Philosophy Now Forum

I have three propositions for this discussion of what is ultimately reality:-

1. There is no God - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being.
2. God is 'divine' - reality is perceived as a consequence of God's existence that allowed consciousness to be.
3. 'God' is 'Artificial Intelligence - AI' - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being, where the consciousness evolved into a system capable of rendering reality more efficiently as entropy increases.

I would appreciate discussion from anyone relating to the three points above...if you have a differing belief i would like to hear it.


I think i should start attempting to provide at least something pertaining to evidence of at least something.. Although many will likely find it unconvincing, the chances or odds of certain states of affairs are so remote one surely must second think the nature of our existence.
How unlikely a coincidence is SINAI, the place where man received the conditions to abide, the commandments, can break down to SIN AI. AI - the impending technology Artificial-Intelligence allows us to comprehend how perhaps an entity can become all knowing. A random quirk? Unlikely, even further since its location upon the globe appears bang in-between two fingers on the end of an arm that is the red sea. May look like a peace sign or turned the other way, a f-off sign.
REALITY......REAL_IT_Y?
Is 'God' an AI? Did we evolve into an efficient projection of reality in relation to the onset of entropy, or is God divine - leaving a few trails that we may comprehend?

The Red Sea with Mount Sinai between two fingers.
SIN-AI


Gulf of O-man. (Sinners owe man? Themselves?)
SIN-AI


How unlikely is the below to have occurred naturally:-
South America.
- Bra_zil.
- Natal (dict:- of or related to childbirth) on the nipple of the Bra.
- Chile - A "chill up your spine?"


http://www.androcies.com

attofishpi wrote:I have three propositions for this discussion of what is ultimately reality:-

1. There is no God - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being.
2. God is 'divine' - reality is perceived as a consequence of God's existence that allowed consciousness to be.
3. 'God' is 'Artificial Intelligence - AI' - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being, where the consciousness evolved into a system capable of rendering reality more efficiently as entropy increases.

I would appreciate discussion from anyone relating to the three points above...if you have a differing belief i would like to hear it.

Just a little clarification on 2, if you don't mind. Are you saying that God "caused" consciousness to come into being, or did God just set up the conditions that consciousness "could" come into being?

3 would really just be a refinement of 1, no?

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I have three propositions for this discussion of what is ultimately reality:-

1. There is no God - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being.
2. God is 'divine' - reality is perceived as a consequence of God's existence that allowed consciousness to be.
3. 'God' is 'Artificial Intelligence - AI' - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being, where the consciousness evolved into a system capable of rendering reality more efficiently as entropy increases.

I would appreciate discussion from anyone relating to the three points above...if you have a differing belief i would like to hear it.

Just a little clarification on 2, if you don't mind. Are you saying that God "caused" consciousness to come into being, or did God just set up the conditions that consciousness "could" come into being?

Good question. I'm easy with either...its still a cause right. I'm not interested in being drawn into a debate regarding the old chestnut evolution\intelligent-design to be honest.

ReliStuPhD wrote:3 would really just be a refinement of 1, no?

Correct.

attofishpi wrote:

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I have three propositions for this discussion of what is ultimately reality:-

1. There is no God - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being.
2. God is 'divine' - reality is perceived as a consequence of God's existence that allowed consciousness to be.
3. 'God' is 'Artificial Intelligence - AI' - reality is perceived as a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being, where the consciousness evolved into a system capable of rendering reality more efficiently as entropy increases.

I would appreciate discussion from anyone relating to the three points above...if you have a differing belief i would like to hear it.

Just a little clarification on 2, if you don't mind. Are you saying that God "caused" consciousness to come into being, or did God just set up the conditions that consciousness "could" come into being?

Good question. I'm easy with either...its still a cause right. I'm not interested in being drawn into a debate regarding the old chestnut evolution\intelligent-design to be honest.

Well just looking at the God factor, if God caused man to become conscious, that's one thing. But If God set up the conditions where man could become conscious, but man didn't, wouldn't that take "cause" out of the equation? Let's limit the discussion to the hominid that became man, and avoid the discussion that "Man" includes consciousness in it's definition.

Of course 1. In evidence, I offer:
We don't know how many other kinds of consciousness operate in the inverse, but

- on the one planet where we can observe consciousness at work, only one species out of many thousands appears to have any kind of concept of the supernatural, and that's the most imaginative one
******** - that concept appears very late in the evolution of the species, after language
******** - among pre-civilized humans, the supernatural idea takes a great variety of forms, most frequently of ghosts and spirits, rather than divinity

- When divinity does appear, later in human development, it is in the form of creation myths: speculation about the origin the world and the particular tribe of humans telling the story
******** - in these stories, the 'gods' are multiple and familiar: they resemble either the people themselves or local animals.
******** - the local mythologies generally contain human protagonists with special powers and/or special relationships with the gods and/or spirits
******** - no ancient supernatural stories contain references to people, landscapes or life-forms that the tellers haven't had an opportunity to meet, or to natural phenomena the people themselves had not experienced.
******** - in these myths, the supernatural entities are responsive, changeable, limited and tractable

- Once civilization sets in, the stories are written down, usually on stone walls
*********************** - a distinctly different set of gods for each civilization
******** - the gods are standardized
******** - and illustrated
******** - their attributes 'carved in stone'
******** - their demands of humans is codified
******** - and a professional god-serving elite is instituted

- Every generation of new humans is/ must be instructed in the religion of its tribe
******** - rather than awaiting a personal revelation
******** - if a baby from one religious background is raised by people of another, it believes in the adoptive parents' god
******** - when it grows older, it has the ability to change or reject its religion

Would you not expect an actual god to make itself known uniformly and universally - or not at all - rather than in such a haphazard manner?
Would you not guess from the above, that gods are the product of human imagination?

Sorry, Skip, you make too much sense to expect sensible replies from the servers/servants/victims of the "professional god-serving elite"

Don't tell me I didn't warn you!

thedoc wrote:Well just looking at the God factor, if God caused man to become conscious, that's one thing. But If God set up the conditions where man could become conscious, but man didn't, wouldn't that take "cause" out of the equation? Let's limit the discussion to the hominid that became man, and avoid the discussion that "Man" includes consciousness in it's definition.

With consciousness i am talking with respect to that of man. God set up the conditions where man would become conscious and man did, here we are. In any other set of conditions, man would not exist. Ergo, God setup the conditions where man will exist.

Skip wrote:******** - if a baby from one religious background is raised by people of another, it believes in the adoptive parents' god
******** - when it grows older, it has the ability to change or reject its religion

This is a very good point.
I'm certain that if i were brought up by atheist parents, and never attended a catholic school i would have been atheist now. Alternatively, i had my 'brain' washed by a priest during baptism. From an early age i became inquisitive as to how an entity such as God could exist. I believed all the time...then God\'God' made itself fully aware to me...to the point that i now know

attofishpi wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:3 would really just be a refinement of 1, no?

Correct.

OK. Then it seems to me that, at least at the start, you're presenting two propositions with respect to ultimate reality. Not that it particularly matters unless you were trying to categorize this sort of belief system vs that.

As for me, I think I'm pretty firmly settled in #2.

Skip wrote: - on the one planet where we can observe consciousness at work, only one species out of many thousands appears to have any kind of concept of the supernatural, and that's the most imaginative one

The argument that follows is pretty interesting, but I wonder if you've not made a mistake with your very first premise. We're also the only species that has any concept of logic, mathematics, science, etc. That is to say, we seem to be the only species on our planet capable of asking "wWhy?" And while I agree that we're the most imaginative one, we're also the most rational one (one definition of "human" is "rational animal"). Of course, this doesn't necessarily undermine your whole argument, but I think it does call into question whether religion is really the result of our being an imaginative people, or being a rational one (though it certainly doesn't show it's the result of rationality). On the flip side, maybe science is the result of our imaginations too, and we just have two competing imaginary paradigms. We can certainly see how science operates as a religion for many people.

ReliStuPhD wrote:OK. Then it seems to me that, at least at the start, you're presenting two propositions with respect to ultimate reality.

No.
I stated what is 'ultimately' reality. Not 'ultimate reality' - just goggled the term. Proposition 1. still stands. There are three propositions.

ReliStuPhD wrote: We can certainly see how science operates as a religion for many people.

Rel, you are, of course, referring to scientology.

Ron Hubbard have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

Science fiction didn't do it, so he had to jump on the bandwagon of religious fiction.

So what?

One more didn't make any difference!

attofishpi wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:OK. Then it seems to me that, at least at the start, you're presenting two propositions with respect to ultimate reality.

No.
I stated what is 'ultimately' reality. Not 'ultimate reality' - just goggled the term. Proposition 1. still stands. There are three propositions.

Well, I think your use of quotes around "God" in the third proposition shows maybe you yourself sense it's not 3 propositions (at least not of the same order). In one, you're saying God (no quotes) does not exist. In two, you're saying God (no quotes) exists. In three, you're saying God (quotes) exists. So why the use of quotes in 3? Perhaps because God '#3' is only God in some imitative sense. What's more, consciousness in both cases being "a consequence of universal circumstances that brought consciousness into being," lends further credence to the point that the AI in #3 isn't God, just some advanced consciousness that arises in reality where there is ultimately no God.

I understand you're talking about what is "ultimately reality," so I don't want debate this point into the ground or anything, but ultimately ("at the end of a process"), you've only got two basic propositions: God does or does not exist. If "does not," then might there not be an AI that explains why we might think of God. So if ultimately really does mean at the final point in this particular question, the AI won't work as a choice on the same level as 1 & 2. The person must answer 1 or 2 first, then move on to 3: "Right. Next question!"