Existence

[Maxmars]

I suspect that in the final analysis... it's the other way around.

But that's just a feeling. 

[CCoburn]

Either consciousness derives from matter or the other way round.

 

I suspect that in the final analysis... it's the other way around.

But that's just a feeling. 

Off the cuff I suppose an argument could be made for either; not that any "argument" transcending the laws of physics and mathematics would make a whole lot of sense.

In my own thinking I've been dancing around the idea that "consciousness" is a non-physical non-spatial entity; although it may occupy a single point in space, it is not composed of such, and eliminating the spatial parameter doesn't leave much room for the material.

One might slightly elevate the above and posit that consciousness is a product of some quantum phenomenon e.g. an atom of some special element from which it emanates or perhaps even the double helix molecular structure of DNA which is sufficient to define individuality. It may be ridiculously close to a zero space/zero mass parameter but fall just slightly short of that.

If one regresses to the universal origin and attempts to put the ambiguous God in a somewhat practical perspective and leverages from the renowned expansion theories and that God is of the mind not the material which aligns somewhat with the zero-volume parameter of a primordial singularity veering away from any substantial materialistic view resulting less in a "consciousness from matter" hypothesis.

On the other hand, one might assert that the "math" is still good and does indeed still work from this non-physical existence and furthermore that it does in fact state the origin is of "infinite density", however, I myself am not really seeing this "God' as some "infinitely dense" thing, but that's just me.

Or lastly, some might not even equate any universal origin with any type of God or harbor any belief in these expansion theories and toss the entire hypothesis out the window.

These ideas appear to crossover from most rational ways of thinking so ultimately it seems to just boil down to what an individual chooses to believe although it does occur to me that some "ideas" present themselves as more "believable" than others.

[CCoburn]

We're All Just Bozos On The Bus

I prefer the train...

[CCoburn]

Classic trains

[CCoburn]

Begin Test Analogy

I do agree with Blaine though in general. All this is kind of like some academic test on "existence"(among other things) with the exception that there isn't anyone to 'correct' the "test". It is a far cry from any sort of test that was administered during our years of education which yielded definite outcomes; I never got everything right and given some contexts(acedemic fields) nobody can state unequivocally what the correct answers are.

End Test Analogy

There are distinctions to be made though. On the one hand you might have some character winging ideas from left field, while on the other hand you got some meticulous maniac whittling away for years on the same(or similar) pieces. There are differences in foundational aspects e.g. extrapolating and expanding upon well-established scientific and philosophical models and maybe even weaving in a little theology here and there.

And then of course you have the mode of character or 'mindset' of any particular individual in deliverance of any such ideas, and with me this is often dependent somewhat on my 'mood'. I've never indulged in any Terence McKenna type mentors and have yet to meet any "machine elves", but I suppose in some ways some of it is similar to that.

[Blaine91555]

It seems to me it's much harder to comprehend a universe without God than with God.

I don't think we are evolved enough to claim any real knowledge of what is, what was, or what will be. The fact that we exist is easy to comprehend since we do. It does not matter if we are physical manifestations or part of a "Matrix" as we exist either way; we were created either way, either by God or nature.

[CCoburn]

It seems to me it's much harder to comprehend a universe without God than with God.

I don't think we are' evolved enough to claim any real knowledge of what is, what was, or what will be. The fact that we exist is easy to comprehend since we do. It does not matter if we are physical manifestations or part of a "Matrix" as we exist either way; we were created either way, either by God or nature.

It can be relatively incomprehensible either way. If you go the "God" route then you are left to varying degrees in defining this anomaly that makes everything possible, and if you go the other way (a logical tautology) then you are left trying to figure out how "the soup" makes itself.

Everything doesn't require a definitive answer pertinent to a general model either. Placeholders can be used for anomalous absurdities much in the same way the "imaginary unit"(i) is used in mathematics to denote the negative result of a square root i.e. we don't know exactly what this 'thing' is, but we'll just leave it in place as part of the "model" for now, move on to whatever's next (if anything), and maybe get back to it later.

I believe we are "evolved enough" to maybe understand some of these things in a general sort of way, but it's like I said in the "test analogy". It's easy to be complacent when there is no one to "correct the test". This obviously doesn't equate to the "answers" being right, and neither that they are wrong, but just that they cannot be proven one way or the other.

Of course, a little common sense is also helpful as well.