God as a Mental concept

[Guitar's Cry]

Electrons and photons. Photons of light are charged packets, or quantum of light that excite our visionary senses. Everything we touch and feel is an interaction between electrons.

But how do we know this outside of our own sensory data and mental concepts?

And, if we take the model of sensory data giving rise to our reality, don't we have to assume that sensory information comes "in" from somewhere to be processed? Since we don't appear to experience pure sensory data, just a mental concept of it.

EDIT: For example, Sunstone's post above.

 

[dogsgod]

But how do we know this outside of our own sensory data and mental concepts?

And, if we take the model of sensory data giving rise to our reality, don't we have to assume that sensory information comes "in" from somewhere to be processed? Since we don't appear to experience pure sensory data, just a mental concept of it.

EDIT: For example, Sunstone's post above.

Yes we can think of our worldview as a model of the universe. What we visualize or conceptualize is a model, it's not the actual universe. I suppose we have to make the assumption that information comes "in" from somewhere. Our language has a lot to do with how we perceive this as well as how we perceive some things that are not necessarily "out there" such as meaning, or purpose. These are also human concepts, words we use to make sense of everything.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes we can think of our worldview as a model of the universe. What we visualize or conceptualize is a model, it's not the actual universe. I suppose we have to make the assumption that information comes "in" from somewhere. Our language has a lot to do with how we perceive this as well as how we perceive some things that are not necessarily "out there" such as meaning, or purpose. These are also human concepts, words we use to make sense of everything.

Great post!

This echoes much of my own musings. But is there an actual universe outside our own perception of it?

 

[idea]

Does anyone disagree that god makes much more sense as a mental aspect rather than a physical being or force.
There are people who'd like to compare god to love, yet insist that he is like love. Whenever I try to explain that love is just a mental concept and not an actual physical thing...

Love is a real thing - physical manifestations of love include acts of service, eye contact, sexual acts, etc. etc... Love is an action word - a verb, and you can see the actions.

I believe that God is a verb and a noun, a physical being you can see and touch and hear when you are ready to do so. We usually see the verb part of it before we see the noun.

Humans get thristy because water exists, and we need it to survive. Thirst - created by our mind for something that is real. We crave what is real. Most people crave God.

 

[idea]

It seems that our senses are to what they sense like a thermometer is to heat. The thermometer does not re-present heat. It does not replicate it. It would be closer to the truth to say that it symbolizes heat. That is, that it turns the information it receives into a symbol -- i.e. temperature -- of heat.

An old mercury thermometer does replicate it. The molecules in the mercury vibrate and expand raising the level of the liquid in the thermometer. The liquid in the measuring device comes to the same temperature as what is around it - replicates what is around it. We can measure how much expansion the liquid undergoes per °C and put lines to show how much the liquid has changed volume - the liquid changes volume because it heats up - it does not just symbolize heat, it actually comes to the same temp as what is around it... you have to wait for the thermo to reach the temp of the surroundings before you can get an accurate measurement.

Actually all thermometers replicate it – the thermometer can only measure what it also experiences. The thermometer comes to the same temp as what it measures.

Thermometers do more than symbolize the heat - they heat up themselves, have the heat within them.

I like the comparison though - I think that our senses are to what they sense like a thermometer is to heat. The thermometer can only sense what it becomes. If it is insulated from what is around it, an inaccurate temp will be displayed. If it allows itself to be changed by it's surroundings, only then is it able to correctly display what it is surrounded by ...it turns the information it receives into itself-- changes itself, and so clearly sees what is around it.

 

[dogsgod]

Great post!

This echoes much of my own musings. But is there an actual universe outside our own perception of it?

Good question. I think we have to accept and assume there is in order for us to function. Our brains have evolved in reaction to our environment, it must reflect an accurate model or we wouldn't be able to interact with it and thrive as a species. On the other hand, our brains have not evolved to deal with the microscopic in terms of quantum mechanics, some observations at this level defy our sense of logic, and how this might effect our perception of our universe in the future is difficult to say.

 

[dogsgod]

An old mercury thermometer does replicate it. The molecules in the mercury vibrate and expand raising the level of the liquid in the thermometer. The liquid in the measuring device comes to the same temperature as what is around it - replicates what is around it. We can measure how much expansion the liquid undergoes per °C and put lines to show how much the liquid has changed volume - the liquid changes volume because it heats up - it does not just symbolize heat, it actually comes to the same temp as what is around it... you have to wait for the thermo to reach the temp of the surroundings before you can get an accurate measurement.

Actually all thermometers replicate it – the thermometer can only measure what it also experiences. The thermometer comes to the same temp as what it measures.

Thermometers do more than symbolize the heat - they heat up themselves, have the heat within them.

I like the comparison though - I think that our senses are to what they sense like a thermometer is to heat. The thermometer can only sense what it becomes. If it is insulated from what is around it, an inaccurate temp will be displayed. If it allows itself to be changed by it's surroundings, only then is it able to correctly display what it is surrounded by ...it turns the information it receives into itself-- changes itself, and so clearly sees what is around it.

Excellent post. I like it better than your previous post because I think what people crave is knowledge, and unfortunately I think the concept of God is a short cut and doesn't provide us with any real knowledge. But this post does contain knowledge that is useful.

 

[idea]

... the concept of God is a short cut and doesn't provide us with any real knowledge.

Lame analogy - but I think the scripts are like a cook book. You can sit and read the words and look at the picts / understand the concepts - but until you actually go out, buy food, follow the directions, and cook - you won't get anything out of it. Most people do not "cook", they read, and so the words provide little real knowledge.

saved by grace or works? too many think that works are not needed. Works are the only way any of it becomes real.

 

[Dunemeister]

I think there are differences, sure. Our reality is built of differences. But in the end, God is what we know and experience of God. What would change between the different ways of acquiring the concept? Would we still believe in the same way?

I'm not sure what you mean. If I acquire my belief in God through the proper functioning of a cognitive faculty aimed at acquiring true beliefs about God, then that's acquiring the belief one way. If I acquire my belief in God by weighing out the evidence, that's acquiring it in another way. So no, the two believers in question wouldn't be believing in the same way.

I take it that beliefs formed in the former way constitute knowledge; beliefs formed in the latter way may or may not, we'll never know. That's one difference IMHO.

 

[Dunemeister]

Good question. I think we have to accept and assume there is in order for us to function.

Exactly. This is of course the classic answer to the so-called global skeptic.

 

[Dunemeister]

Excellent post. I like it better than your previous post because I think what people crave is knowledge, and unfortunately I think the concept of God is a short cut and doesn't provide us with any real knowledge. But this post does contain knowledge that is useful.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the concept of God...doesn't provide us with any real knowledge." None of our concepts "provide us" with knowledge.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'm not sure what you mean. If I acquire my belief in God through the proper functioning of a cognitive faculty aimed at acquiring true beliefs about God, then that's acquiring the belief one way. If I acquire my belief in God by weighing out the evidence, that's acquiring it in another way. So no, the two believers in question wouldn't be believing in the same way.

I take it that beliefs formed in the former way constitute knowledge; beliefs formed in the latter way may or may not, we'll never know. That's one difference IMHO.

Well, knowledge is knowledge. A belief is knowledge of something despite how it was arrived at.

I think you may be right that there are differences in belief depending on how they are arrived at, but the significance is in the actual belief: if I believe in God through blind faith, and you believe in God through scientific reasoning, then we both have arrived at a concept of God. Even if these beliefs are dissimilar in some ways, they still represent the conceptual existence of God.

 

[Wandered Off]

Just to play Captain Obvious here, of course god (or gods) exist as a mental concept in any brain that conceptualizes god(s). What we can't know is whether there's a territory corresponding to that map.

 

[Dunemeister]

Well, knowledge is knowledge. A belief is knowledge of something despite how it was arrived at.

Two problems. First, belief is not knowledge of anything. A belief is an attitude one takes to an idea. Take the idea "God exists." Some people believe it, others don't. That is, some people take a favorable attitude to it, others unfavorable. At this point, there is no question of knowledge, only of attitude.

I think you may be right that there are differences in belief depending on how they are arrived at, but the significance is in the actual belief: if I believe in God through blind faith, and you believe in God through scientific reasoning, then we both have arrived at a concept of God. Even if these beliefs are dissimilar in some ways, they still represent the conceptual existence of God.

Yes they do, but there is a crucial difference between them. If I form a belief in God, say, through wish fulfillment, there's something against that belief. If I form a belief in God through the proper functioning of cognitive faculties that are aimed at providing true beliefs, have been designed well to form beliefs in God under the right circumstances (which obtain at the time the belief is formed), and are operating in a conducive cognitive environment, we'd have to say that there's something to be said in favor of that belief. It has a status greater than the one that came by wish fulfillment. So let's say you form your belief based on proper functioning, and I form it based on wish fulfillment. Sure, we both have a concept of God; but your belief constitutes knowledge; mine doesn't. So I don't think it's correct to say knowledge is knowledge no matter how the belief is formed. Some beliefs count as knowledge; others don't. And this is true even if the concepts at issue are identical. In my example, we both might have formed a belief in the existence of exactly the same God. Nevertheless, you have knowledge and I don't.

 

[Dunemeister]

Just to play Captain Obvious here, of course god (or gods) exist as a mental concept in any brain that conceptualizes god(s). What we can't know is whether there's a territory corresponding to that map.

Of course we can know. I know.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Love is a real thing - physical manifestations of love include acts of service, eye contact, sexual acts, etc. etc... Love is an action word - a verb, and you can see the actions.

I believe that God is a verb and a noun, a physical being you can see and touch and hear when you are ready to do so. We usually see the verb part of it before we see the noun.

Humans get thristy because water exists, and we need it to survive. Thirst - created by our mind for something that is real. We crave what is real. Most people crave God.

No, what you are describing are actions of love, not love itself becuase love is not a noun in the sense that you can hold love in your hands or physically see love as an object. There is no matter out there, that is know to man, that can be described as "love."
acts of service can be done for selfish needs, eye contact could signal dominace or confrontation, and sex acts can come about from a drunken night.

what is the verb part of god exactly?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course we can know. I know.

Then again, people know all sorts of things which aren't actually true.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Two problems. First, belief is not knowledge of anything. A belief is an attitude one takes to an idea. Take the idea "God exists." Some people believe it, others don't. That is, some people take a favorable attitude to it, others unfavorable. At this point, there is no question of knowledge, only of attitude.

Actually, I was working off this:

I take it that beliefs formed in the former way constitute knowledge; beliefs formed in the latter way may or may not, we'll never know.

Since knowledge is information known, and belief is the surety of knowing something, belief is certainly a kind of knowledge based on the certainty of the notion.

Wikipedia has a good discussion on this: Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes they do, but there is a crucial difference between them. If I form a belief in God, say, through wish fulfillment, there's something against that belief. If I form a belief in God through the proper functioning of cognitive faculties that are aimed at providing true beliefs, have been designed well to form beliefs in God under the right circumstances (which obtain at the time the belief is formed), and are operating in a conducive cognitive environment, we'd have to say that there's something to be said in favor of that belief. It has a status greater than the one that came by wish fulfillment. So let's say you form your belief based on proper functioning, and I form it based on wish fulfillment. Sure, we both have a concept of God; but your belief constitutes knowledge; mine doesn't. So I don't think it's correct to say knowledge is knowledge no matter how the belief is formed. Some beliefs count as knowledge; others don't. And this is true even if the concepts at issue are identical. In my example, we both might have formed a belief in the existence of exactly the same God. Nevertheless, you have knowledge and I don't.

But as a mental concept based on feelings and emotions, how is yours not knowledge? For example, if you wish to believe in God because you feel you need a creative director in your life, and I form mine because I've noticed a complex design in the universe, both God concepts are developed through internal processes of building models and connections.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Just to play Captain Obvious here, of course god (or gods) exist as a mental concept in any brain that conceptualizes god(s). What we can't know is whether there's a territory corresponding to that map.

Well, Cap'n, since we know that mental concepts exist and our reality is built off them, do we need a corresponding territory?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Then again, people know all sorts of things which aren't actually true.

How do we decide the truth of things?