BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


God as consciousness.

 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
11:03 / 11.02.08
Thanks Nuke,

I wasn't aware of the Boltzmann Brain theory. I'll read up on it, looks very interesting. Just hope I can get MY brain around it!

Cheers.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:32 / 11.02.08
I don't know enough of that period but could it be that an atmosphere capable of retaining water could have also have formed before the sun's reaction began?

I don't think so. Certainly, there was no Earth. Earth formed as a collection of matter accreting through gravity which was too far from the gravity pull of the concentration of matter that was in the process of becoming the Sun to be pulled into it. It was hundreds of millions of years between that event and the oceans starting to form, as far as anyone can tell.

So, there was no water before the Big Bang, nor was there any water before the formation of the Sun. There were also no birds before the formation of the Sun, pretty obviously, and the Sun and Moon came into being at vastly different times.

Despite all this, if you're keen enough to believe that everyone had a knowledge of the actual process through which the universe was created, and the creation myths are attempts to articulate that knowledge, imperfectly, through the lens of their limited science, then these things can probably be integrated into that vision. However, there are a load of different creation myths, with similar elements but different timelines - Babylonian myth has the earth and the dome of sky created at the same time, Norse myth has rain, sky, clouds, earth and so on all created from the body of a giant, which had been licked into shape to start with by a cosmic bear, and so on.

However, these conclusions could, it seems to me, have been reached deductively just as easily. I am an ancient occupant of Asia Minor. I can see the sky above me, which is blue, much like the sea. It is very high, but appears to descend to meet the horizon on every side. It makes sense, then, that the Earth is flat and circular, and the sky is a dome sitting atop it, with water on or above it. If you travel far enough, you reach sea. It therefore makes sense that the land is ringed with Ocean. The Sun appears at the horizon and travels to the other horizon, so presumably it emerges either from the sea or from a gate in the dome of the sky and leaves the same way. If you dig a well, you reach water, so it makes sense to suppose that there is a freshwater sea under the disc of the earth which can be reached by digging. I was born at a certain point, before which all is darkness, I grew to adulthood and in my childhood things that are clear and defined now were unclear and undefined, so perhaps the world was not once, then became, and is now more defined than it was at first. And so on, basically.

Point being that aetiology does not require divinity. You can have a universe with or without a divine being, and you can have stories of the creation of the universe that bear some resemblance to the current scientific consensus without them being articulations of the current scientific consensus inherent within the human mind through the agency of God.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
13:28 / 11.02.08
consciousness is necessary for observation

from a philosophical point of view, trees falling in forest, okay. sometimes.

from a quantum mechanics point of view, as I understand it, an "observation" does NOT require consciousness. if a computer measures the position of an electron with a tool, that's enough to cause the collapse of the eigenwhatsis.

and again, as others have said - being able to affect the universe by observing it does NOT mean that you create the universe or anything in it by observation.

science cant really make any claims about anything that nobody is watching

as Peter said early on in the thread, we can make claims about things that happened before humanity existed by studying the evidence that we see around us now and extrapolating.

the other thing to consider is not the creation of matter, but the creation of consciousness. we all have personal experience of this, and my experience is very much one of emergence from a void beyond time and space.

I'm sorry but I really have no idea what you're talking about. When you wake up in the morning? Remembering being born? What?

it really is only the concept of the world being created in seven days that needs to be viewed metaphorically

Yes, but you haven't answered my question: why should we view it metaphorically?

We should view it metaphorically because clearly the universe WASN'T created in seven days!


this seems like circular thinking to me. we have to view (this one part) of Genesis metaphorically because otherwise it doesn't fit? but we view the rest literally because it does fit (ignoring things like the ocean being created before the sun...?) it feels like you're starting from the assumption that Genesis must be made to fit, and then deciding what to view literally and what to view metaphorically. logically, this isn't the way to go.

I promise, I'll be back later after I earn my salary for a while - not just here to criticize.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:30 / 11.02.08
Typo patrol - my first para above should read:

It was hundreds of millions of years between that event and the oceans starting to form, as far as anyone can tell.
 
 
EvskiG
14:11 / 11.02.08
Think Haus is dead-on above.

Genesis is one etiological myth attempting to explain how the universe came into existence, and there are plenty of others.

While some of them might to some extent (if interpreted very charitably) intersect with modern cosmology -- simply because they were based on the observations, deductions, and speculation of thoughtful people looking at the world around them -- I see no reason why that serves as evidence that the stories are to any extent true or divinely inspired, or that God exists.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
14:12 / 11.02.08
some links to previous topics with theoretically insightful posts:

Barbelith studies the book of Genesis

Old thread on science vs magic

Applying the scientific method to the Temple

Barbelith studies Creationist Gods

I took a class in college called Geneses where we studied several creation stories. The final section of class was studying the creation "myth" of the Big Bang...in a light, not very sciency way.

I would agree that there might be more "accurate" stories of the creation than Genesis, if you get a chance to browse a little. Also, I'd like to point out that if your only study of Genesis is from the modern Christian bible, you're missing an awful lot of Jewish commentary, back story, side story, etc. Kabalah, especially, might have some very interesting material for you.
 
 
treekisser
14:29 / 11.02.08
Fungus:

We should view it metaphorically because clearly the universe WASN'T created in seven days!

But what's wrong with pointing to Genesis and saying, "You're wrong!"?

(That was a very ugly series of punctuation marks, sorry.)

Science's explanation of the universe and how it came to be is constantly shifting and with it our understanding. This is why it's just as silly to say that science is the only way to see the universe.

I think science is more accurately described as a method rather than a body of knowledge. Anything that falls completely outside of science is simply unprovable (it could be right, it could be wrong, either way, we can't tell). But if it's testable, then it's probably going to be discovered eventually.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:20 / 12.02.08
Its also worth looking at steady state theories of the universe and how these compare with some mythologies that do not posit a beginning or an end as such.

So the narrative of creation or evolution is less like a story and more akin to an experienced continuity.

Not a lot of support for steady state theories these days thou.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
14:11 / 12.02.08
Yeah, the measurement of the microwave background radiation fits the big bang model to some ridiculous degree of accuracy. There's an xkcd comic about that. The error bars on the graph are too small to see.

Wasn't Hoyle or somebody still championing the steady state model for a long time? Let's see...

Steady State Model (wikipedia)

It sounds like the Steady State model, in addition to not predicting or very successfully accounting for the background radiation, has trouble explaining why the universe looks different at large distances (ie quasars.)

Apparently there's a new hypothesis called the Chaotic Inflationary Model which in some ways can be interpreted as having eternal, steady-state characteristics. However, its wikipedia page doesn't have too much info.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
11:43 / 10.03.08
I guess that my argument was not so much an attempt to validate Genesis as an attempt to incorporate it (and other creation myths) into the theory. To be honest it doesn't really matter whether Genesis agrees or not, all I was attempting to say was that it one doesn't exclude the other.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
16:47 / 10.03.08
alright, leaving aside Genesis for the moment let me see if I have anything to say about the central idea, as I understand it.

If time, space and matter had nothing to perceive them then do they really exist?
...
What if you were a consciousness floating with no perception of time, space or matter. What if you then become aware of time. And then you think of matter and BANG! it all exists in certain places within time and space.


I see here a confusion between conceive and perceive. you talk about the idea that nothing exists unless we observe it - the idea that perception alters reality (QM) conflated with the zen kind of idea about how trees don't fall in forests unless someone is there to hear it happening. But then you talk about a supreme being "thinking of" matter and causing it to appear. I see this Thinking Of, or Imagining, to be pretty fundamentally different from Seeing Something Which Is Already There.

Thought is nothing if there is no reality in which to frame it.

so this supreme consciousness could not achieve anything just by thinking unless there was a reality in which to frame it? so therefore the Reality must exist before the consciousness?

forgive me if I seem to continue to be picking apart your words/sentences, I think it's a tricky topic and I need to fully understand what you're talking about to attempt to reply to it.

if we talk about Perception and Observation it seems to me to imply that Something already existed (in some sort of uncertain state) before this primal consciousness observed it. so...more like God observed the (a) potential for reality, and this observation made reality a certainty.

this primitive God, then, has evolved over time by refinement into smaller, yet more complicated miniconsciousnesses, like us.

yes, you definitely need to check out some of the threads around here (or on wikipedia) about Kabbalah and the Tree of Life. I think you might find some serious resonance with that model. the light of creation flows down from a pure, all-encompassing, undefinable source, then filters and reflects through various stages of refinement to end up at the kingdom where we find ourselves, finer in terms of form, definition and function, yet as far as can be from the perfect form from which it started...not that I'm any kind of authority.

Barbelith Kabbalah

wikipedia
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
04:24 / 11.03.08
Iron Pants,

Thanks for your reply and no need to apologise. Actually the original post I made was a pretty clumsy illustration so you're perfectly entitled to be confused.

What I'm trying to get at is that they emerged together and are inextricably linked. So as the universe emerged from the primordial chaos, so did the consciousness. You could almost consider the consciousness the "order" that put things together. This is where my dodgy analogy about the "floating consciousness" thinking things into being comes from. I think you said it really well when you wrothe the following:

"if we talk about Perception and Observation it seems to me to imply that Something already existed (in some sort of uncertain state) before this primal consciousness observed it. so...more like God observed the (a) potential for reality, and this observation made reality a certainty.

this primitive God, then, has evolved over time by refinement into smaller, yet more complicated miniconsciousnesses, like us."

And therefore we are part of that "Supreme Being"!

This is pretty much spot on what I was attempting to propose. I opened the discussion because I'd formed the idea that seemed to work (on a philosophical level - to me, in my head!) but I hadn't expressed it yet.

Thanks for your interest and I look forward to learning more about Kabbalah. You'll definitely see me in that thread.

Cheers.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply