Main Question or Discussion Point
is it a substance that know human can detect or define?
Royce said:What substance is consciousness made of? Can humans detect it? To hard? How about thought or ideas, philosophy itself? Can we detect it?
I could imagine that we could make progress figuring out how conscious behaviour emerges. For example, looking at feedback loops in the brain to the senses, or the 'self' as a symbol, or things along those lines.Royce said:What substance is consciousness made of? Can humans detect it? To hard? How about thought or ideas, philosophy itself? Can we detect it?
What will be your basis for accepting or rejecting the answers? One could say "Dr. Pepper" is the god-matter and, excepting some criteria, it will be as valid as any other answer. So, what criteria are you going to use to judge the answers?neurocomp2003 said:what substance is god/gods made of? is it a substance that know human can detect or define?
Physicalim has the implication that everything is fully detectable and comprehensible form a 3rd-person POV. So you can't have your completeselfAdjoint said:If this is just a call for opinions, I vote for No Substance, it's a process. And I also vote that it can't be detected by a third party mechanism. (Some might dipute that, but I reject supernatural faith, Inspiration, inner light, and all that as sources of truth).
Your Mathematics Professor might see playing final arbiter as less-than-noble if you did it in the math classroom (esp. if you did it on a test). We don't make up our own math, physics, chemistry, English, etc., independent of the larger society. E.g., I am not the final arbiter on what a noun is. I was born into a community with nouns. So why should I treat this subject any differently and make myself judge of what is or is not god?neurocomp2003 said:obviously i play final arbiter to my own beliefs...
Your question assumes the existence of god/gods! You even seem to assume the creation of the god/god when you asked what they are "made of".neurocomp2003 said:but religious people seem to just assume that god exist suffice and do not question what he is made out of
But that's the problem. We can look at Dr. Pepper all day long. But you have to have some criteria to say that that then is the god-substance. That's why I asked you how you would know how to work backwards from a known substance and say that divinity is composed of it. What will be your rule for knowing this?neurocomp2003 said:...and if in the event that he is made of dr.pepper..then we should look more into the substance that dr.pepper is made out of
It must, because you are asking! You may be more cynical about your beliefs than the regular religious person, but your question is about some metaphysical construct -- it has religion written all over it.neurocomp2003 said:or does this question not matter in t he religious world?
What communication?! Is this like space-alien communication you are talking about here? Seriously, what information flow do you have in view at this point?neurocomp2003 said:and how does he change back and forth between forms of communication between his world and ours for there must be a way to jump back as he does.
Let me get this right, the two options are 1) the one you are proposing, or 2) we live in a "matrix" world.neurocomp2003 said:if not then do we live in a "matrix" world in that the mechanism to which we believe move in so called spacetime are artificial and run on a framebyframe basis like a computer game.
Not really a call for opinions, more of a socratic method of discussion. However I have yet to see or make any statement or question that does not evoke numerous opinions including my own.selfAdjoint said:If this is just a call for opinions,
I agree, no physical substance; but the insubstantial substance of pure thought and consciousness, spirit in other words.I vote for No Substance, it's a process.
While a third party mechanism cannot detect thought or consciousness directly we can and do detect the results or effects of consciousness and thought in others. This forum and these posts are a prime example.And I also vote that it can't be detected by a third party mechanism.
This of course is your opinion and your welcome to it. I can't dispute or disprove it, just as you can't dispute or disprove my opinions.(Some might dispute that, but I reject supernatural faith, Inspiration, inner light, and all that as sources of truth). I think the processes of our brain and body kid us along (delay between potentials and consciousness, bllindsight, etc. etc.), and it's a mistake to take first order appearances in your own awareness too seriously.
I reject the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. I believe that consciousness is a property of being alive and part of the Universal consciousness.WilliamLP said:I could imagine that we could make progress figuring out how conscious behaviour emerges. For example, looking at feedback loops in the brain to the senses, or the 'self' as a symbol, or things along those lines.
This is true, unless one accepts that truth, information and knowledge exist that did not and does not originate from purely within yourself. If one acknowledges that there exist information not original to himself them one must conclude others exist in addition to himself. If others exist then something greater than himself may or must exist including the world, reality and the Universe. After this it is just a matter of observing and experiencing the universe, the world and life all about us.But I don't see how science could ever distinguish between things that act in every respect like conscious things, when there is no subjective feeling to "be" something, and the existence we all experience. (Well, *I* experience it, you might all be zombies:) )
As you (and I) are an intragal part of the universe as it is, if you were someone else, it would be a different universe.This seems sort of equivalent to asking why I am "me", and why my subjective experience isn't you, or Napoleon, or some entity on the surface of a neutron star. I can't imagine that science could ever shed light on that, since the laws of physics are the same whether I exist as "me" or if I existed as someone else. Yet there most definitely *is* a difference for me, because I'm not you. Or something like that.
I would say that it is an observation not yet a law. As I understand it one has to determine and show a one to one cause and effect relationship before it can become a law. I would also say that subjective experience is a property of consciousness.I could postulate a law that says there is subjective experience associated with anything that behaves exactly as if it were conscious. Is this reasonable? Is it a law of physics, or something else?
Can you prove that removing my brain will destroy all consciousness in the universe? What of unconscious brains and people still having experiences and experiencing what is happening around them.neurocomp2003 said:...simple experiment can we remove your brain? or at least destroy all the synaptic knobs in your brain. Long thought out thoughts and ideas...lets destroy the concept of papers/ink and fingers.
If God is then he is part of, exists in or is the universe as the universe is all that is, all that exists. In that there is substance in the universe and in that God is the universe then is not God that substance plus all else that is?the_truth said:If god is omnipotent he can choose whether to exist in this universe as a substance or not and what substance he will exist as.
I cannot even prove to you or anyone else that I exist. Is it therefore best to assume that I do not exist. Who then is writing this, God?However you cannot prove god's existence so it is best to assume he does not exist. Even if you cannot disprove god's existence as the lack of disproof is worthless if you cannot prove god in the first place.
What is the concept of God if not a concept of ultimate consciousness.Canute said:Fascinating how the question about the substance of God turned immediately to a discussion of the substance of consciousness.
Agreed!If consciousness is non-existent, in a true ontological sense, as has been argued, and if solipsim is unfalsifiable, as it seems to be, then it is logically impossible to know that anything exists, and Descartes' was clearly muddled in thinking that his mystical first-person 'cogito' axiom was trustworthy. In this case the substance of God is not the pressing issue. The substance of matter must be determined first, which will be tricky if in principle we cannot prove that it has any substance.
On the other hand, if consciousness is more fundamental than mind and matter there is at least an in principle possibility that we can know what it is made out of, first-hand at least, and thus an in principle possibility that we can know something about the substance of God, should He/She/It exist, and as long as neither turn out to be immaterial.
If God is made out of a substance that is capable of existing outside space/ time, why is is inconceivable that that substance could also exist within space/time? While I agree that God must be non-material (unless the pun was intended) I do not agree that he must be insubstantial (again, pun?)But sticking to just the question about God - it seems incoherent to say that God exists within spacetime. In this case if He is made out of substance it is one that is capable of existing outside spacetime. This is some very peculiar substance, since it has no extension in spacetime. From this it seems likely that if there is a God He must be insubstantial or immaterial.
Does this seem reasonable so far?
Because of your question.neurocomp2003 said:Why would you assume me to be religious?
Congratulations.I'm actually atheist,
Yes, it is interesting how scientific people believe in and discuss the Divine. For example, there was Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Pascal, H. Ross, Lord Rayleigh... When I worked at Oak Ridge National Labs, I remember visiting a religious service. Guess what I found: many scientists were members of the theistic faith community. Nuclear physicists, chemists, material researchers, biologists, all there, with each having a religion and a scientific brain.my question was posed because there are many threads talking about science & religion...
It may be hard for religious people to get worked-up over this since human inability to discover the answer is an inhibiter. I appeal to Flatland, and the analogy of a 2-D entity trying to understand a 3-D entity. The 2-D person can't know the third dimension -- not because of lack of caring or because the extra dimension does not matter, but because of inherent inability. Your question has not exposed a huge hole missed by all the scientific minds, but you are asking a question that is beside-the-point.everytime i've asked someone what god(s) is...the simple answer we don't care OR it doesn't really matter...
I don't know. Besides, who are we to decide what kinds of questions religious people should be asking? I think we would agree, however, that because physicists and researchers don’t ask the questions someone else thinks they should ask, that does not mean that they have put their brains in their pockets.if people put such faith in god existing...should they not ask that question?
I took "immaterial" to mean non-material, not made of physical matter. I course agree totally with this.Canute said:Yes, I probably agree with all of that, especially the point about identity, except I'm not sure how you make a distinction between immaterial and insubstantial.
How about a brain or person who is unconcious or anesthetized. This is what I was referring to.neurocomp2003 said:Royce: "unconscoius brain" is such a awkward word to use does your brain ever stop firing?
This is a large unproven assumption on your part that I don't agree with. I believe that thoughts originate in the mind that is interlinked and interactive with the brain but not necessarily a property of the physical brain.Thoughts are just a relay of your brain and your sense.
No I don't think that the body of any higher animal will live if its brain is removed completely or severely enough damaged.Do you think a baby will live when their brain is removed?
An awful lot of religious people or believers in God ask these questions. They don't know any more than you do. I am one of those people and took your question seriously enough to ask similar questions myself, not all that Socratic. If I believe that one of Gods aspects is consciousness, the universal consciousness then what is God and consciousness made of? "Spirit" is not an answer for the next obvious question is; " Okay what is spirit made of?"and every time i've asked someone what god(s) is...the simple answer we don't care OR it doesn't really matter...if people put such faith in god existing...should they not ask that question?