What do you REALLY believe?

[Golden Applesauce]

So you're not just defining god to be the universe, but making claims about the universe (it is self-aware.)  That I can work with.  Could you elaborate on how it is comforting to you?  (Personally, I'd find the existence of a near-infinite consciousness would render me superfluous.)

It is comforting in the sense that i can imagine the universe to have some intrinsic life or awareness that permeates it, rather than a cold empty cosmos.  also, meaning, in my book requires a consciousness to render it.  This allows for a universal meaning, even if it is less understandable to me as my desires are to the individual molecules that make up my body. it's an emotional thumbsucking based on semantic jiu-jitsu, i know, but it works for me.

I agree with you that it takes intelligence/consciousness to render meaning.  Meaning I consider to be an interpretation of observations; something has to be doing the interpreting to come up with meaning.  So (in my book) there is no objective meaning, only subjective meaning.

I don't understand how a universal consciousness's meaning is at all relevant to you or me.  If you just want meaning independent of yourself, I'd be happy to render some for you.  Why do you need a really big brain to do it?

On a side note:
It does seem that complexity is required for consciousness.  But does complexity imply consciousness?  I really need to read GEB...

[Payne]

No question of God until now. Belief does not necessarily require religion, spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof.

While that is true, i think the implied question here is 'what do you believe re: spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof?....

what box do you check in that column?

I posted already about that, agnostic. And while this discussion is framed around spiritualism and religion, I think it's worthwhile exploring other types of belief as well.

It COULD be a productive discussion, after all.

[Elder Iptuous]

I agree with you that it takes intelligence/consciousness to render meaning.  Meaning I consider to be an interpretation of observations; something has to be doing the interpreting to come up with meaning.  So (in my book) there is no objective meaning, only subjective meaning.

I don't understand how a universal consciousness's meaning is at all relevant to you or me.  If you just want meaning independent of yourself, I'd be happy to render some for you.  Why do you need a really big brain to do it?

On a side note:
It does seem that complexity is required for consciousness.  But does complexity imply consciousness?  I really need to read GEB...

It's relevant because a meaning rendered by a universal intelligence (of which i am an infinitesimal part) would necessarily be a universal meaning.  That's just comforting...  Even if i can't access it.  I know it's there.  (assuming the universe at large isn't a nihilist  )

re: side note - complexity doesn't necessarily imply consciousness.  look at wolfram's cellular automata that display infinite complexity from extremely simple rules.  no intelligence there.  But sufficient complexity with sufficient feedback........

As for that hyper intelligent shade of the color blue, i dunno how that happened.

I posted already about that, agnostic. And while this discussion is framed around spiritualism and religion, I think it's worthwhile exploring other types of belief as well.

Oopsum.....i musta been focusing on the shit stirring at that point. sry... 

[Golden Applesauce]

Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional?  Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.

Now, if the universe is self-aware, it's an individual.  So your "universal" meaning is just a really big individual's meaning.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional?  Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.

Now, if the universe is self-aware, it's an individual.  So your "universal" meaning is just a really big individual's meaning.

Hrmmm, I dunno if those are useful questions. I don't think 'individual' or 'nihilistic' are necessarily useful symbols in a model discussing the Universe as some sort of intelligence or conscious entity.

[Iason Ouabache]

re: side note - complexity doesn't necessarily imply consciousness.  look at wolfram's cellular automata that display infinite complexity from extremely simple rules.  no intelligence there.  But sufficient complexity with sufficient feedback........

Rule 30 is a rough estimate of what god looks like.

As for that hyper intelligent shade of the color blue, i dunno how that happened.

I hope I'm not the only one to get that reference.

[Payne]

re: side note - complexity doesn't necessarily imply consciousness.  look at wolfram's cellular automata that display infinite complexity from extremely simple rules.  no intelligence there.  But sufficient complexity with sufficient feedback........

Rule 30 is a rough estimate of what god looks like.

As for that hyper intelligent shade of the color blue, i dunno how that happened.

I hope I'm not the only one to get that reference.

I think we've ALL read Douglas Adams.

[BADGE OF HONOR]

I call myself agnostic because I don't give a fuck, so I'm glad that there is an option for not giving a fuck. 

If I had to say anything, I'd say that god doesn't exist and that religion is an invention to make life bearable, which would make me an atheist, except that just because religion is an invention to make life bearable doesn't make it any less relevant or useful to believers, in which case it doesn't really matter whether or not god actually exists, because he exists to the people who believe in him.  I just don't, personally, find belief possible.

Thus, I don't give a fuck.

[East Coast Hustle]

I shouldn't give a fuck, but I have trouble getting past the filter that causes me to be offended that things that are supposedly of the same species as myself could be so overwhelmingly stupid and irrational as to actually believe in the literal existence of deities.

[hooplala]

Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional?  Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.

That's not nihilism... that's solipsism, and really its not even that.  People have, for the most part, a skewed idea of solipsism.  It doesn't mean that nothing apart from you exists, simply that we cannot know anything other than ourselves, which I think is true.  So, yes, I am a solipsist.

[Elder Iptuous]

Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional?  Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.

That's not nihilism... that's solipsism, and really its not even that.  People have, for the most part, a skewed idea of solipsism.  It doesn't mean that nothing apart from you exists, simply that we cannot know anything other than ourselves, which I think is true.  So, yes, I am a solipsist.

wait. i thought what you described is 'radical skeptecism' and what he described is solipsism.

GA, nihilism is simply the belief that there is no objective meaning.... (as my limited understanding of it goes).

[hooplala]

solipsism |ˈsälipˌsizəm|
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

[Elder Iptuous]

solipsism |ˈsälipˌsizəm|
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

so is solipsism simply the result of applying radical skepticism and being able to get no further than cogito ergo sum?

[Jasper]

I'm an atheist who takes God in the poetic sense.  I've always appreciated the reverence and beauty of sincere religion's art, music, and architecture and have often lamented that it has to be based on a con.

[hooplala]

solipsism |ˈsälipˌsizəm|
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

so is solipsism simply the result of applying radical skepticism and being able to get no further than cogito ergo sum?

I guess so.

If Ketchup can be Catsup, then... anything is possible?