What if God is like a Color?

[Sunstone]

Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the brain does not reproduce, mirror, or re-present reality, but rather interprets it.

That is, reality -- as presented to us by our brains or minds -- is no more representative of what actually exists than degrees on a thermometer are representative of the motion of atoms and molecules. Thus, we do not perceive reality, but rather an interpretation of reality -- just as degrees on a thermometer are an interpretation of the motion of atoms and molecules.

There is some evidence from physics and psychology for that view. For instance, it is a simple fact that the colors we see are entirely products of our brains. In reality, those colors do not exist outside of or apart from our brains. So, when certain wavelengths of light strike the cone cells in our eyes, we interpret those wavelengths as the color "red". But the wavelengths themselves bear no resemblance in any way to the color red. Red is a fiction, an interpretation of something that is not actually red.

Having said all that, suppose further that the mystical experience of "oneness" or "god" or "tao", or whatever you wish to call it, is like the color red. Subjectively, you experience god. Subjectively, you experience red. But neither god nor red exists beyond your experience of them.

Yet --- and this happens to be a huge "yet" --- your experience of god is in some way an interpretation of a reality beyond your subjective experience of god. Just as your experience of red is in some way an interpretation of a reality beyond your subjective experience of red. In other words, suppose that god -- anything and everything you have experienced as god -- is not reality, but an interpretation of reality.

If all of that were the case, then it would have certain implications. One of those implications would be that god cannot be described based on an experience of god, anymore than wavelengths of light could be described based on an experience of red.

But what other implications would there be?

Please note: It is possible that any experience of god is merely a brain fart having nothing to do with a reality beyond the brain or mind. That would be like seeing a color when no wavelengths of light were striking your eyes, causing you to see a color. But for the sake of this discussion, I am much more interested in the possibility that god is merely our subjective experience of a reality that exists beyond our brains or minds. A reality that we can, perhaps, know no more about than we can know about wavelengths of light based on our experience of color.

So what are the implications? Please discuss.

 

[crossfire]

Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the brain does not reproduce, mirror, or re-present reality, but rather interprets it.

That is, reality -- as presented to us by our brains or minds -- is no more representative of what actually exists than degrees on a thermometer are representative of the motion of atoms and molecules. Thus, we do not perceive reality, but rather an interpretation of reality -- just as degrees on a thermometer are an interpretation of the motion of atoms and molecules.

There is some evidence from physics and psychology for that view. For instance, it is a simple fact that the colors we see are entirely products of our brains. In reality, those colors do not exist outside of or apart from our brains. So, when certain wavelengths of light strike the cone cells in our eyes, we interpret those wavelengths as the color "red". But the wavelengths themselves bear no resemblance in any way to the color red. Red is a fiction, an interpretation of something that is not actually red.

Having said all that, suppose further that the mystical experience of "oneness" or "god" or "tao", or whatever you wish to call it, is like the color red. Subjectively, you experience god. Subjectively, you experience red. But neither god nor red exists beyond your experience of them.

Yet --- and this happens to be a huge "yet" --- your experience of god is in some way an interpretation of a reality beyond your subjective experience of god. Just as your experience of red is in some way an interpretation of a reality beyond your subjective experience of red. In other words, suppose that god -- anything and everything you have experienced as god -- is not reality, but an interpretation of reality.

If all of that were the case, then it would have certain implications. One of those implications would be that god cannot be described based on an experience of god, anymore than wavelengths of light could be described based on an experience of red.

But what other implications would there be?

Please note: It is possible that any experience of god is merely a brain fart having nothing to do with a reality beyond the brain or mind. That would be like seeing a color when no wavelengths of light were striking your eyes, causing you to see a color. But for the sake of this discussion, I am much more interested in the possibility that god is merely our subjective experience of a reality that exists beyond our brains or minds. A reality that we can, perhaps, know no more about than we can know about wavelengths of light based on our experience of color.

So what are the implications? Please discuss.

See Tao Te Ching 1

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
​

I would say you are starting to explore the door to all wonders, Sunstone.

 

[Sunstone]

See Tao Te Ching 1

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
​

I would say you are starting to explore the door to all wonders, Sunstone.

Thanks. Your quote strikes me as spot on. But do you have any ideas to share on the implications, Crossfire?

 

[crossfire]

Thanks. But do you have any ideas to share on the implications, Crossfire?

Well yes. Do you go down the path of appreciating the thusness we find in the ordinary, or do you reject it? How will it affect your state of mind? How will it affect how you interact with reality and with others? It is an interactive universe, after all, and we are all part of it--we are all in the same boat, so to speak. We all still have to navigate through this universe as we live our lives, and must take care not to "crash against the rocks," so to speak. We have to take care not to become detached from reality by "building a coccoon" out of our thusness experiences in order to insulate ourselves from the things that really do need our attention and attending to.

(I hope this is clear.)

 

[Sunstone]

By the way, I love your "location". "Dancing up stairs" is quite beautiful and evocative.

 

[crossfire]

By the way, I love your "location". "Dancing up stairs" is quite beautiful and evocative.

It makes this hard work of consciousness raising business a bit more enjoyable.

 

[methylatedghosts]

TL;DR... :yes:

Ok, so I feel like this mini-essay was off to a great start, but I kind of lost it towards the end. I almost feel like I'm coming across as a bit... preachy. Keep in mind that this was more an exercise for me to organise my own thoughts, rather than anything else.

Here goes for now...

I'll start off, firstly, by saying that I agree. Your post here strikes a chord with some things I've read. I will hopefully find some references to draw upon later.

Ok, like you said, "red" is an interpretation of phenomena in the physical world. It is filtered through my eyes and the receptive cells, the nerves to the brain, and by the processes within the brain itself. Any step along the way could be mis-functioning, and would thus alter the end result, but however the information is transmitted and processed, it still is the most reliable interpretation of that wavelength of light that I have.

As such, any information from the physical world is necessarily absorbed through countless filters and interpreted accordingly. One such filter could be an incorrect arrangement in the receptors which causes the "green" cells to fire instead of the "red". A filter like this would have me seeing "red" wavelengths of light, but my brain, my mind would be seeing "green". The filters have changed the information in such a way that I am interpreting it in a different way.

Now, each person necessarily has different filters. No two bodies are exactly the same. The cells that make up out bodies, while arranged in similar patterns, are unique in the specific arrangements. Thus, no two people have the same interpretation of red. Yes, there are similarities - I can agree with you that this is red, but is your red the same as mine? Are we seeing the same thing? My guess is that no, we are not.

Now, with more abstract concepts, and I will quote one of my favourite films Waking Life here, as I've done in another thread some time ago:

What is “frustration”? Or what is “anger” or “love”? When I say “love” the sound comes out of my mouth and it hits the other person’s ear, travels through this byzantine conduit in their brain through their memories of love or lack of love. And they register what I'm saying and they say yes they understand, but how do I know? Because words are inert. They’re just symbols. They’re dead. You know? And so much of our experience is intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It’s unspeakable.

Our perceptions, our interpretations of the physical world around us are filtered to us through the cellular system. Colour, temperature, sound, pain are physical events requiring physical systems to be processed and interpreted. The pixels of light you are now seeing on the screen have presumably been successfully filtered through your cellular system. Your brain has processed the incoming data of on/off nerve impulses as being different shades of colour on the screen, in a specific arrangement. Your brain has processed the information and has interpreted for you the meaning of the arrangements. These lines, these squiggles, dots and dashes mean something. You interpret them as letters, as words, as sentences, as paragraphs, as (short?) essays. Even still - all they really are, are different wavelengths of light projected from a screen.

This is where I get to what I will for now mental filters. Your brain is not only seeing words on the screen, but it is interpreting the meaning behind them. Your amazing brain is not just seeing lines and dashes, but it is taking meaning from those lines and dashes. Now, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, but there's a good chance you don't - because your brain is interpreting the symbols through non-physical filters. Like in the quote above, your "memories of love, or lack of love" affect the way these symbols are interpreted. Your memories and experiences of the words I've typed are filtering the way you understand them. Just like I'm trying really hard to put words to what I feel and think - to put the abstract into physical form - your brain is trying to undo that and this process necessarily goes through various subconscious filters that you may or may not be aware of.

The interesting thing is, you might have a little more adaptability here. In physical stimuli - the raw data like sound waves, light waves, etc - you don't really have much choice or influence in how they are delivered to your brain and interpreted as sound and colour. But in symbols you do. In words you can choose to change how you interpret them. As an example, lets take the sentence "I am seeing red". You could interpret that as meaning "I am seeing the colour red". You could interpret it as "I'm in an uncontrollable rage". You could (however unlikely) interpret it as "I have a boyfriend and his name is Red". By changing your viewpoint (context), you can change the meaning of the symbols. Although you have filters through which the message is interpreted, you can change them, and you have some control of the message you receive.

Right. Mystical experience and God etc.
So, you have physical or cellular and mental filters. A "mystical experience", as it is understood, is an experience of some form of reality that is not part of normal physical reality. The information in such an experience - a non-physical experience - necessarily is interpreted through a physical reality. Else we wouldn't be talking about it now, right? For you to be conscious of it, in normal waking life, you must interpret it through filters that allow you to comprehend it in a physical reality. Right. So.

A mystical experience, being "out-of-this-world" is interpreted through the filters you have. These filters are the ideas and preconceptions you have about what a mystical experience may or may not be. It is through these filters that symbols are attached to the experience. Common symbols are "the light", God, enlightenment, nirvana, heaven etc etc. These symbols are merely a reflection of the ideas you might have about the nature of reality. For example, a Christian may have a massive mystical experience, and, because of his beliefs, may report walking into heaven through the pearly gates, being greeted by Jesus, God, and an army of angels. Another Christian may have a very similar experience, but interprets it through her filters as being tormented by the fires of hell and the devil. Similar experiences can produce vastly different results because of the filters that have been put in place, in the same way that "love" can mean different things with different memories, and "Red" can look different through another's eyes.

A mystical experience is far more open to interpretation than a sentence on a screen. Your whole worldview, your whole idea of the nature of reality comes into play when interpreting such an experience. Not only that, but as difficult as it is to put the emotion love into words, to put a non-physical experience into a form that can be comprehended by the brain, let alone put into words is considerably more of an achievement, I think.

So, is God a colour? I would say in a roundabout way yes, but a very, very complex one.

 

[sandandfoam]

So what are the implications? Please discuss.

For my interpretative mind the most important implications are practical.
One should be humble because when one speaks of God one is not speaking with supernatural authority but simply for oneself. My ideas about God speak only of me.
Second, one should be respectful. It is clear that my earnest and sincere imaginings are no more or less real than anyone elses.
Third, one should be cautious of anyone who seeks to beat others about the head with 'reality' or 'truth'. Be they religious or secular.
Last, poetry, art and myth are more useful in the description of some things and the conveyance of some meanings than numbers.

 

[Straw Dog]

It's a pretty brilliant insight to approach God in the same manner as color. I view God, Brahman, etc. as metaphors indicating that which is beyond all comprehension and yet seems to form the foundation of our being. They're neither cold hard facts or fanciful fantasy. They're tools used to focus the mind and reconnect with its original source.

 

[Me Myself]

This reminds me exactly something I replied to a time ago in another thread, so I´ll put it here:

It's possible they are not worshipping the same God because the natures of their Gods are different.

This should be a pretty basic premise, if something is blue and something is red they are not the same color.

Be that you worship blue or be that you worship red, you worship light. Just that you are doing so by a different manifestation of it´s nature.

Light is a nice example, because we may see blue and red and white, etc. But there is invisible light to us, this is because it goes out of our range of perception.

Ligh is so much like God. Everyone sees God in a different light after all