[dustin_archibald]

Intillectually I don't believe in a god or goddess but spiritually I do since I find myself often talking to something, usually if something isn't going as planned .

Over the years I've to come agree with the idea of balance; not in the western view of something being equal to another but like the eastern philosophy of duality. More specifically, the Tao or the Way, although I don't fully comprehend it all. I see this duality in a lot of things: light/dark, male/female, right/wrong, good/evil, left/right etc. If you're a "scientist" you could say this is like the conservation of mass/energy: as one goes up the other goes down. One interesting observation is poverty: few people in our world are very rich while scores of others live in poverty. This duality is embraced by a oneness often described as the Way or Tao. We can see things that exist on a scale from one to the other (eg: somethings are right or wrong but others are seen in shades of grey).

Each thing (dog, cat, person, rock) has a Way that is different from all others. The combination of all Ways would be Truth. That being said one important paraphrase in the Tao Te Ching is "The Way (Tao) that can be name is not the true Way (Tao)". This phrase points to the observation that all things change: stone turns to dust, light turns to dark, wet turns to dry.

Religion is a great but flawed concept. It allows people of like beliefs to form a community and rely on eachother. It is a way to share ideas in an easily accessible method. It provides order in times when chaos seems rampant. However, it can also be used as a method to manipulate others. Not by god/goddess, mind you, but by other people bent on personal gain. It can be used to cause violence and pain while absolving the participants of responsibility. It is ultimately human.

Faith on the otherhand needs no religion. It is based on what we've observed in the past. I have faith that this message will be posted. I have faith that my car will start. We have faith that our scientific laws are true.

Another interesting observation about God (and this time I'm talking about the Judeo-Christian God) is that it has evolved over time. At first it was vengeful and would smite you for eating the wrong kind of food or not sacrficing a goat. Now, not so much. Some of my religious friends believe that God is treating us as parents treat their children as they grow. First the kid doesn't know very much so you give them rules to stop them when they do something that could harm them. Next they get into their teen years where they rebel and so you let them push away for a bit. Later in life the kids come to see that their parents were right afterall and then they come back. Humanity is in it's teen years.

Will science replace religion? Many scientific disciplines are religion. They give rigid practices that must be followed. You may only call yourself a follower of that science if you adhere to those practices. Ideas that are not approved by the "administrators" of those disciplines are often denounced as heretical or nonsensical. Questioning the practices can result in being shunned from the discipline.

[chazzysaw]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

Chazzysaw,
I find the Goddess in the eyes of loved ones. Have you ever inhaled deeply in the midst of a forest? I have climbed only one mountain, but she was waiting for me at the peak at sunrise and also in a very old church in Asia. I have also found the Goddess in those people who give up their seats on public transit to nursing mothers, the brilliant eyes of wrinkled old people and the two soprano aria in Lakme. Maybe it's not a question of where you see her, it's a question of being open to it....

I like that "being open to it". I agree. I believe the compassionate side discribes the Goddess part of the Conscious Power there are no boundaries or barriers. It flows through everything and everybody. The compassion of the female and the strength of the male, put it together and you get Nature.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by chazzysaw

If you believe God does not exist then what is it you believe that make it possible for things to not only exist but to think. I just want to know what it is you don't believe?

Hi chazzysaw!



I believe in the probability combined with the pure randomness.

You see,I think that our particular universe, and its Big Bang arent something special. For me, this is a normal, ordinary event that happens from time to time. This is achievable either via Multiverse- and infinite oscillations in the Multiverse, either through infinite oscillations of our universe -one and only universe scenario.Until the humans, everything was nothing,since there was no consciousness or self awareness.

My assumption is that everything that can happen in this pure randomness,eventually will happen.However, this doesnt work with the humans and self awareness,here almost everything can happen, but almost nothing must.

This our evolution is some kind of the best hyper-super-evolution.

I think there are other worlds where evolution wasnt so successful.There are worlds where species have terrible mutations,horrible respiratory system,or instincts are heavily disturbed.Not only this, I think that if you were on some planet inhabited with higher primates,and if you would wait for the appearance of homo sapiens, it would be pointless.I think that there are odds 1/1000000000000 in the optimistic version,that humans will develop from the higher primates. In most of the worlds, evolutionary accidents are to lethal, to disturbing and there is no homo sapiens.Environment is very stable or very disturbing-again no humans.And of course, since humans are the most sophisticated product of evolution and universe, it is normal to expect that other biological structures will be very well organized there where are humans, on Earth.But I think there must be a lot of planets with this horrible evolution. And yes, we have to distinct between human intelligence - self aware, and this "random intelligence" - rest of the universe.

And since I think that universe is oscillating,there is no problem if humans cant appear in first oscillation.Maybe they can appear after

10¹ºººººººººººººººººº oscillations, but in infinite oscillating system, it is enough that something can happen,and one day it will.I repeat, that works until the humans.

For example, if there are three possible occupations in the universe - scientist,tennis player,artist -even if I could live in infinite number of universes I could always choose to be an artist,I dont have to be a scientist. But also, I can be artist once, and every other time scientist.



And this oscillations can be achieved either via Big Crunch (small possibility) or Big Freeze(high possibility). So, now we are in the Stelliferous era - followed by Degenerate era,Black hole era,Dark era.After, or better in the Dark era after some enormous amount of time, quantum transitions are possible,and the cycle is closed in the form - Big Bang....Big Freeze...Big Bang...Big Freeze..

I think that this is achievable either via Heim or String theory which are probably at the moment two best theories for describing our current universe.



And god is created by humans in one stage of the self awareness development, similar to the tothems.



Best wishes!

[Mr. Nobody]

But I dont think that there is any kind of self awareness, consciousness (or sentient consciousness,real existence..etc) apart from human self awareness or consciousness

I disagree. There is no way to gauge self awareness or sentience other than to base it on meaningful communication from the subject in question. Without comunication there is no "feel" of inteligence. Hence anything that has the abilty to communicate is intelligent.
Were a human mind isolated from body by birth, artifically feed and deprived of the communal influence and social nurishment, than this mind remains the lowest form of existence, if any existence at all. You see, it is not the single mind that makes you human, it is the fact that humans built a network that sustains it, that gives it purpose, sense, orientation and rason. This network is society. Without it the human mind is just another computer without software, meaningless.
Enter the internet, a network, perhaps soon a society of computers. Should we continue on the path of interconnection and develop processors that are capable of interpreting their environment, taking in the same amount of information as our brain, possess the same processing power than we do, than there will be sentient machines. I feel very strongly that we are not special, that sentience is not unique and that self awareness is only dependant on the degree of structured order nothing else.

I see this duality in a lot of things: light/dark, male/female, right/wrong, good/evil, left/right

This may be nothing more than pattern recognition or our attempt to interpret and orient ourselves within the cosmos. But does it have meaning?

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

This may be nothing more than pattern recognition or our attempt to interpret and orient ourselves within the cosmos. But does it have meaning?

It provides reasons for why things are the way they are and how to alleviate suffering or encourage good living. Millions of people live in middle-class to rich lifestyles while billions of others live in poverty. I don't see this as God's Will or Plan; it is the cumulative effect of our individual drive to accumulate wealth and security.

Our species' best bet for survival and growth is to have all people living with the same quality of life and then elevating everybody's standard of living as one unit. In order to get there though, many of the wealthy would have decrease their standard of living; not so much that they couldn't live but enough to cause some turmoil.

[harmonygirl]

Originally Posted by <<>>

Let's see if I can communicate intelligibly the message. Let's assume god exists. Let's assume, further, that the god that exists has the fundamentla properties of: absolute, infinite, eternal, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, all-of-nature, and other total-properties. By simpel analize, we can see that all the properties can be reduced to the property of Perfection.
...

Your' speaking for yourself. I want. For example, I want to be a philosopher and/or physicist when I'm old. I want to learn, to discuss in the forums, I want to post. I want to eat, I'm hungry. I want, I want...

...

Yes. But all I wanted to say is that it's wrong the foundation that human rights are base don us a species. They are absed on us as rational beings, as symbolic beings, I've said already, with a mind, a personality, an individual. This is what Roussau, Voltaire and all romanticism is about. But we must not forget that jsut as romanticism was based on individuation, it was also based on ideation. It had not real connection to reality, and many poets (like Lord Byron, Espronceda...) felt the confrontment of their ideals with reality. Here came Hegel. The state is everything, we can't be in charge of each individual, as the human rights want to make us believe. And if indeed we say that it's not about each individual but all individuals, then we're automatically leaving individuation and generalising.

...

What are you refering here to (by post postmodern comment)? I believe death to be very profound, in fact the most profound thing of all, it is the proof of the life, just as the number that comes oout of the dice is the proof of the throw, that is, the neccesity is the proof of the gamble. Everything is a question of perspective, but at the same time nothing is. I'm slowlly but strongly devleoping an attack to Hegel and Nietzsche which I will finally write and post as article. I hope to find a solution to this moment in time. Maybe time has gone and it's too late to do so, though.

Guille,
so much to say so little time. I am, however, starting to get the picture that you and I will never agree on these things!! (but here goes...) I don't know whether the Goddess is perfect (certainly most assume so) but in terms of her dependence upon us, I don't think that your logical solution addresses what I was saying. What if she needs us to appreciate this reality on an intimate level? this is speculation...
In terms of "want", I was alluding to the "state of grace" that most spiritual beliefs aspire to, where there is no desire/want, and we are just happy. I agree with you we are not there yet!
It may be limited for human rights to be based on us (I agree we are not the most responsible species on the planet) but it's a start and a logical one, when you consider our tremendous (collective) egos...although, as I said, this is evolving.
Good for you, I hope you post your attack on Hegel and Nietzsche. I actually think that life is the most profound thing of all, but let's not get into that!

[Marko]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody

I disagree. There is no way to gauge self awareness or sentience other than to base it on meaningful communication from the subject in question. Without comunication there is no "feel" of inteligence. Hence anything that has the abilty to communicate is intelligent.
Were a human mind isolated from body by birth, artifically feed and deprived of the communal influence and social nurishment, than this mind remains the lowest form of existence, if any existence at all. You see, it is not the single mind that makes you human, it is the fact that humans built a network that sustains it, that gives it purpose, sense, orientation and rason. This network is society. Without it the human mind is just another computer without software, meaningless.
Enter the internet, a network, perhaps soon a society of computers. Should we continue on the path of interconnection and develop processors that are capable of interpreting their environment, taking in the same amount of information as our brain, possess the same processing power than we do, than there will be sentient machines. I feel very strongly that we are not special, that sentience is not unique and that self awareness is only dependant on the degree of structured order nothing else.

I think that this is very optimistic version. Again I think that this works with the intelligence, but not with the self awareness. I agree that society is very important for the healthy development of the human being, and that without proper care in our early age we would be lost. But I disagree that we can apply this on the computers in terms of self awareness. I think that it is far more complicated then just “at high level of order – self awareness”. It is in the chemical composition,DNA structure, structure of the cerebral cortex. For example, Broca”s region is unique for humans. I think that self awareness is achievable only in very narrow band of parameters, and only humans satisfied this conditions. As only Earth satisfied a conditions for the habitable zones in the Solar system.So, in my opinion one high level of order ( humans) become self aware, but others did not and can not because they dont possess required mixture of parameters for self awareness. Again, I am an atheist, I think that all this is possible by the series of accidents. It is not my intention to glorify humans. I am just trying to be most objective and realistic.

Moreover, I think that self aware computers cant exist, but I am not the person that will stick to the one idea if this idea or theory is really proven wrong.

In that manner, if you could provide some stronger evidences, or more detailed analysis to backup your theory I will be here to discuss it,and if the arguments are really strong maybe I would change my mind. But yet I havent seen such firm evidences that would make this theory reliable.



Best wishes

Marko

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I am, however, starting to get the picture that you and I will never agree on these things!!

I will never agree on this! (lol) I believe we can agree in many things. It's when one starts believing that you'r going nowhere when you start going nowhere. I believe by this discussion we go everywhere, and so we do.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

I don't know whether the Goddess is perfect (certainly most assume so) but in terms of her dependence upon us, I don't think that your logical solution addresses what I was saying. What if she needs us to appreciate this reality on an intimate level? this is speculation...

Everything is speculation. In the sense you mean yes, she apreciates reality from all points of view and from none at the same time. Therefore she depends on us, but also she depends on usnothing because she has all the other infinity of views, and the view from nowhere. It's because god is so contradictory that I don't believe in it.

Originally Posted by harmonygirl

In terms of "want", I was alluding to the "state of grace" that most spiritual beliefs aspire to, where there is no desire/want, and we are just happy. I agree with you we are not there yet!

We will never get to the point of not wanting anything. Becuase if you want nothing in life, then you want to die, and that's wanting something. It's absurd, no human could ever be in heaven or hell...

[harmonygirl]

Guille,
I absolutely disagree that we will never get to the point of not wanting anything. A few people have gotten there already (mostly Bhuddists). You don't die if you want nothing, "getting" simply no longer controls you and you just let yourself become. In my opinion, it is living life more honestly (in terms of yourself). I don't know what you think heaven and hell are, but if they weren't created for humans, who belongs there? (that's if you believe in them at all).
As for the other stuff, it's very hard to have a discussion when your definition of nothing includes everything. I think I understand where you are coming from but your arguments are inconsistent because you argue from a "nothing" premise and then when questioned, include an "everything" premise. Arrgghh!

[Mr. Nobody]

In that manner, if you could provide some stronger evidences, or more detailed analysis to backup your theory I will be here to discuss it,and if the arguments are really strong maybe I would change my mind. But yet I havent seen such firm evidences that would make this theory reliable

I too believe that sentience is rare, because of the time it takes to develop. Human mind had to evolve from the bottom up to gain consciousness. A machine begins with a certain degree of complexity already, an extension of the human, mind and intellect one might say. It has an advantage in the sense that it begins were we left off and its evolution is guided by us. The other reason I subscribe to this idea is the fact that whenever we thought of us unique, as in where we live, who we are, and where we come from, we were proven wrong and nothing more than a product of (un)fortunate events. So why not extend this idea to the last holdout: sentience. Why not make sentience and consciousness another logical outcome of organization