https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
"Mankind reached blindly for a hand they hoped is there, in the darkness of what is a perceptible world. — Stoic Toad
Ancient humans, in a natural world "red in tooth and claw", and animated with spooky invisible forces, probably felt more vulnerable than us sophisticated moderns. Today we are surrounded by human culture, and power tools, that give us some control over nature and over competing humans. But those primitives, like herds of ungulates surrounded by predators, huddled together in small tribes, with brave men to lead them. Even so, sometimes the scary world made even the powerful leaders insecure. So they reached out into the darkness for an even stronger leader, who could control the natural forces that threatened them. And the best science of the day postulated invisible human-like gods running the show with their magical powers.
Ironically, the leverage over nature provided by modern technology has also increased the power of human predators, and is still powerless over invisible natural forces, like the Covid Virus. So, people still feel the need for confident leaders to shield them from evil. Which is why, despite the advantages of science & technology, so many insecure Americans look to self-assured leaders, like Donald Trump, to defend them from scary immigrants, insane liberals, and wild-eyed terrorists. But it's obvious that even Trump, with all the resources at his hand, has little power over the evils of the world. So, in the face of the current plague, they pray to an even more powerful, but invisible, chieftain in the sky to defend them from the imperceptible scourge of implacable Nature. This act of desperation, taking your plea all the way to the top, may not make sense for calm rational people, but for anxious fearful people it's the best plan they can think of.
So, man's relationship to God has always been to the court of last resort. Even supremely confident Trump often passes the buck to others. But the office of all-powerful deity is where the buck stops once and for all. Therefore, it makes emotional sense to appeal to the supreme court, when all other options have failed. After all, "reason is and ought to be the slave of passions". ___David Hume
Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation. — christian2017
I again believe in G*D, but not in any particular religion or theology. Because I can "explain feelings/consciousness" with "spiritually sounding explanations" that are grounded in Science. In my thesis, what the ancients called "spirit" and "soul" was what we now call "energy" and "information". So, with that new understanding, I can now track feelings & consciousness back to the Big Bang. But I have no better explanation for the BB, except a mysterious First Cause (Multiverse theory does not explain "feelings/consciousness). Unfortunately, I see no evidence that the FC is a human-like agent actively interfering in human affairs.
So I don't turn to G*D for succor in times of fear & uncertainty, like the current plague of invisible forces inexorably killing masses of people around the world. We have only each-other to lean on in hard times --- even if we have to keep a "social distance". So, I look to G*D as merely a philosophical way of understanding how & why the world works as it does --- including why bad things happen to good people. And it's essentially the same understanding that Plato & Aristotle had, thousands of years ago. The LOGOS is a creative force, but not a Shepherd in the sky, who answers prayers from cowering humans with ravening wolves on all sides. Religions are like flocks of sheep, who band together for a false sense of security, since the shepherd is watching but not interfering in the natural creative process S/he started long ago.
The LOGOS theory does not appeal to fearful emotional Feelers, but to calm rational Thinkers.
I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation. — christian2017
I again believe in G*D, but not in any particular religion or theology. Because I can "explain feelings/consciousness" with "spiritually sounding explanations" that are grounded in Science. In my thesis, what the ancients called "spirit" and "soul" was what we now call "energy" and "information". So, with that new understanding, I can now track feelings & consciousness back to the Big Bang. But I have no better explanation for the BB, except a mysterious First Cause (Multiverse theory does not explain "feelings/consciousness). Unfortunately, I see no evidence that the FC is a human-like agent actively interfering in human affairs.
So I don't turn to G*D for succor in times of fear & uncertainty, like the current plague of invisible forces inexorably killing masses of people around the world. We have only each-other to lean on in hard times --- even if we have to keep a "social distance". So, I look to G*D as merely a philosophical way of understanding how & why the world works as it does --- including why bad things happen to good people. And it's essentially the same understanding that Plato & Aristotle had, thousands of years ago. The LOGOS is a creative force, but not a Shepherd in the sky, who answers prayers from cowering humans with ravening wolves on all sides. Religions are like flocks of sheep, who band together for a false sense of security, since the shepherd is watching but not interfering in the natural creative process S/he started long ago.
The LOGOS theory does not appeal to fearful emotional Feelers, but to calm rational Thinkers.
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information? — christian2017
For a more complete understanding of that analogy you'd have to be familiar with my Enformationism worldview. Ultimately, everything in this world is a form of universal Information (patterns, meanings, potential), which exists in both physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) phases. For example, Physicists have concluded that raw data (information) in computer memory can be transformed into useful energy.
Ancient people saw unexplainable events --- such as a tree suddenly falling over --- and without any concept of gravity, assumed that some "agent" pushed it over. Eventually, those invisible causal agents were called "spirits", or "chi", or "prana". Almost all cultures have some notion of disembodied spirits or ghosts or souls causing otherwise unexplainable motions, lights, or sounds. Today, most of us understand that Energy is an invisible-but-mundane causal force. Yet some still imagine ghosts or supernatural agents which cause events that can't be immediately explained by scientists.
In my thesis, I trace the existence of material objects back to the insubstantial but potential creative energy that emerged in the Big Bang. But what caused the Bang? Evolution is a series of transformations from essentially nothing to everything, including matter & mind. So, I propose a theory to explain how mental phenomena can be produced by sufficiently organized (enformed) matter, such as human brains. Long story short, I track everything in the world back to a First Cause (the Enformer, G*D) with the power to create both Matter & Mind.
Thus, just as Energy equates to Spirit, and Information equates to Mind, then Evolution equates to Creation. And my axiomatic Creator is what I call G*D, because it equates to all the god-models in all human cultures. But, all I know about that eternal Potential is by inference from the actual world. So I don't know how many arms & legs G*D has, or what H/er intentions are for H/er creatures. "G*D" is merely a placeholder name for something transcendent & ineffable. And since the myriad of conflicting scriptures of the world can't all be right, I simply accept the fact that this world was created, without pretending to know by whom, or for what purpose. Hence, my relationship with G*D is ambiguous.
Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation
Information to Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information- ... to-energy/
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information? — christian2017
For a more complete understanding of that analogy you'd have to be familiar with my Enformationism worldview. Ultimately, everything in this world is a form of universal Information (patterns, meanings, potential), which exists in both physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) phases. For example, Physicists have concluded that raw data (information) in computer memory can be transformed into useful energy.
Ancient people saw unexplainable events --- such as a tree suddenly falling over --- and without any concept of gravity, assumed that some "agent" pushed it over. Eventually, those invisible causal agents were called "spirits", or "chi", or "prana". Almost all cultures have some notion of disembodied spirits or ghosts or souls causing otherwise unexplainable motions, lights, or sounds. Today, most of us understand that Energy is an invisible-but-mundane causal force. Yet some still imagine ghosts or supernatural agents which cause events that can't be immediately explained by scientists.
In my thesis, I trace the existence of material objects back to the insubstantial but potential creative energy that emerged in the Big Bang. But what caused the Bang? Evolution is a series of transformations from essentially nothing to everything, including matter & mind. So, I propose a theory to explain how mental phenomena can be produced by sufficiently organized (enformed) matter, such as human brains. Long story short, I track everything in the world back to a First Cause (the Enformer, G*D) with the power to create both Matter & Mind.
Thus, just as Energy equates to Spirit, and Information equates to Mind, then Evolution equates to Creation. And my axiomatic Creator is what I call G*D, because it equates to all the god-models in all human cultures. But, all I know about that eternal Potential is by inference from the actual world. So I don't know how many arms & legs G*D has, or what H/er intentions are for H/er creatures. "G*D" is merely a placeholder name for something transcendent & ineffable. And since the myriad of conflicting scriptures of the world can't all be right, I simply accept the fact that this world was created, without pretending to know by whom, or for what purpose. Hence, my relationship with G*D is ambiguous.
Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation
Information to Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information- ... to-energy/
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post? — christian2017
Of course. Where else would they come from? And I can only assume that G*D is conscious in some sense, since "feeling/consciousness" exists in He/r creation. Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness. But I don't know how "feelings" would work for an eternal BEING without a physical body to generate emotions. So I prefer to avoid anthro-metric characterizations of a transcendent entity. [note : "He/r" is intentionally ambiguous]
However, I understand that ancient people, with no idea of Information or Energy, imagined their deities in the best way they knew how : comparing them to human kings and tribal leaders. So, emotional non-philosophers needed relatable metaphors (e.g. idols) in order to understand the concept of an invisible god. But rational philosophers, among their peers, used more abstract descriptions of the transcendent deity. Perhaps the best example of the popular vs professional god-models is the dual definitions of Brama (one of a trinity of polytheistic gods) and Brahman (absolute abstract unitary creator) in Hinduism.
Likewise, the ancient Hebrews imagined their tribal god as a warrior king whose special power was control of the weather, including lightning (equivalent to Greek Zeus). But as their priests & scribes became more sophisticated in philosophy and knowledge of how the world works, their professional understanding of God became more remote and abstract (similar to Brahman). Unfortunately, in their scriptures, these dual definitions were used interchangeably. The confusing result is that Christians inherited a Bible with depictions of a humanoid God walking in the Garden of Eden, and of a transcendent creative principle that had no human form. The late Jewish notion of God was so abstract and remote, that the myth of a human son was proposed in an effort to re-humanize the deity with feelings & human consciousness.
Consequently, I have abandoned the notion of a creator who made his creatures in his own likeness, with upright posture and two legs. Instead, I imagine G*D as an unimaginable cosmic principle. I attribute my own personal feelings to the emergence of metaphysical Mind from eons of physical evolution. I call that creative process EnFormAction. But it's too abstract & philosophical to be the basis for a popular religion.
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Brahma : https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ahma.shtml
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post? — christian2017
Of course. Where else would they come from? And I can only assume that G*D is conscious in some sense, since "feeling/consciousness" exists in He/r creation. Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness. But I don't know how "feelings" would work for an eternal BEING without a physical body to generate emotions. So I prefer to avoid anthro-metric characterizations of a transcendent entity. [note : "He/r" is intentionally ambiguous]
However, I understand that ancient people, with no idea of Information or Energy, imagined their deities in the best way they knew how : comparing them to human kings and tribal leaders. So, emotional non-philosophers needed relatable metaphors (e.g. idols) in order to understand the concept of an invisible god. But rational philosophers, among their peers, used more abstract descriptions of the transcendent deity. Perhaps the best example of the popular vs professional god-models is the dual definitions of Brama (one of a trinity of polytheistic gods) and Brahman (absolute abstract unitary creator) in Hinduism.
Likewise, the ancient Hebrews imagined their tribal god as a warrior king whose special power was control of the weather, including lightning (equivalent to Greek Zeus). But as their priests & scribes became more sophisticated in philosophy and knowledge of how the world works, their professional understanding of God became more remote and abstract (similar to Brahman). Unfortunately, in their scriptures, these dual definitions were used interchangeably. The confusing result is that Christians inherited a Bible with depictions of a humanoid God walking in the Garden of Eden, and of a transcendent creative principle that had no human form. The late Jewish notion of God was so abstract and remote, that the myth of a human son was proposed in an effort to re-humanize the deity with feelings & human consciousness.
Consequently, I have abandoned the notion of a creator who made his creatures in his own likeness, with upright posture and two legs. Instead, I imagine G*D as an unimaginable cosmic principle. I attribute my own personal feelings to the emergence of metaphysical Mind from eons of physical evolution. I call that creative process EnFormAction. But it's too abstract & philosophical to be the basis for a popular religion.
G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Brahma : https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... ahma.shtml
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information. — christian2017
What else can you equate it with? If you accept the scientific consensus of evolution over billions of years, from pure Energy to Matter to Mind, how can you explain the emergence of Consciousness?
However, if you accept the religious doctrine of divine intervention to add an immortal Soul to a mortal body, you will have to take that on Faith. And quit trying to be a philosopher, using Reason to discover Truth.
The EnFormAction link above may give some idea of how I envision the emergence of Soul/Self with no need for magical intervention into the evolutionary process of Creation.
We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information. — christian2017
What else can you equate it with? If you accept the scientific consensus of evolution over billions of years, from pure Energy to Matter to Mind, how can you explain the emergence of Consciousness?
However, if you accept the religious doctrine of divine intervention to add an immortal Soul to a mortal body, you will have to take that on Faith. And quit trying to be a philosopher, using Reason to discover Truth.
The EnFormAction link above may give some idea of how I envision the emergence of Soul/Self with no need for magical intervention into the evolutionary process of Creation.
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
lol. Uhhhhhh. When you use G-d (which is a jewish way of saying God), and then you go on and on about G-d being a creator but also not a creator, and then the fact that this whole philosophy/science thing your explaining is your idea................ and your accusing me of acting on faith? Any time you've concieved of an idea and have yet to prove your idea, to some extent you can be accused of acting on faith. — christian2017
I coined the term "G*D" for a completely different reason from that of the Jews. They were afraid of offending their tyrannical God by using his personal name "Yahweh", instead of the obsequious "your Lordship". My G*D has no personal name, and is unlikely to be offended by such effrontery. I added the asterisk merely to indicate that I was talking about a different god-model from that of traditional religions.
Where did you get the idea that I was ambiguous about G*D being the creator of the universe? I sometimes use other terms, such as "Programmer". But creation is the essential function of the "First Cause" in my thesis. The only alternative I'm aware of is an eternal Multiverse, which must be self-existent --- like a god.
When did I "accuse" you of acting on faith? We all act on faith for things we take for granted without bothering to look for proof. Even scientists take some things for granted. They're called Axioms. I refer to my G*D theory, not as a proven fact, but as an Axiom from which I developed a worldview that explains aspects of reality that are excluded from the materialistic paradigms.
The Enformationism idea, that I "conceived", is a theory, not a doctrine. It's the result of reasoning from modern evidence, not taken on faith in ancient revelations. Enformationism is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific paradigm. So it's supported by arguments, not experiments. The website and blog are extensive arguments that present the reasoning process for coming to the conclusion that the Big Bang was an act of creation. And that Information is the "single substance" of reality. Four centuries ago, Spinoza reached a similar conclusion, but he had no concept of Information in the Shannon sense, or of thinking machines that process information. So I have just updated his philosophy.
FWIW, my god-model is not appropriate for religious faith. Instead, it's equivalent to the "god of the philosophers", based on reasoning and skepticism.
Spinoza single substance : https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
Effrontery : insolent or impertinent behavior.
Axiom : a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. [i.e. not based on physical evidence]
God of the Philosophers : "The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac" [His argument was directed toward the Deists of his day]
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm
lol. Uhhhhhh. When you use G-d (which is a jewish way of saying God), and then you go on and on about G-d being a creator but also not a creator, and then the fact that this whole philosophy/science thing your explaining is your idea................ and your accusing me of acting on faith? Any time you've concieved of an idea and have yet to prove your idea, to some extent you can be accused of acting on faith. — christian2017
I coined the term "G*D" for a completely different reason from that of the Jews. They were afraid of offending their tyrannical God by using his personal name "Yahweh", instead of the obsequious "your Lordship". My G*D has no personal name, and is unlikely to be offended by such effrontery. I added the asterisk merely to indicate that I was talking about a different god-model from that of traditional religions.
Where did you get the idea that I was ambiguous about G*D being the creator of the universe? I sometimes use other terms, such as "Programmer". But creation is the essential function of the "First Cause" in my thesis. The only alternative I'm aware of is an eternal Multiverse, which must be self-existent --- like a god.
When did I "accuse" you of acting on faith? We all act on faith for things we take for granted without bothering to look for proof. Even scientists take some things for granted. They're called Axioms. I refer to my G*D theory, not as a proven fact, but as an Axiom from which I developed a worldview that explains aspects of reality that are excluded from the materialistic paradigms.
The Enformationism idea, that I "conceived", is a theory, not a doctrine. It's the result of reasoning from modern evidence, not taken on faith in ancient revelations. Enformationism is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific paradigm. So it's supported by arguments, not experiments. The website and blog are extensive arguments that present the reasoning process for coming to the conclusion that the Big Bang was an act of creation. And that Information is the "single substance" of reality. Four centuries ago, Spinoza reached a similar conclusion, but he had no concept of Information in the Shannon sense, or of thinking machines that process information. So I have just updated his philosophy.
FWIW, my god-model is not appropriate for religious faith. Instead, it's equivalent to the "god of the philosophers", based on reasoning and skepticism.
Spinoza single substance : https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
Effrontery : insolent or impertinent behavior.
Axiom : a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. [i.e. not based on physical evidence]
God of the Philosophers : "The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac" [His argument was directed toward the Deists of his day]
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
I read what you said about this top mind not being a creator and i can kind of see why thistop mind wouldn't have to be a creator, but why is it a stretch to say primitive people who believed in religion weren't in some sense (some sense) refering to this top mind or cosmic mind? — christian2017
The universal mind imagined by AI enthusiasts is a creation of the universe, not the creator of it. They assume that the physical universe itself is eternal, and operates via inherent logic. Some religious people do indeed accept that the whole world is gradually becoming conscious.
Omega Point : The Omega Point is the belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification.[1] The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin . . . [Chardin sometimes referred to the Omega Point as "The Cosmic Christ". But this is not a biblical exegesis]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
I read what you said about this top mind not being a creator and i can kind of see why thistop mind wouldn't have to be a creator, but why is it a stretch to say primitive people who believed in religion weren't in some sense (some sense) refering to this top mind or cosmic mind? — christian2017
The universal mind imagined by AI enthusiasts is a creation of the universe, not the creator of it. They assume that the physical universe itself is eternal, and operates via inherent logic. Some religious people do indeed accept that the whole world is gradually becoming conscious.
Omega Point : The Omega Point is the belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification.[1] The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin . . . [Chardin sometimes referred to the Omega Point as "The Cosmic Christ". But this is not a biblical exegesis]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
this may sound stupid and i knew this day would come buti'm at 666 and i would like to move to 668 for superstitious reasons (mentions). Help a buddy out lol. Have you ever seen the movie Pi (same guy who made "Requiem for a dream")? — christian2017
If you are already at "666" then there's no hope for you. The devil's gonna get you. But then, PI is an endless string of numbers, so maybe all you have to do is move-on to the next digit in your imagination.
Yes, I saw the movie. And it's based on Jewish numerology. But you should avoid getting ensnared in such Kabbalistic nonsense. It could make you as crazy as the protagonist (lit. one torn by inner conflict).
PI : Max Cohen is a number theorist who believes everything in nature can be understood through numbers.
this may sound stupid and i knew this day would come buti'm at 666 and i would like to move to 668 for superstitious reasons (mentions). Help a buddy out lol. Have you ever seen the movie Pi (same guy who made "Requiem for a dream")? — christian2017
If you are already at "666" then there's no hope for you. The devil's gonna get you. But then, PI is an endless string of numbers, so maybe all you have to do is move-on to the next digit in your imagination.
Yes, I saw the movie. And it's based on Jewish numerology. But you should avoid getting ensnared in such Kabbalistic nonsense. It could make you as crazy as the protagonist (lit. one torn by inner conflict).
PI : Max Cohen is a number theorist who believes everything in nature can be understood through numbers.
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
So perhaps with "god of philosophers", the main god intended philosophers and/or people to discover him through deep thought? — christian2017
As a rule, philosophers such as Spinoza, don't make any attempt to read the mind of G*D. They merely assume the existence of an intentional creator of the world as an Axiom, upon which they build a worldview. But they are still free to try to interpret the intentions of the creator from the way the world works.
For example, evolution seems to be causing the physical world to change in the direction of increasing complexity and intelligence. This was not apparent to the ancient priests & prophets, before the advent of scientific investigation. So the concept of Evolution or progressive change would not have occurred to them. Yet now we can look back at the Big Bang and follow the emergence of organization from energetic atoms to living organisms, and eventually to thinking beings. And some of those thinkers may conclude that their personal interpretation of divine intentions is the true Will of G*D. But I am not that confident in my sign-reading abilities. So my relationship to G*D is not a personal friendship, but more like developing a rapport with Nature, that makes my life more meaningful.
Rapport : relation; connection, especially harmonious or sympathetic relation:
So perhaps with "god of philosophers", the main god intended philosophers and/or people to discover him through deep thought? — christian2017
As a rule, philosophers such as Spinoza, don't make any attempt to read the mind of G*D. They merely assume the existence of an intentional creator of the world as an Axiom, upon which they build a worldview. But they are still free to try to interpret the intentions of the creator from the way the world works.
For example, evolution seems to be causing the physical world to change in the direction of increasing complexity and intelligence. This was not apparent to the ancient priests & prophets, before the advent of scientific investigation. So the concept of Evolution or progressive change would not have occurred to them. Yet now we can look back at the Big Bang and follow the emergence of organization from energetic atoms to living organisms, and eventually to thinking beings. And some of those thinkers may conclude that their personal interpretation of divine intentions is the true Will of G*D. But I am not that confident in my sign-reading abilities. So my relationship to G*D is not a personal friendship, but more like developing a rapport with Nature, that makes my life more meaningful.
Rapport : relation; connection, especially harmonious or sympathetic relation:
Re: Phil Forum : God's Relationship to Man
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/396934
Based on this post of yours, could someone go far as to say with the creation of the universe it was inevitable that a being that has feeling and/or consciessness would come to exist? Or is that a stretch? — christian2017
Yes. I have concluded the the emergence of intelligent creatures was programmed into the Singularity that caused pure Energy to complexify over time into Matter, and eventually into Minds. I don't know for sure where we go from here, but I'm pretty sure that 21st century humanity is not the final solution to the intention behind evolution.
Teilhard deChardin imagined that evolution was essentially developing the Big Bang embryo into a child of god, that he referred to as the Cosmic Christ. More secular scientists, think that robots will replace humans as the pinnacle of Natural and Cultural evolution. But I just don't have enough information to predict the future course of world-building. So, I tend to focus on the here & now.
Based on this post of yours, could someone go far as to say with the creation of the universe it was inevitable that a being that has feeling and/or consciessness would come to exist? Or is that a stretch? — christian2017
Yes. I have concluded the the emergence of intelligent creatures was programmed into the Singularity that caused pure Energy to complexify over time into Matter, and eventually into Minds. I don't know for sure where we go from here, but I'm pretty sure that 21st century humanity is not the final solution to the intention behind evolution.
Teilhard deChardin imagined that evolution was essentially developing the Big Bang embryo into a child of god, that he referred to as the Cosmic Christ. More secular scientists, think that robots will replace humans as the pinnacle of Natural and Cultural evolution. But I just don't have enough information to predict the future course of world-building. So, I tend to focus on the here & now.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests