.

Your are significantly wrong. What you quoted is an illogical impossibility for anything. What I am stating is not tautological or an illogical impossibility. If you can actually assert or explain how what I have said is an illogical impossibility, then you will have actually contribute something. What you are doing is just a desperate attempt from obviously not reading nor understanding my point at all.

~

Originally Posted by tkdyo

My point exactly. its so pointless to argue about something that is supposedly "omnipresent" if by that very definition they can act how they want in reality. I dont buy the invisible sky god either, Im just saying from a logical standpoint using reality to argue against something that can control all reality seems a little flawed to me.

But you're using 'reality' to make that argument that we're flawed.

By your own argument's conclusion, your own argument can't be taken seriously.

Yes, awareness is a simple process of gathering information from the senses. Thats what I said. Consciousness, on the other hand has no known (empirically speaking) cause or purpose and is subtly but profoundly different from awareness.

Personally after some thought I have come to define consciousness as awareness. Many others in neuroscience have taken the same approach.

I should point out that consciousness does have empirical consequences. For example, this conversation. Philosophical zombies could not have this conversation, which helps to show how the entire idea of such zombies is flawed.

I have a question. Do you believe that consciousness requires a brain? If the answer is yes, then that would be a much simpler argument against the consciousness of a god.

I don't believe so. I believe the physical acting of an algorithm of a certain type (nobody can currently say what type, though) causes consciousness. This means any sufficiently advanced lifeform in this universe or in fact some exotic process in another universe, and indeed a computer, could potentially cause consciousness.

Originally Posted by Xei

Our minds are the result of the functioning of our brains.

This is an assumption, a working hypothesis. Even the best of modern science has hardly proven that.

And do you equate "mind" with "consciousness>?

Originally Posted by Xei

...studies into this via Steven LaBerge's lucid dreaming techniques, and it was found that mental rate of time is the same as real time.

While it's true that LaBerge's studies showed time equivalence, other reports from dreamers occasionally show a time compression, with the dream seeming to take much longer than the time asleep.

Originally Posted by Xei

What are auras and chi?

I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question. If it's sincere, see Wiki: Aura (paranormal) and Qi

Originally Posted by Xei

Why would you think they exist?

I believe evidence of Kirlian photography, and innumerable mystics who report seeing energy fields surrounding the body, the character of which, color, size, shape, and dynamics, accurately predicts health and mental state.
I belive in Chi/Qi because I've felt it in my body doing Qi Gong and Tantric practices. A couple of thousand years of Taoist study, while not conforming to Western ideas of acceptable science, should hardly be disregarded. It is an explanation, a working hypothesis, if you will, that explains certain facts and phenomena in martial arts and Chinese medicine that are not otherwise satisfactorily explained by Western "hard science" concepts.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But you're using 'reality' to make that argument that we're flawed.

By your own argument's conclusion, your own argument can't be taken seriously.

no, Im using reality to mean the known universe. Which at this time is all we know that has time. My argument is simply if we have an "omnipresent" god who can control the known universe, how exactly can he be controlled by its properties for consciousness. Its like saying we created the way a computer thinks, therefore we must also think in a 1s and 0s type fashion and are constricted to the virtual world of the computer.

This is an assumption, a working hypothesis. Even the best of modern science has hardly proven that.

And do you equate "mind" with "consciousness>?

I take it to be self evident. If consciousness has nothing to do with our brains, why the strong association? Why does taking drugs alter our consciousness? Why does conscious activity show up as brain activity in MRI scans? If all matter is conscious, the probability that just by chance we should 'happen' to be the most complex known object in the universe tends to zero.

I think mind is probably pretty much synonymous with consciousness and awareness. All of these terms are just debris from our dualistic history. Perhaps mind has a slight connotation of thought processes as opposed to experience and qualia.

I'm going to assume that's a rhetorical question. If it's sincere, see Wiki: Aura (paranormal) and Qi

Please sincerely try to answer the question, I am trying to argue something.

I believe evidence of Kirlian photography, and innumerable mystics who report seeing energy fields surrounding the body, the character of which, color, size, shape, and dynamics, accurately predicts health and mental state.
I belive in Chi/Qi because I've felt it in my body doing Qi Gong and Tantric practices. A couple of thousand years of Taoist study, while not conforming to Western ideas of acceptable science, should hardly be disregarded. It is an explanation, a working hypothesis, if you will, that explains certain facts and phenomena in martial arts and Chinese medicine that are not otherwise satisfactorily explained by Western "hard science" concepts.

If there was evidence for these things, science would test them and verify them. Just think about the profit there is to be made if these 'alternate therapies' were actually successful. Do you not understand how huge the drugs industry is?

Originally Posted by Xei

Please sincerely try to answer the question, I am trying to argue something.

The Wiki sections explain consensus opinion better than I could. I'm certainly not an expert. Can you make your argument based on what's posted there?

Originally Posted by Xei

If there was evidence for these things, science would test them and verify them. Just think about the profit there is to be made if these 'alternate therapies' were actually successful. Do you not understand how huge the drugs industry is?

Several disagreements. I think there is evidence, though it rarely conforms to modern science's requirements for repeatability and double-blind tests.

But surely science would test them if it could, however I believe the nature of mind-body interaction is too subtle and nebulous for current methods to get a handle on.

I disagree about the supposed profit potential. Acupuncture has shown great results in lots of illnesses, but there's hardly any billion dollar industry potential. Mediation as a stress-reliever shows promise in relieving society of things from heart disease to depression, but again there's no profit potential for a corporate health-provider industry. And the real argument, if everybody is healthy and happy, the mega health care industry collapses. Things have been written about the current world health organizations having a vested interest in keeping people sick and afraid. It's like car manufacturers making cars that only their shops can repair. They don't have any payback for making cars that last forever. It's said that light bulbs could be built for the same cost that do last effectively forever. But the companies would soon be out of business.

But you've discovered a whole new field of medical technology. Who knows what the practices could bring if it was scientifically understood?

The Wiki sections explain consensus opinion better than I could. I'm certainly not an expert. Can you make your argument based on what's posted there?

No. This is my point. Nobody can even explain what 'Chi' or 'auras' even are, because they themselves are lost in a turbulent sea of semantics. They are just words. I could say something now like, 'chi is a source of essential life energy'; this is quite simply a meaningless statement. What is life energy? What does it do? Where does it come from? They're just comforting words with no meaning, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

from a logical standpoint using reality to argue against something that can control all reality seems a little flawed to me.

But isn't this an argument from a logical standpoint:

Originally Posted by tkdyo

My argument is simply if we have an "omnipresent" god who can control the known universe, how exactly can he be controlled by its properties for consciousness. Its like saying we created the way a computer thinks, therefore we must also think in a 1s and 0s type fashion and are constricted to the virtual world of the computer.

?

What about a creature that doesn't utilize consciousness, such as a bacteria? They do not have memory, either. Yet aren't they phenomenological (meant as "observable," I assume)? They still exist in a kinetic world... And although I know that this does not relate to a God having consciousness, I'm still asking, for clarification. (In this case, I would call their DNA "memory," but it does explain memory and consciousness in the individual.)

What if a God programmed us from somewhere (another dimension, or whatever) that had its own time and space. Technically, the story would still go "First there was nothing (in our universe), and then there was God." ... But you can see the weakness of that argument. The Christian who tries using this point only bring up more questions, which will end up weakening whatever point they are trying to prove about creation and God as a whole. :/

Originally Posted by TTTman

The Wiki sections explain consensus opinion better than I could. I'm certainly not an expert. Can you make your argument based on what's posted there?

What would be the point of arguing the Wiki here if there is no one that can offer a discussion about it? You say you're not an expert and should not be regarded, so why talk about it here?

Several disagreements. I think there is evidence, though it rarely conforms to modern science's requirements for repeatability and double-blind tests.

Precisely. Just as you said earlier, you "know" because you "felt" it. This is directly parallel to any other Theist and "God" - they know because they felt it.

This is called bias. I think you know this.

But surely science would test them if it could, however I believe the nature of mind-body interaction is too subtle and nebulous for current methods to get a handle on.

I do not mind remaining optimistic of the idea. But I won't integrate it into my life till it shows benefits that are not parallel to placebo effects.

I disagree about the supposed profit potential. Acupuncture has shown great results in lots of illnesses, but there's hardly any billion dollar industry potential.

Acupuncture has not shown to work and this is because it is pseudo-science. The original acupuncture contained only 360 points and modern acupuncturists now claim that there are more than 2000. Within this, there are far too many forms of acupuncture from Thai, Korean, and Indian. All of these mean nothing as tests have shown one important thing; the therapy only works effectively if you believe it will work.

Tell me what you think that means.

(See George Ulett's study on acupuncture for details).

Mediation as a stress-reliever shows promise in relieving society of things from heart disease to depression, but again there's no profit potential for a corporate health-provider industry.

No but spiritualists will certainly attach a lot of dogma to something that is just slowing your body to basal metabolic rate and then ask for donations or to buy books. I believe this is called Sahaja Yoga.

Why do you think they do this..? There is no rationale or proof that these methods work - it is all mere placebo effect. Of course, profiting off of placebo effects is certainly a wealthy business.

And the real argument, if everybody is healthy and happy, the mega health care industry collapses.

Are you truly relying on our feebleness to avoid offering proof for these beliefs?

Things have been written about the current world health organizations having a vested interest in keeping people sick and afraid. It's like car manufacturers making cars that only their shops can repair.

You're American arn't you? This is merely an argument more about media attention. Please avoid conspiracy theory for the sake of severe digression.

~

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But isn't this an argument from a logical standpoint:




?

mm, I was just trying to create the closest analogy I could think of when I was trying to describe how if God were indeed the creator of reality then he would not be bound by its limits...like how a programmer isnt bound to the same properties as a simulated world like WOW or the like. If God were not omnipresent the original argument would indeed be flawless...but if he is omnipresent, he is like that programmer.

Of course, I dont think even if there is some kind of "god" he is omnipresent, Im just trying to do what the OP said and find ways people would try to counter it.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

mm, I was just trying to create the closest analogy I could think of when I was trying to describe how if God were indeed the creator of reality then he would not be bound by its limits...like how a programmer isnt bound to the same properties as a simulated world like WOW or the like.

Derp, forget it.

lol, Im sorry I missed your point. Was youe point that I was using logic when I had previously said that arguing about an omnipresent being bounded by reality was flawed?

Originally Posted by tkdyo

lol, Im sorry I missed your point. Was youe point that I was using logic when I had previously said that arguing about an omnipresent being bounded by reality was flawed?

You said we can't talk about an all-powerful being with logic.

But you argued to that point using logic.

Thats all.

oh, I didnt mean talking about an all powerful being at all. I meant talking about an all powerful being constricted by a force of reality. Because then he is not all powerful.

Originally Posted by Xei

'Chi' or 'auras' ... are just comforting words with no meaning, in my opinion.

Are you, like O'nus appears to be, a scientific skeptic that refuses to believe anything that science and logic can't prove?

For myself, I'm with the White Queen: Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

But you still haven't answered the basic question of what these things even are.

This more than anything is why they don't exist; they aren't even concepts. They're floating blobs of semantics. As Pauli famously said; you're not even wrong.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Acupuncture has not shown to work and this is because it is pseudo-science.

My goodness. Such a quick leap from "lack of evidence" to complete conclusion and labeling.

Originally Posted by O'nus

...tests have shown one important thing; the therapy only works effectively if you believe it will work.

I think there are tests that have shown quite the opposite. I'll see if I can dig up references for you.

Onus, you clearly have an impressive intellect. I will roll over and decline to get muddy with you in logically debating your contentions, because frankly you've got me out-classed. However even acknowledging your superior intellect, you should know that there's no way you will convince me that science and logic can deduce all the answers. I would like to point out that one of the problems that can arise with stong intellects is that you may not see your own bias. Do you refuse to believe anything that can't be proven by science or argued persuasively with your admittedly powerful logic? That's the way it sounds. And that is bias, pure and simple.

---

On the question of consciousness, albeit man's rather that God's, which is where this all started, have you read Hofstadter's "I am a Strange Loop?" I haven't read it, though I have read his "Godel, Escher, and Bach," which develops his thesis on consciousness, though not as completely as in IAASL. If you haven't read him, I highly recommend it. I personally was a bit overwhelmed and never felt like I had a good grasp of Godel's theorem, but you are obviously brighter than I am and can probably make sense of it.
In a summary he says:
"GEB is a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"
[from Wiki] "In IAASL he seeks to demonstrate how the properties of self-referential systems, demonstrated most famously in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, can be used to describe the unique properties of minds," including consciousness.

I'd be interested to know if you've read him and what your position is on his ideas. I am sincere in this, as I'd be interested in an assessment from someone like yourself that has the capability to understand what he's talking about, which I frankly don't quite.

Originally Posted by TTTman

My goodness. Such a quick leap from "lack of evidence" to complete conclusion and labeling.

You say this as though there is something wrong with it and then you continue to actually agree with me. You say in the next paragraph that science cannot solve everything thus creating a dichotomy between science and non-science. You then continue to say that you can dig up scientific facts supporting acupuncture but simultaneously say that it ought not to require it?

I think what you are doing is defending something while completely acknowledging it is pseudo-science.

Let me establish something for the benefit of both of us; even if it is not science or has no proof, the fact is that it works if you believe it works. Don't ignore that I fully support and fervently enjoy the power of the mind. Just acknowledge that it is the MIND and not the METHOD that is bringing the results.

I imagine we can run off to numerous grandiose claims off of that notion.

I think there are tests that have shown quite the opposite. I'll see if I can dig up references for you.

I would honestly be inclined to read them.

...you should know that there's no way you will convince me that science and logic can deduce all the answers.

I won't say that, ever. Science can never tell you who "you" are or what you think of something. Subjectivity is always up to the individual and most scientists acknowledge this. This is why there is no science of art.

Furthermore, realize that what you are saying is actually bias; you will believe in it no matter what.

I would like to point out that one of the problems that can arise with stong intellects is that you may not see your own bias. Do you refuse to believe anything that can't be proven by science or argued persuasively with your admittedly powerful logic? That's the way it sounds. And that is bias, pure and simple.

I think it is important that you know that no science claims to know something beyond a doubt. The most scientific fact that a scientist can claim is something at 98% certainty (p=.05 for you statisticians). My point here is that science always gives room for falsifiability and change. Science looks at the empirical data that we can objectively prove and systematically observe.

If you haven't read him, I highly recommend it. I personally was a bit overwhelmed and never felt like I had a good grasp of Godel's theorem,

lol Godel is pretty hard, even for graduate philosophers.

but you are obviously brighter than I am and can probably make sense of it.

STOP SAYING THAT!

In a summary he says:
"GEB is a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"
[from Wiki] "In IAASL he seeks to demonstrate how the properties of self-referential systems, demonstrated most famously in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, can be used to describe the unique properties of minds," including consciousness.

I'd be interested to know if you've read him and what your position is on his ideas. I am sincere in this, as I'd be interested in an assessment from someone like yourself that has the capability to understand what he's talking about, which I frankly don't quite.

I will follow up on this with a thread. I won't lie, it does take a bit of work to discuss Godel and Russell.

~

the belief that God is consciousness is not a play of words

It is an ancient belief that PREDATES christianity

look up hinduism for one

My argument is simple. Your argument is useless and is largely spoken from ignorance in what God means for many, many, many. And I mean... A LOT

Originally Posted by juroara

the belief that God is consciousness is not a play of words

It is an ancient belief that PREDATES christianity

The belief that the sun is a God has been around longer than any recorded history. Does that make it true? Oh yeah, Zoroastrianism has been around before Christianity as well. Is it true nor regarded anymore? Of course not - time does not warrant truth.

Furthermore, are you defining God as consciousness? In that case, it is semantic. You are not offering anything further than a semantic definition. "God=consciousness" is all that you are saying. "X=Y". Perhaps you mean something more, but none of use can know this because you are failing at expressing it.

My argument is simple. Your argument is useless and is largely spoken from ignorance in what God means for many, many, many. And I mean... A LOT

Your argument actually completely fails to encapsulate anything other than conjecture. Please do not try and base your arguments by attacking others. Realize that you are entirely guilty of what you are accusing.

I'm not even sure who you are speaking to.

~

I believe I understand how your argument works O'nus, but something about it doesn't feel quite right, and I don't know how to pin-point the problem. I'm going to give you a scenario I thought up, and maybe you can tell me how that works (or doesn't work) with your argument.


Scenario: I'm asleep, and dreaming. I attain lucidity and decide to try something new. I erase the entire setting so that I see nothing but the black void before me. I want to create a universe that is mechanically identical to this one, and we'll assume for the sake of the example that I have processing power capable enough of keeping track of every bit of energy (and therefor matter, etc) in this created existence. I create a simple set of rules that will act as the basis for the universe, and these rules will be identical to current physical laws. An innumerable amount of planets will be able to harbor life, and many will allow for the evolution of a sentient species.


You can see where I'm going with this. Because it's in my own head, I do retain the property of omnipotence within that universe. It might be argued then that none of my sentient creatures have any free will since they're really just a part of my imagination. There is, however, a direct relationship to the free will of my creatures and the free will of any standard DC in a non-lucid dream. DCs exibit largely different behaviors when they are being directly controlled or influenced by you, as opposed to when you just "stand back to see what they do". For the sake of my example, my little sentient creatures will have this similar "free will" in that they may appear to be more like pieces of my subconscious will acting themselves out.

Now, if my created universe follows the same principles as the one we're experiencing right now, why should the "god's" consciousness in either universe be challenged? In my universe, surely I must still be conscious to maintain it. If I were to become unconscious, the dream would fail and the universe would die along with it.

I tried to state that as simply as I could, so I hope it makes sense the way I intended.