Values and religion

[osgart]

That word creates ambiguities. Is it something that belongs to you or is common to all things (living or non-living) in the universe?
Advaita Hinduism dispenses with the word and replaces the unconditional foundational eternal reality as Brahman, which is not God.
Sankara (8th Century) said: "Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya .." (Brahman is truth, the perceived is an illusion).

I am the soul, and I cannot escape myself. All that lives has a soul. I don't see how the God concept applies to anything real.

The universe is very real, yet it is still a passing form and is vaporous. Nothing arises from nothing. Life never was a nothing deal and exists NOT upon physical conditions and arrangements that would somehow bring it into being. Life is the ground reality.

 

[DNB]

This, indirectly, explains a main difference between religion and atheism. To Jesus, sin begins in the heart and mind; your inner intent, and not with getting caught, brought to trial and then sentenced; final confirmed sensory reality.

Some of the victims of police brutality had large rap sheets and therefore victimized ten times more people, than all these charges against them. These silent victims, without sensory confirmation by the system, still exist, but were not counted when these criminals met their terminal justice. To the Left, it is only what you can see that counts; video evidence. If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to see or hear it, does it make a sound? Materialism may have to say no evidence, while religion will say yes, based on the intent of the natural physics laws of sound. Confirmed reality without senses.

If you only base your opinion on what you can sense, then technically the criminals lurking in the dark that nobody can see, is sinless. Also if you commit a crime, but have a good shady lawyer who gets you off and can purge your record, to materialists, you are innocent since there is no hard proof.

Religious tend to go deeper into the abstract world of conscience and natural and human intent, which goes beyond what is obvious to the five senses. For example, just because nobody in the Swamp has been punished does not mean that crimes were not committed. Shallow materialists may disagree; where is the proof. Spiritual Justice, on the other hand, is about an abstraction beyond the limited shallow and visible world seen and sensed by materialism.

Science has to stop at the hard evidence, and not natural intent that may not be visible; hypothesis. Hypothesis is not enough without sensory evidence. Liberalism stays in the shallows, while religion responds to a deeper standard that needs more brain power to process.

Yes, religions address that which exists in the spiritual realms.
Theists perceive the spirit in man (God's image), and are aware of the spiritual warfare that takes place in all men's hearts.
The atheist, on the other hand, lacks perception and depth to their thoughts, and cannot see what God has made quite evident to so many others.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am the soul, and I cannot escape myself. All that lives has a soul. I don't see how the God concept applies to anything real.
Nothing arises from nothing.

You have a brain and mind creating or accepting the concept of soul. That does not prove the existence of such thing.
Here also our views differ. How do things came to exist? This is a riddle for which science as well as religion have no answer at the moment. It will be decades / centuries before this riddle is solved. Are existence and non-existence just phases?

Why is there anything at all? - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[osgart]

You have a brain and mind creating or accepting the concept of soul. That does not prove the existence of such thing.
Here also our views differ. How do things came to exist? This is a riddle for which science as well as religion have no answer at the moment. It will be decades / centuries before this riddle is solved. Are existence and non-existence just phases?

How do things come to exist? Only from prior existing things. It is a riddle! Life is not a flukey thing though. I don't believe that existent things cease to exist. I don't judge death by its appearance.

The attributes of life don't fit neatly into a brain. For example the brain produces sight but it cannot tell you about who or what is receiving the sight and how.

Non existence is the illusion. I can't say it enough, if there were truly nothing nothing would result. The universe changes, and perhaps change is its only constant. Mind from mindlessness does not compute with me and thus it is the foundational reality.

Blame it all on the brain though, lol.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do things come to exist? Only from prior existing things. It is a riddle! Life is not a flukey thing though. I don't believe that existent things cease to exist. I don't judge death by its appearance.

The attributes of life don't fit neatly into a brain. For example the brain produces sight but it cannot tell you about who or what is receiving the sight and how.

Non existence is the illusion. I can't say it enough, if there were truly nothing nothing would result. The universe changes, and perhaps change is its only constant. Mind from mindlessness does not compute with me and thus it is the foundational reality.

Blame it all on the brain though, lol.

In these times of Quantum Mechanics, we should wait before we announce conclusions. Life is completely flukey. Just one of the 250 sperms that a man ejaculates turns into a baby, sometimes not even that. After disintegration of the body, the molecules of the body disperse in the environment and nothing more is left of that person. What we term as death is completely dependent on probabilities, chances and uncertainties. I cannot predict even one future minute of my life.

To know about how and why of sight, kindly see Human eye - Wikipedia. If you want to find information on how and what other critters see, wikipedia has information for that too. Eye - Wikipedia

I do not know if non-existence is an illusion, I reserve my comment for the moment. Sure, change is the only constant in the universe. Mind from mindlessness may not compute with you but it does compute with science, from self-replicating organic molecules to humans.

 

[osgart]

In these times of Quantum Mechanics, we should wait before we announce conclusions. Life is completely flukey. Just one of the 250 sperms that a man ejaculates turns into a baby, sometimes not even that. After disintegration of the body, the molecules of the body disperse in the environment and nothing more is left of that person. What we term as death is completely dependent on probabilities, chances and uncertainties. I cannot predict even one future minute of my life.

To know about how and why of sight, kindly see Human eye - Wikipedia. If you want to find information on how and what other critters see, wikipedia has information for that too. Eye - Wikipedia

I do not know if non-existence is an illusion, I reserve my comment for the moment. Sure, change is the only constant in the universe. Mind from mindlessness may not compute with you but it does compute with science, from self-replicating organic molecules to humans.

Those are partial explanations of how life behaves and it doesn't take you all the way to life as we know it.

I'm not asking how and what critters see, I'm asking who or what is doing the seeing.

Science can explain the pathway viability to life naturally, but it cannot tell you how or why the pathway was taken. Self replication will get you viruses not fully formed intelligent beings.

It is your philosophy that this all happens without intelligence doing the programming. It is my philosophy that intelligence does it.

If science knew the how's and why's they could tap into life and actually make life happen.

 

[wellwisher]

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The inner self is older and also occurs within all animals. It is the natural conscience center of the animal brain. The inner self is also the center of the brain's natural operating system, with the inner self of each species containing the firmware, which defines the nature of that species. In the case of humans, the inner self defines our human nature.

The second center is the ego. This is only found in humans. This secondary center evolved quite recently maybe 6000-10,000 year ago; Adam. The ego is the center of the conscious mind. I think therefore I am is an awareness of these two centers; I is ego will and choice, while instinct is inner self.

The biggest difference between the two are their languages. Since the inner self is common to all species, its language is more universal. It is based on objective reality, in the sense of being connected to the five senses, all of which directly interface reality to the inner self. We see photons of energy reflected or emitted by objects, which enter the eyes and signal the brain. The same is true of smell, and taste which are based on reality chemical signals, etc. Touch is pressure on nerves and hearing is based on sound waves all of which are signals from reality to brain.

The ego is more cultural and uses manmade language which is not objective in terms of interfacing reality to brain. There are over 6500 different human languages on earth. This alone tells us human language; sounds and symbols are completely subjective and arbitrary. There is no direct natural cause and affect between the word or sound for the word "cat" and what we see as a cat. The cat does not form the shape of the word; cat, nor does it make that sound, so why use that sound or word shape? Below is cat is eight languages. Which of the sounds do cats make and which word shape looks like a cat?

1. American English: kitty /ˈkɪti/
2. Brazilian Portuguese: fundo comum.
3. Chinese: 公共储金
4. European Spanish: fondo común.
5. French: cagnotte.
6. German: gemeinsame Kasse.
7. Italian: cassa comune.
8. Japanese: 共同出資金

The main difference between the inner self and ego is the inner self is in contract with reality through a more direct interface; five senses. The ego make use of subjective and arbitrary sounds and symbols, which we all may agree upon, but which do not reflect reality except as a subjective marker. Religions are often about finding the inner self so once can connect to reality through its direct interface; inner child or inner voice of the inner self.

The way the brain works is based on free energy potential. This schema was designed to work with the inner self, which is older and came first and is common to all animals. Their memory is based on signal hierarchy based on tangible reality signaling, such as photons for sight. Since ego memory is based on language, and since language is subjective, the ego does not organize its memory based on free energy hierarchy since our memory is all over the place. This has the value of our memory being reorganized by the inner self; creative and spiritual changes based on free energy.

As an analogy, computer or semiconductor memory is designed to be stable. We can place memory in any order, objective or subjective, and it stays that way. Picture if we used more fluid and reactive memory that can self catalyze and rearrange based on free energy. Changes will follow the laws of physics instead of the subjective standards of man. Such memory would rearrange in situ. This may appear scrambled or randomized to the ego, but it would be the language of nature and inner self. Dreams and visions are often the inner self reorganizing human memory which is often the foundation of many religions; prophets.

 

[nPeace]

I wasnt sure how to word this question. It popped im my mind reading another thread. Took me a minute to figure out how to word it. But what values and questions lead you to the belief system you have? And what values/questions being answered in your religion are cornerstone for you? Like if someone were to argue against your religion or lack of what would they have to keep in mind

Not sure I fully understand... However, the quality of spiritual education, is a highlight for me.
Since I know what are the contributing factors in the problematic lives of families and societies, seeing what truly is contributing to a great contrast, is really knowledge of high value.

To give an example...
Unwanted pregnancies, drug and alcohol abuse, and other harmful substance use, juvenile delinquency and correctional facilities, overcrowded prisons, and many other things plague societies, but these are just the results of lack of proper spiritual education, which contributes to honesty, real love, and unity, and other benefits.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Those are partial explanations of how life behaves and it doesn't take you all the way to life as we know it.
I'm not asking how and what critters see, I'm asking who or what is doing the seeing.
Science can explain the pathway viability to life naturally, but it cannot tell you how or why the pathway was taken. Self replication will get you viruses not fully formed intelligent beings.
It is your philosophy that this all happens without intelligence doing the programming. It is my philosophy that intelligence does it.
If science knew the how's and why's they could tap into life and actually make life happen.

What is lacking in what I wrote? And how this way to live life does not take me all the way?
It is the mind, which is an emergent property of brain which sees.
Electricity goes where the wires go, similarly inputs from eyes to where the neurons go.
The self-replicating molecules formed the viruses and all animals including humans.
Which intelligence? Do you have any evidence for that.
That too will happen in time. We are not far away from it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego.

Wellwisher, there is only one. Mind plays a double role. It asks questions and it answers them itself. It happens at every moment in our life. For example, whether I should take a step next? Brain, according to sensory inputs takes the decision. It happens in a fraction of a second. It may ask whether there is mud on the road which will dirty the shoes? Is the situation peaceful around on the next step will lead me into a mob? Or whether I have forgotten something in the grocery store? Etc. It can also ask questions about ethics and morality of the action that we may be contemplating in the next moment. There is no internal/external ego, no divine guidance here. It is our own mind answering the questions according to our temperament.

 

[osgart]

What is lacking in what I wrote? And how this way to live life does not take me all the way?
It is the mind, which is an emergent property of brain which sees.
Electricity goes where the wires go, similarly inputs from eyes to where the neurons go.
The self-replicating molecules formed the viruses and all animals including humans.
Which intelligence? Do you have any evidence for that.
That too will happen in time. We are not far away from it.

A blind process cannot produce deliberate functions. The human form is displaying deliberate functions. That suggests strongly a blueprint plan for the making of the human body. There's a scientist who works on the bioelectric blueprint of life by the name of Michael Levin. He seems to think intelligence is an emergent property of nature. My intuition is that intelligence is a source of existence and cannot simply come from non intelligence.

To me naturalism is an intuition as well and not descriptive of all the evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A blind process cannot produce deliberate functions. The human form is displaying deliberate functions.

What are these 'deliberate functions'? Obviously, my views differ from your views or those of Michael Levin.
I see that Levin is a philosopher and not a biologist, and a supporter of 'White Nationalism'. Very nice, commendable. Trumpist?

 

[RestlessSoul]

How do things come to exist? Only from prior existing things. It is a riddle! Life is not a flukey thing though. I don't believe that existent things cease to exist. I don't judge death by its appearance.

The attributes of life don't fit neatly into a brain. For example the brain produces sight but it cannot tell you about who or what is receiving the sight and how.

Non existence is the illusion. I can't say it enough, if there were truly nothing nothing would result. The universe changes, and perhaps change is its only constant. Mind from mindlessness does not compute with me and thus it is the foundational reality.

Blame it all on the brain though, lol.

Change is indeed the only constant, in the material world. Now here is the paradox; because all things that exist in the material world exist in time, they have no substance. Nothing is fixed, nothing can endure beyond the moment, and since the moment is gone before it can be grasped, all things existing in time are empty.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In these times of Quantum Mechanics, we should wait before we announce conclusions. Life is completely flukey. Just one of the 250 sperms that a man ejaculates turns into a baby, sometimes not even that. After disintegration of the body, the molecules of the body disperse in the environment and nothing more is left of that person. What we term as death is completely dependent on probabilities, chances and uncertainties. I cannot predict even one future minute of my life.

To know about how and why of sight, kindly see Human eye - Wikipedia. If you want to find information on how and what other critters see, wikipedia has information for that too. Eye - Wikipedia

I do not know if non-existence is an illusion, I reserve my comment for the moment. Sure, change is the only constant in the universe. Mind from mindlessness may not compute with you but it does compute with science, from self-replicating organic molecules to humans.

QM describes a fundamental sub-atomic reality which is essentially probabilistic, yes. You want to play the probability game?

We exist, and we are living creatures. It follows that the universe we live in must be compatible with the existence of life. However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low. We can model what the universe would have looked like if its constants—the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the cosmological constant—had been slightly different. What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible. The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10229.

- Phillip Goff, Scientific American, Jan 10 2021

 

[Aupmanyav]

You want to play the probability game?
The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10229.

Yeah, I am game. 1 in 10229 is not very surprising, as 1 in a billion would be.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yeah, I am game. 1 in 10229 is not very surprising, as 1 in a billion would be.

You mean the odds are surprisingly short? You'd be right, if so. That should read 1 in 10^229

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, in a universe of billions of galaxies, that too may not be very surprising.

"One such estimate says that there are between 100 and 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Other astronomers have tried to estimate the number of 'missed' galaxies in previous studies and come up with a total number of 2 trillion galaxies in the universe.
Google Search: 10-Feb-2023

 

[osgart]

What are these 'deliberate functions'? Obviously, my views differ from your views or those of Michael Levin.
I see that Levin is a philosopher and not a biologist, and a supporter of 'White Nationalism'. Very nice, commendable. Trumpist?

Michael Levin (biologist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

He is a biologist at Tufts University. You have the wrong person and I certainly don't support white nationalism nor Trump.

 

[Ella S.]

I value what is variously called logic, rationality, or reason. Ultimately, logic is about understanding the world through language. It has an inherent drive towards self-coherency and justification, which makes it closely related to curiosity.

Focusing on valid justification for my beliefs is what leads me to adopt rationalism, which holds that reason is the chief source of knowledge. This answers the question of what knowledge is and how we can attain it.

Part of logic is what can be called "instrumental rationality," which is really a form of backward induction. It's where you gain an understanding of what you need to do in order to increase the likelihood of a particular outcome or objective.

When instrumental rationality is combined with rationality's inherent drive towards understanding, you have both a goal and a means to achieve that goal, which creates an entire system of normative statements. That's how valuing rationality can lead to ethical rationalism; rationality becomes both the ends and the means. This answers the question of what choices we should make.