Burgers?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.

For some people.

For me, screw supernatural awe.  I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead.  Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me.  Plenty of time for that other stuff later.

I like the supernatural awe in this life, but again, I hate that word supernatural. If something exists above nature, it can't exist. Supernatural is a meaningless word. Something exists or it does not exist. Nothing can exist outside of everything.

To my mind, that's the very definition of God.  If he has to work inside the structure, it's not a god an in fact would be just a very powerful natural critter of some sort.

What is god if it isn't a powerful critter of some nature? Turtles all the way up, too? Is god bound by some greater framework?

Serious question, because, for me at least, it opens up pretty much any possibility of intellect from a dragonfly to an omniscient, benevolent, scientist/engineer hyper-intelligence and all points in between.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think that one thing you might be getting hung up on in these discussions is that you seem to insist on anthropomorphizing any concept of "god".

[P3nT4gR4m]

A dragonfly is anthropomorphising? An anthropomorphic being is still one of the infinite possibilities. As is some thing that didn't create the universe or multiverse consciously, like the level of abstraction between us and our cells. Maybe the universe is the equivalent of a cell in the consciousness substrate of god.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think that one thing you might be getting hung up on in these discussions is that you seem to insist on anthropomorphizing any concept of "god".

This is an excellent point. I can't actually picture God as anthropomorphic. I can't picture it at all. Doing so would limit it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Just don't forget that wonder at the beauty of the universe doesn't always mean the same as spiritual (read: supernatural) awe.

For some people.

For me, screw supernatural awe.  I'll figure that shit out when I'm dead.  Right now, I'm geeked out on the physical universe around me.  Plenty of time for that other stuff later.

I like the supernatural awe in this life, but again, I hate that word supernatural. If something exists above nature, it can't exist. Supernatural is a meaningless word. Something exists or it does not exist. Nothing can exist outside of everything.

To my mind, that's the very definition of God.  If he has to work inside the structure, it's not a god an in fact would be just a very powerful natural critter of some sort.

What is god if it isn't a powerful critter of some nature? Turtles all the way up, too? Is god bound by some greater framework?

Serious question, because, for me at least, it opens up pretty much any possibility of intellect from a dragonfly to an omniscient, benevolent, scientist/engineer hyper-intelligence and all points in between.

Roger and I actually discussed the origin of this universe when he was here. It was a pick up on a conversation about black holes leading to big bangs, or more importantly, since it applies to us, the Big Bang being the result of a black hole in another universe. So yes, it might be turtles (turtles being code for black holes) all the way up. It gets really fucking big for our brains though at this point. Where does it all begin? Where does this infinite amount of matter to create infinite amounts of black holes come from?

Huh. My pantheistic model must now include the possibility of multiverses. Which means that this universe is a god, whereas there is a God. Both are correct, but.... hmmmm.....

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I'd like to point out at this point that my specialty is white man history and Terran biology....

[Nephew Twiddleton]

One interesting thing though-

If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.

We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.

[MMIX]

One interesting thing though-

If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.

We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.

I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps don't have a god concept or that they may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

One interesting thing though-

If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.

We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.

I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps don't have a god concept or that they may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".

What I mean is that on the surface, it seems that chimpanzees, from this behavior, seem to have some sort of ritual reverence for thunder. Or it could be a game or something. We don't know why they do it, they just do. Thing is, we can communicate with them a little, but not in complex abstract concepts. Religion and ritual are part of that area we can't talk to them about yet. They might do it because they think it's funny. They might do it because they think it pleases Chimpzor the Rolling One. They have the intelligence for religious behavior, sure. But just because they have the capacity, and it looks that way to us, doesn't mean that's what it is. Hell, they may even be doing it for some sort of experience that is uniquely chimp and something that we would never be able to grasp, because our brains just aren't wire to understand it.

[maphdet]

Burgers, with cheezus or not ...tangible only when seen and touched and eaten. Then, even the sight and touch and taste will differ for each. 
Could be a hot dog too, not a burger.

/interrupted rambling

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One interesting thing though-

If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.

We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.

I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps don't have a god concept or that they may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".

What I mean is that on the surface, it seems that chimpanzees, from this behavior, seem to have some sort of ritual reverence for thunder. Or it could be a game or something. We don't know why they do it, they just do. Thing is, we can communicate with them a little, but not in complex abstract concepts. Religion and ritual are part of that area we can't talk to them about yet. They might do it because they think it's funny. They might do it because they think it pleases Chimpzor the Rolling One. They have the intelligence for religious behavior, sure. But just because they have the capacity, and it looks that way to us, doesn't mean that's what it is. Hell, they may even be doing it for some sort of experience that is uniquely chimp and something that we would never be able to grasp, because our brains just aren't wire to understand it.

This is one reason (among several) that I am not a big fan of Ramachandran, despite his admittedly groundbreaking work with neuroplasticity; he insists on this weird (to me) degree of human exceptionalism. I can't totally buy into any biologist who seriously proposes that human beings are in a category that is... well, exceptional.

Quite aside from him being a bit of a sexist egophile.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

One interesting thing though-

If we end up communicating with multiple exoplanets (not saying that we will) and we find the humanoid form ideal for a technological species, that would lend credence to an anthropomorphic god, for given definition of god. Perhaps god specific to this universe.

We do know that given the yard stick of intelligent life that that doesn't hold up. Different intelligent (though largely mammalian, at least within this era) life has emerged on Earth alone. We just can't quite communicate with them yet. We just happen to be land dwelling, have opposible thumbs and have two forms of complex communication, one of which is semi-permanent (writing). A whale might do just as well on land, and an elephant, if given a paint brush, will paint crude elephant shapes. Indeed, chimpanzees seem to revere thunder. They might not have a God concept, but Jane Gooddall has observed that ritual behavior in chimps.

I'm not clear on what you are saying there. Are you saying that chimps don't have a god concept or that they may not have a god concept. My view, fwiw, is that they most certainly do have all the requisite social and conceptual underpinnings necessary for the behaviours that, when they appear in humans, are described as "religion".

What I mean is that on the surface, it seems that chimpanzees, from this behavior, seem to have some sort of ritual reverence for thunder. Or it could be a game or something. We don't know why they do it, they just do. Thing is, we can communicate with them a little, but not in complex abstract concepts. Religion and ritual are part of that area we can't talk to them about yet. They might do it because they think it's funny. They might do it because they think it pleases Chimpzor the Rolling One. They have the intelligence for religious behavior, sure. But just because they have the capacity, and it looks that way to us, doesn't mean that's what it is. Hell, they may even be doing it for some sort of experience that is uniquely chimp and something that we would never be able to grasp, because our brains just aren't wire to understand it.

This is one reason (among several) that I am not a big fan of Ramachandran, despite his admittedly groundbreaking work with neuroplasticity; he insists on this weird (to me) degree of human exceptionalism. I can't totally buy into any biologist who seriously proposes that human beings are in a category that is... well, exceptional.

Quite aside from him being a bit of a sexist egophile.

That's the thing about it, too. We can't know how unique our form of intelligence, or way of thinking or whatever, actually is until we can speak meaningfully about such things with other intelligences. I mean, until I wrote the quoted post, it never occurred to me that other intelligent species might have some aspects of intelligence that we would never recognize because we don't have it ourselves. I mean, on Earth at least. It's occurred to me before that civilized aliens might not understand something so obvious to us as music or clothing.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I think intelligence is capable of recognising other intelligence but ego is capable of blinkering this. Sure, if aliens don't have inbuilt sensory apparatus capable of capturing energy waves in the audible spectrum, they might miss music but, with a suitable level of technology, they'd be scanning the whole spectrum anyway, you'd reasonably expect their computers would pick up the patterns.

Look at it this way - if aliens default communication was via organs that produced and collected microwave energy, we'd "hear" it as soon as they got close enough.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think intelligence is capable of recognising other intelligence but ego is capable of blinkering this. Sure, if aliens don't have inbuilt sensory apparatus capable of capturing energy waves in the audible spectrum, they might miss music but, with a suitable level of technology, they'd be scanning the whole spectrum anyway, you'd reasonably expect their computers would pick up the patterns.

Look at it this way - if aliens default communication was via organs that produced and collected microwave energy, we'd "hear" it as soon as they got close enough.

I guess what I mean, is that they wouldn't understand why we do it, or how it's pleasing, even if they were able to hear it exactly as we do, because that was just part of how our brains evolved. And it's not like we could really communicate what it does for us to them because it's universally human. It's just something we've always done. They mightn't be able to tell the difference between what is generally considered an annoying song and what is generally considered a great song. To them it would just all be a "a pattern of sonic frequencies that humans create and react to."

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Or, ok how about like this- it's not exactly the same but it's along the same line of not being able to communicate what something's like even if the language is mutually intelligible. One of my exes has no sense of smell. None. Whenever smell came up, I found it impossible to relate what something smelled like without relating it to how something else smelled. Which, while she understood the words for, had absolutely no meaning to her. She just had a general index of things smell good if x and smell bad if y. No concept of intensity either. She was always having me smell things beyond the reasonable bottle of milk or something, just to make sure.