In my negation, the greater God is simultaneously achieved, as we are speaking in purely conceptual terms. Just imagine a universe in which a deity didn’t do any one of those things and you have it
I’m glad you realize it’s a matter of subjective perception and speculation. I do offer something however, namely the board on which we both can move; a material grounding. If the supernatural exists, then it will be visible to some extent via its interactions with the natural, so we can look to the natural to appease this view if only slightly. If the supernatural doesn’t exist, then it is a waste of good thought and time to assume our conversational progress will be dependent upon it.
Assuming that the supernatural realm does exist, and the material therefore is highly insufficient grounds for me to frame my world view on, it would be more efficient (if only for the sake of convincing those like me) to begin in material terms (as the supernatural would be a proceeding and higher degree of understanding), and refrain from the realm of speculation. We should start then with a firm understanding of what we derive materialistically before explaining the higher realm, not the reverse.
When people speak of the supernatural, the only thing I can relate it to is horror movies like the Exorcist.
We can talk about material. I’m surrounded by the stuff. Some of it, especially what we humans haven’t spoiled is quite lovely.
My inner self is different. I am mind or spirit or soul… in any case not material. From what I can tell you are the same way. So these living places we run into on earth are portals into the spiritual world. You are a window into the spiritual.
Speaking analogously, God is to the universe as we are to our bodies. God is behind everything.
I find how you speak of the non-material poetic and beautiful, I–believe it or not–once thought in the same way. The more I inspect however, the more I am convinced that this is wishful thinking. I don’t expect to change your mind, this is merely a personal account, but it seems to me that all these things are more and more explainable, mainly by quantum mechanics. The dichotomy of the mind and the brain is a rapidly vanishing mystery to science.
Out of curiosity, I would ask why you think these things like spirits and souls to exist. Have you not considered that they may be by-products of a sort to the materialistic processes in the brain? If you have, what led you to decide against such a conclusion?
The mind experienced is irreducible to the brain. If we take our cues from the objectivizers we are through. The Machine wins; humanity is vanquished. It’s all over Baby Jane.
Haha interesting. To be honest, I really couldn’t follow much of anything that thread said (I didn’t watch the video though)! You couldn’t summarize your views again here in more…layman terms?
The only point at which we usually penetrate the surface into the depth behind the material world is in our own mind. And what do we find there? Another world of images, thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc all non-material i.e. spiritual like God. The Leviathan of the material world would rob us of our spirituality. Instead we should get in touch with it, treasure it and cultivate it.
Ah I see now, thank you. I have an interesting theory myself concerning this, I wonder what you think of it. It goes something like this:
Most are comfortable to assume that the human has something very special as opposed to the common animal. The term “spirit” or “soul” is quickly applied, usually without it being thought out very well. What exactly is a soul or a spirit? The definition varies from person to person dramatically, certainly not indicating that this an area of knowledge that is well understood. My theory explains fully why each human has a sense of this immaterial and–as I hope I will convey–superfluous misunderstanding of the human psyche.
That very special something is intelligence and hence a very good ability to survive and reproduce. Nothing more, nothing less. The “spirit” is created in the minds of people when they become intelligent enough to look introvertly upon themselves. In doing so, it is easy for them to take the role of an objective observer, hence the ease our minds have with our consciousness exiting outside our bodies and floating around after we die. You’ll find humans and animals are made of the same basic ingredients.
To better get a picture of how this process works, let’s entertain an interesting comparison. There are a few animals aside from us intelligent enough to recognize that the mirror shows a reflection of whatever is in front of it. In a research experiment, a chimp was shown itself in a mirror then a visually stimulating object was suspended above his head. He saw this in the mirror, and knowing it was his reflection, reached up for the object.
I think most would agree that it would have shown a significant lack of intelligence if the chimp were to assume that after it died, its reflection would live on somewhere. Yet this is exactly what most humans do with “souls” and “spirits”; they personify their reflection in their own awareness with supernatural connections when in fact, it’s merely an illusory by-product of its material existence.
Again with the supernatural. Look. I have no real problem with your theory. You are disenchanted with religion. Of course. It is a necessary step toward autonomous thinking. What intelligent educated person is unimpressed with science and technology today?
But I’m talking about where to start. It isn’t about whether there is a theoretical soul or spirit. It isn’t about life after death. You say you are a materialist. But isn’t that what you think? Whatever they are, your thoughts are not material. Oh sure neuroscience is on the way to explaining how the brain produces thought etc etc. But our thoughts as we experience them are not reducible to the brain or matter. Experiencing the thought within oneself that one is a materialist is pure irony.
So when you say of awareness that it is “merely an illusory by-product” I stongly disagree. You are devaluing what is most important in yourself.
Mind=soul=spirit. It is non-material thinking essence. All that is necessary is for thought to recoil upon itself and become self aware. No one can teach another to “do” philosophy. One must ask the questions without answers from one’s center.
How clumsy of me to step on your theory. I rephrased my reply above. Elephants recognize themselves in the mirror too. I don’t begrudge the apes or pachyderms their heaven nor would I exclude them from mine.
In any case, human intelligence is on a continuum with other species. Our DNA is only slightly different from the chimps. How similar and yet how different we are from our primate cousins. One avenue toward salvation particularly vital in our age is to realize our connectedness with other animals. In the city where I live the St. Francis Wildlife Association is a local, non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of native wildlife through the rescue and rehabilitation of sick, injured and orphaned wildlife.
I’m not stepping on yours either, but I do have questions. You say that the thoughts we experience are strictly immaterial, albeit the processes that gives rise to those thoughts can be explained by neuroscience in material terms. The way you refer to this reminds me highly of music; music itself is a immaterial experience, yet it arises from obviously material instruments. It reminds me so much of music in fact that I am having a hard time seeing what differentiates it from what you are referring to as the immaterial spirit, if there is a differentiation at all that is. (Is there?)
Also, just to be clear, I didn’t propose that awareness itself is an illusory by-product, just that our idea of the immaterial spirit is an illusory by-product from turning or awareness inwardly on itself. I don’t know if that makes a difference to you though.
Music is organized patterns of sound isn’t it? Sound I take to be physical. What is physis? What about spirit is an illusory by-product? What is awareness? Isn’t awareness immaterial as we experience it? What is the difference between awareness and mindfulness as practiced by the Buddhists? What is the difference between mindfulness and being “in the spirit†as practiced by Christians?
In short: yes. If I include the infinite set between 1 and 2 (it’s infinitely divisible and therefore an infinite set of numbers), but then include the number 1, then yes, that is a greater infinite set because it includes something the previous did not. In this case, literally, the number one.
Wrong. We can easily make sense of a God without a Satan. There’s is no necessity there at all. Indeed, there are people who will hold to perfectly understandable conceptions of God without anything like Satan. Just because “you” can’t make sense of it does not mean others cannot.
Does “greater” or even “greatest” require perfection? It’s perfectly plausible that perfection does not and cannot exist in regards to a being of any sort. As such, couldn’t greater mean something along the lines of, “That which is closet to perfection”, instead? Thus it can be imperfect. It’s just less imperfect than anything else.
Why? What about Agape? If a love is truly unconditional, meaning quite literally without condition, would then not having an object to love in fact be a condition? And as such, unconditional love would still exist. It just wouldn’t be love “of something”.
Is it, though?
Firstly, what do you define as “immaterial”? Is it something that has no material cause or the ability to be perceived materially?
Whatever your definition, how does the “immaterial” interact with the material? What happens at the boundary of immaterial and material?
Surely there must be an interaction, as the “immaterial” awareness enables me to type what I am typing now.
So what is happening at the boundary between the two - and why is it not observable?
Since every number is infinite. Infinity cannot be a number. And yet it signifies a possible number. How many numbers are there in a series of whole numbers from 1 onwards? For every finite number there are numbers. Add 1 a finite number. There are just that number of numbers and after that there are greater numbers. The number of finite whole numbers is infinite. But so is the number of even numbers, the number of odd numbers, the number of multiples of 10 and so on. So the number of all numbers is not a number. We refer to such with the symbol infinite. Analogously the being of beings is not a being. We refer to such with the symbol God.
I am thinking of a number. I am aware of the number. The thought as it exists in my consciousness is irreducible, and unobservable except to my conscious awareness. Immaterial means not material, not matter. The immaterial seems to interact with the material via the immaterial will. When I will my hands to type on the computer keys they do it.
Felix, I hope you can understand that to someone who doesn’t already subscribe to a belief in the immaterial, that explanation is quite unsatisfying. Reference to an immaterial will to explain how the immaterial soul interacts with the material body leaves what is essentially the same question: how does an immaterial will effect a change in something material, such as the body. I think that Sarky phrased in very well: “What happens at the boundary of immaterial and material?” (my emphasis) Whatever the thing on either side, a belief that something immaterial effects change in something material wants for an explanation of how the interaction occurs. Is there something equivalent to soap for the oil and water of the immaterial and the material?
It isn’t a belief. Thought is a fact of my experience. I am experiencing it right now. It is irreducible. I presume that you are experiencing it too, since your posted messages are evidence of your thought. I am trying to draw attention to the non-material fact of our experience. Hypotheses about causation don’t get to that. I only assert that in so far as spirit means “not material” thought is spirit. You want me to speculate about causation, interaction, etc. But to do so would draw the focus away from the phenomenon of thought in it’s pure concrete facticity. In any case, awareness remains what it is as it is. It is unchanged by attempts at explanation.
