garthoverman
April 4th 2003, 08:39 PM
Whaddup.
My name's Garth, I'm new to this forum. I did my intro on the Orientation forum so I'll spare ya'll the deatails.
My post is about pantheism. I am a pantheist. For those of ya'll who don't know what that is, pantheism is a belief that the universe is identical to God. This is not a Christian view of God, and is not compatible with orthodox Christianity, however I think there are a number of biblical passages that allude to a pantheistic theology. Still there are plenty that don't, but I don't hold the Bible to be much of an authority on anything so it don't bother me much.
The post that follows summarizes my basic reasoning behind my holding to pantheism, however it is NOT comprehensive. Its assembled rather loosely, and is likely to contain flaws in reasoning, but I hope those will only serve as points for futher discussion and clarification. I know that its long, but I think it should be a relatively easy read so please bear with me until the end.
Why do I hold to pantheism? Well, I believe that consciousness is inherent in every fragment of the universe. Identity is held as a capstone to various gestalts of consciousness, a perfect example of which is the human body. I am conscious; specifically, I mean that I have subjective experiences. Somehow, then, consciousness is a property/attribute of the matter that composes my body. The problem is that the matter that composes my body is not constant throughout the course of my life. Every 7 years, my body has completely recycled the matter that composed it, and is composed of entirely new matter. The body that I had 7 years ago is dead, and yet I remain conscious.
So it seems that consciousness is not merely a property/attribute of my matter, since my matter could be any matter in the universe. No matter (pardon the pun) what matter comes into my body to compose it, and no matter (again, pardon) what matter leaves my body, I remain conscious. I'll allow that my particular type of consciousness is dependant upon the configuration, but it seems that consciousness itself is indepedant of configuration, or that defining consciousness in terms of configuration is arbitrary and limiting.
I am conscious, I know that. You are conscious, you know that. Can I know that you are conscious? Not really, in the ultimate epistemological sense. The problem we face there is solipsism. So, I examine myself and my own consciousness to attempt to understand the nature of consciousness and being. What am I? I am matter, which is energy that is sort of "condensed" to a slow vibration. Consciousness is therefore somehow a property of the matter and energy that I am composed of. In other words, consciousness is somehow inherent in all things material. I'm NOT saying that consciousness is entirely material, simply that there must be consciousness within material for material to exist.
As I see it we have four options, and if anyone can think of a fifth or more, I'll gladly discuss those: Consciousness is not a property of matter/energy, and we have some sort of form dualism where the source of our consciousness is a seperate and distinct realm of being.
Consciousness is a propery of matter/energy, therefore all forms of energy have consciousness.
Consciousness is a property of certian configurations of matter/energy, but not others.
Consciousness doesn't exist.I think we can easily discard 4, if not on an objective basis, at least on the fact that I know that I am conscious, and I have a consciousness. If I didn't believe that, I probably wouldn't be asking these questions. Some of you may say that consciousness is simply a result of highly complex workings of the brain, and I have considered this option but am not satisfied with it. It seems to explain why it appears that you are conscious, but it doesn't explain my own self-awareness. I don't need to know about the complex workings of my brain in order to generate thoughts or imagination, so I can't accept that my self-awareness is simply a by-product of those workings. I think it must be the other way around: that my thoughts and imagination activate the highly complex processes of my brain and use them, yet are not a result of them. The other reason I don't accept this hypothesis is that it seems to sneak in a hidden assumption of determinism that is faulty, IMO. It is quite likely that the functioning of cognitive processes relies on the probablistic nature of non-deterministic quantum states, the objective reduction of which we have yet to explain. It is my opinion that consciousness and its properties are integral in affecting the reduction of the quantum state, but I will defer that discussion to another day unless someone wants to really get into it.
Back to our four alternatives, then. I've discarded 4 and we are left with 1, 2, and 3. 3 seems overly arbitrary to me, since we define which configurations meet the criteria we then ascribe to consciousness, which is circular. It seems that 3 would explain why I have identity, but not necessarily explain the existence of my subjective experiences. My consciousness recognizes itself as itself since its configuration is continuous (as opposed to discontinuous) but consciousness as an attribute is not merely an emergent property of the configuration since the configuration itself is in a constant state of change.
I feel that number 2 is the more parsimonious of the remaining options because it doesn't require the assumed existence of a seperate but distinct realm of existence in which consciousness has its source, as would be assumed in number 1. 2 is the most reasonable, IMHO, because it explains why my consciousness remains continuous no matter what energy composes my body. One should also consider that at the elementary particle level, all particles of a certian type are identical. In other words, it is impossible to distinguish one proton from another proton. So if consciousness happens to be an attribute of the protons and electrons and neutrons that compose my body, there's no reason to believe that consciousness can't also be a property of other protons, electrons, etc...
So, assuming 2 is true, what does that mean? If the universe is 100% matter/energy, meaning there is no other substance than simply energy in various forms, and if all energy is conscious, that must mean that the universe is 100% conscious. But what does that mean? What is the nature of consciousness, then? While this remains debateable, and I'm open to other speculations, it seems to me that a fundamental characteristic of consciousness is interaction and expression. Fundamentally, I think interaction is the basis of expression. Consciousness indiviudalizes itself, focusing itself into form. Then being form, it has a platform for expression. The problem with examining expression is that it extends beyond the scope of objective science. It involves significance, values, meaning and quality. We can't really quantize or measure quality, but I think we can all agree that quality exists. It seems to me that consciousness expresses itself through seeking out interations that fulfill a certain measure of quality--if such a thing can be said to exist--the measure itself being evaluated by the conscious participants in the interaction.
These propensities are seemingly evident in chemistry and the the way that matter itself forms: subatomic particles interact to form atoms (one level of significance). Atoms interact to form molecules (another level of significance). Molecules interact to form compounds (another level of significance). Compounds interact to form cells. Cells interact to form tissues. Tissues interact to form organs. Organs interact to form systems. Systems interact to form a body. Bodies interact to form societies. Societies interact to form civilizations. Civilizations interact to form the species. Species interact to form the planet. Planets interact to form the solar system. Solar systems interact to form galaxies. Galaxies interact to form the universe. There are likely to be infinitely many other ways of examining this gestalt-type tendency, but I think the series I just presented at least illustrates what I mean.
All of these systems assort themselves in gestalt formations that can be likened to a pyramid-type heirarchy. In other words, the existence of one level of significance is dependant upon the collective inclusion and participation of lower orders of awareness that are themselves individual gestalts of awareness. The entirety of this heirarchy is what I call God: All That Is, or the Universe. This is a VERY different god-concept than typical theism which paints God as some cosmic pied-piper that not only dictates what can happen, also judges based on what does happen, yet knows what happens in advance. We're all familiar with the flaws in a concept such as this. I believe that in one sense, the atheists have it. There is no God such as this. On the other hand (she had six fingers!) the atheists are faced with Chalmer's Hard Problem that seems to be the last gap in which God can still hide. I believe that a conscious universe is the resolution to Chalmer's problem, yet will still preserve the overwhelming majority of atheist objections and arguments including everything from the Problem of Evil, the Problem of Free Will and the rejection of First Cause. Still, I am aware that prima facie it appears I've only hid a different God in the same gap. I invite the readers to critique the reasoning I've presented to see if we have a rational basis for which to accept my proposed resolution.
What I perceive to make the difference between hiding the God of traditional theism in that gap and filling the gap with the "god of consciousness" is that of naturality. The Christian God is supernatural, consciousness is natural. Offering "God did it" in the sense of the Christian God is not an explanation because it only replaces the unknown with the unknowable. Consciousness, on the other hand, is knowable, however it can only truly be known on a subjective basis because of the problem of solipsism. That is why this explanation constantly eludes the scientists who MUST adhere to objectivity. It is an interesting dilemma, and I don't know how to approach it really since I've already conceded that science in its present methods can not. Sometimes I feel like Cassandra with the ability to know and yet the inability to make known.
Whew! That should mark a pretty good beginning for me here at Tweb. I hope everyone had a good time reading my post, and I hope that I can expect some good-natured and lively discussion to follow.
Yours,
Garth
My name's Garth, I'm new to this forum. I did my intro on the Orientation forum so I'll spare ya'll the deatails.
My post is about pantheism. I am a pantheist. For those of ya'll who don't know what that is, pantheism is a belief that the universe is identical to God. This is not a Christian view of God, and is not compatible with orthodox Christianity, however I think there are a number of biblical passages that allude to a pantheistic theology. Still there are plenty that don't, but I don't hold the Bible to be much of an authority on anything so it don't bother me much.
The post that follows summarizes my basic reasoning behind my holding to pantheism, however it is NOT comprehensive. Its assembled rather loosely, and is likely to contain flaws in reasoning, but I hope those will only serve as points for futher discussion and clarification. I know that its long, but I think it should be a relatively easy read so please bear with me until the end.
Why do I hold to pantheism? Well, I believe that consciousness is inherent in every fragment of the universe. Identity is held as a capstone to various gestalts of consciousness, a perfect example of which is the human body. I am conscious; specifically, I mean that I have subjective experiences. Somehow, then, consciousness is a property/attribute of the matter that composes my body. The problem is that the matter that composes my body is not constant throughout the course of my life. Every 7 years, my body has completely recycled the matter that composed it, and is composed of entirely new matter. The body that I had 7 years ago is dead, and yet I remain conscious.
So it seems that consciousness is not merely a property/attribute of my matter, since my matter could be any matter in the universe. No matter (pardon the pun) what matter comes into my body to compose it, and no matter (again, pardon) what matter leaves my body, I remain conscious. I'll allow that my particular type of consciousness is dependant upon the configuration, but it seems that consciousness itself is indepedant of configuration, or that defining consciousness in terms of configuration is arbitrary and limiting.
I am conscious, I know that. You are conscious, you know that. Can I know that you are conscious? Not really, in the ultimate epistemological sense. The problem we face there is solipsism. So, I examine myself and my own consciousness to attempt to understand the nature of consciousness and being. What am I? I am matter, which is energy that is sort of "condensed" to a slow vibration. Consciousness is therefore somehow a property of the matter and energy that I am composed of. In other words, consciousness is somehow inherent in all things material. I'm NOT saying that consciousness is entirely material, simply that there must be consciousness within material for material to exist.
As I see it we have four options, and if anyone can think of a fifth or more, I'll gladly discuss those: Consciousness is not a property of matter/energy, and we have some sort of form dualism where the source of our consciousness is a seperate and distinct realm of being.
Consciousness is a propery of matter/energy, therefore all forms of energy have consciousness.
Consciousness is a property of certian configurations of matter/energy, but not others.
Consciousness doesn't exist.I think we can easily discard 4, if not on an objective basis, at least on the fact that I know that I am conscious, and I have a consciousness. If I didn't believe that, I probably wouldn't be asking these questions. Some of you may say that consciousness is simply a result of highly complex workings of the brain, and I have considered this option but am not satisfied with it. It seems to explain why it appears that you are conscious, but it doesn't explain my own self-awareness. I don't need to know about the complex workings of my brain in order to generate thoughts or imagination, so I can't accept that my self-awareness is simply a by-product of those workings. I think it must be the other way around: that my thoughts and imagination activate the highly complex processes of my brain and use them, yet are not a result of them. The other reason I don't accept this hypothesis is that it seems to sneak in a hidden assumption of determinism that is faulty, IMO. It is quite likely that the functioning of cognitive processes relies on the probablistic nature of non-deterministic quantum states, the objective reduction of which we have yet to explain. It is my opinion that consciousness and its properties are integral in affecting the reduction of the quantum state, but I will defer that discussion to another day unless someone wants to really get into it.
Back to our four alternatives, then. I've discarded 4 and we are left with 1, 2, and 3. 3 seems overly arbitrary to me, since we define which configurations meet the criteria we then ascribe to consciousness, which is circular. It seems that 3 would explain why I have identity, but not necessarily explain the existence of my subjective experiences. My consciousness recognizes itself as itself since its configuration is continuous (as opposed to discontinuous) but consciousness as an attribute is not merely an emergent property of the configuration since the configuration itself is in a constant state of change.
I feel that number 2 is the more parsimonious of the remaining options because it doesn't require the assumed existence of a seperate but distinct realm of existence in which consciousness has its source, as would be assumed in number 1. 2 is the most reasonable, IMHO, because it explains why my consciousness remains continuous no matter what energy composes my body. One should also consider that at the elementary particle level, all particles of a certian type are identical. In other words, it is impossible to distinguish one proton from another proton. So if consciousness happens to be an attribute of the protons and electrons and neutrons that compose my body, there's no reason to believe that consciousness can't also be a property of other protons, electrons, etc...
So, assuming 2 is true, what does that mean? If the universe is 100% matter/energy, meaning there is no other substance than simply energy in various forms, and if all energy is conscious, that must mean that the universe is 100% conscious. But what does that mean? What is the nature of consciousness, then? While this remains debateable, and I'm open to other speculations, it seems to me that a fundamental characteristic of consciousness is interaction and expression. Fundamentally, I think interaction is the basis of expression. Consciousness indiviudalizes itself, focusing itself into form. Then being form, it has a platform for expression. The problem with examining expression is that it extends beyond the scope of objective science. It involves significance, values, meaning and quality. We can't really quantize or measure quality, but I think we can all agree that quality exists. It seems to me that consciousness expresses itself through seeking out interations that fulfill a certain measure of quality--if such a thing can be said to exist--the measure itself being evaluated by the conscious participants in the interaction.
These propensities are seemingly evident in chemistry and the the way that matter itself forms: subatomic particles interact to form atoms (one level of significance). Atoms interact to form molecules (another level of significance). Molecules interact to form compounds (another level of significance). Compounds interact to form cells. Cells interact to form tissues. Tissues interact to form organs. Organs interact to form systems. Systems interact to form a body. Bodies interact to form societies. Societies interact to form civilizations. Civilizations interact to form the species. Species interact to form the planet. Planets interact to form the solar system. Solar systems interact to form galaxies. Galaxies interact to form the universe. There are likely to be infinitely many other ways of examining this gestalt-type tendency, but I think the series I just presented at least illustrates what I mean.
All of these systems assort themselves in gestalt formations that can be likened to a pyramid-type heirarchy. In other words, the existence of one level of significance is dependant upon the collective inclusion and participation of lower orders of awareness that are themselves individual gestalts of awareness. The entirety of this heirarchy is what I call God: All That Is, or the Universe. This is a VERY different god-concept than typical theism which paints God as some cosmic pied-piper that not only dictates what can happen, also judges based on what does happen, yet knows what happens in advance. We're all familiar with the flaws in a concept such as this. I believe that in one sense, the atheists have it. There is no God such as this. On the other hand (she had six fingers!) the atheists are faced with Chalmer's Hard Problem that seems to be the last gap in which God can still hide. I believe that a conscious universe is the resolution to Chalmer's problem, yet will still preserve the overwhelming majority of atheist objections and arguments including everything from the Problem of Evil, the Problem of Free Will and the rejection of First Cause. Still, I am aware that prima facie it appears I've only hid a different God in the same gap. I invite the readers to critique the reasoning I've presented to see if we have a rational basis for which to accept my proposed resolution.
What I perceive to make the difference between hiding the God of traditional theism in that gap and filling the gap with the "god of consciousness" is that of naturality. The Christian God is supernatural, consciousness is natural. Offering "God did it" in the sense of the Christian God is not an explanation because it only replaces the unknown with the unknowable. Consciousness, on the other hand, is knowable, however it can only truly be known on a subjective basis because of the problem of solipsism. That is why this explanation constantly eludes the scientists who MUST adhere to objectivity. It is an interesting dilemma, and I don't know how to approach it really since I've already conceded that science in its present methods can not. Sometimes I feel like Cassandra with the ability to know and yet the inability to make known.
Whew! That should mark a pretty good beginning for me here at Tweb. I hope everyone had a good time reading my post, and I hope that I can expect some good-natured and lively discussion to follow.
Yours,
Garth