What is a real God?

[Sir Doom]

So, you say, 'godhood' means, not an objective quality in the claimant, but simply

the desire of X to have god status

plus​

the desire of at least one other person to acknowledge that X has it​

?
And Ikhnaton, Claudius, Hirohito, and so on down a very long list are examples of real gods, I take it?

More real than any in a storybook, though they certainly never convinced me (or you I would wager), so they fail in that part of it. Someone believed them so it seems to some degree (however slight) they must have felt as gods, too. That's as 'real' as it gets so far as I can tell. Couple that same ambition with something approaching the classic definition of godlike ability (superscientist or at least a beneficiary of one) such that they could convince a good majority of us and that would really be it.

 

[atanu]

BUT we're working on it. And when we know what we're talking about, we'll see if we can make some.
No, they'll prove your existence to you (by the satisfactory demonstration test which I use to distinguish the real from the imaginary) ─ that seemed to be what you were worried about. The sense of self assures the individual of existence, but that doesn't prove anything, which I took to be the point you were making. I won't add my own existence to my list of assumptions since my existence, viewed from where I am, is a datum.

The point is that when it comes to self it is the datum — no third party proof required.

Now, as per Vedanta the Brahman is the reality of the self.

There will come a time for everyone sooner or later when intellect will be impelled to introvert and know the self sans the cloud of objects.

I believe this because sacred scriptures and teachers teach so and because an unlimited existence-awareness, devoid of subject-object division has been experienced now and then.

 

[blü 2]

The point is that when it comes to self it is the datum — no third party proof required.

Always good when we can agree.

Now, as per Vedanta the Brahman is the reality of the self.

As distinct from biochemistry? I don't see any basis for that, a way in which it could be real and true at once.

There will come a time for everyone sooner or later when intellect will be impelled to introvert and know the self sans the cloud of objects.

What is 'the cloud of objects'? Objective reality? Yes, when introspecting one tends to look at one's emotions, priorities, desires, confusions and so on. Nonetheless, being the animals we are, it may be necessary to include the society of loved ones and friends to get the best for our mental health, rather than introspection on its own. And one of the best natural amelioratives for depression is long, fairly vigorous walks, for instance.

In other words, reality is good for one, a necessary connection for living.

I believe this because sacred scriptures and teachers teach so

Do their claims stand up to objective testing? Is there hard, satisfactory, independent evidence that they can actually deliver what is claimed for them?

And if they can, what are those claims, and in what manner are they beneficial to the individual, and how do they work?

and because an unlimited existence-awareness, devoid of subject-object division has been experienced now and then.

Why is that important?

 

[atanu]

Always good when we can agree.

Oh no. There cannot be any agreement. I believe that self is infinite sea of unborn, unformed, uncreated awareness and individuals are as if waves of that sea. You, OTOH, hold that self is an artefact of some reactions (in brain). Although you do not know the mechanism, you assert again and again that that your view is the only correct view. Further, since you are a mechanistic product, how can you judge the truth value of your source? Is it not a joke?

Let me summarise your position and Shankaracharya's refutation of that position. Shankaracharya refuted the Charvaka philosophy in his commentary on Brihadarayanaka Upanishad.

You position is:

1. When the body/brain is present, consciousness is present.
2. When the body/brain is absent, consciousness is absent.
3. Therefore the body/brain is the same as consciousness.

Shankaracharya refuted the above argument as below:

1. When death occurs, we see the body/brain but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Obviously, therefore, consciousness must be something other than the body.
2. The materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception. But how can X be perceived by something which is a quality of X? It is like claiming that the quality of fire, i.e. ‘heat’, could burn the fire.
3. Materialist proposes that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body. Just as the eye cannot see itself, we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.
4. If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc. Properties of the body are objects of the sense organs. Yet we are not aware of consciousness as an attribute or object at all. Rather it is we, as Consciousness (the subject), who are aware of everything else.
5. In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.
6. The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know that the thing that we touch, for example, is the same thing that we earlier saw and the mind itself is an object to the experiencing consciousness.

...

 

[`mud]

Only one sentence needed here:
The world, like a dream full of attachments and aversions,
seems real until the awakening.

Adi Shankara

 

[blü 2]

Oh no. There cannot be any agreement. I believe that self is infinite sea of unborn, unformed, uncreated awareness and individuals are as if waves of that sea.

On the one hand we agree that the sense of self is, to its subject, a datum. On the other hand we could scarcely be further apart as to its source.

You, OTOH, hold that self is an artefact of some reactions (in brain). Although you do not know the mechanism, you assert again and again that that your view is the only correct view.

I'm content that reasoned research is continually enlarging our understanding of brain function. I note that so far it discloses nothing at all, zero, unrelieved absence, that might suggest that "self is infinite sea of unborn, unformed, uncreated awareness and individuals are as if waves of that sea" is an accurate statement about reality.

Further, since you are a mechanistic product, how can you judge the truth value of your source? Is it not a joke?

How exactly do you say "unformed, uncreated awareness" can be independent of its own underlying mechanism?

Or do you say it works by magic?

Let me summarise your position and Shankaracharya's refutation of that position. Shankaracharya refuted the Charvaka philosophy in his commentary on Brihadarayanaka Upanishad.

You position is:

1. When the body/brain is present, consciousness is present.
2. When the body/brain is absent, consciousness is absent.
3. Therefore the body/brain is the same as consciousness.

3 should read,

Therefore, adding that to a great deal of examinable evidence about brain function from scientific research (a great deal of which was not available to enquirers before the 1990s), we can conclude that the brain is the only known source of consciousness.​

Shankaracharya refuted the above argument as belowzhen death occurs, we see the body/brain but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Obviously, therefore, consciousness must be something other than the body.

Obviously therefore consciousness was dependent on the brain and ceases to exist when brain function ceases to exist.

4. The materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception. But how can X be perceived by something which is a quality of X? It is like claiming that the quality of fire, i.e. ‘heat’, could burn the fire.

The materialist holds that there is only matter / mass-energy. So the materialist holds that matter/mass-energy is the subject and the object of motion. But how can a car, which is matter/mass-energy, move itself? It is like claiming matter is independent of matter. And how can an autonomous car choose its own destination, and proceed there choosing its own course and constantly making decisions, since it is not conscious?

5.
Materialist proposes that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body. Just as the eye cannot see itself, we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.

We would on the contrary have to conclude that we do that all day every day, by sensory input to the brain by well-described processes.

And while consciousness is limited in its access to the workings of the nonconscious brain, we can study the nonconscious brain, and do, accumulating understanding via scientific method aided by modern tools, and developing more and more exact descriptions of brain functions and their biochemistry.

6
If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc.

Why? Consciousness is one aspect of our ability to respond to sensory input. It isn't the same thing as sensory input. The computer and the keyboard are not the same class of thing.

Properties of the body are objects of the sense organs.

Do you mean that our sense organs can report to us about our body? For some purposes they can, for others they can't.

Yet we are not aware of consciousness as an attribute or object at all. Rather it is we, as Consciousness (the subject), who are aware of everything else.

Yes, the sense of self includes the feeling of being inside looking out. That's completely consistent with the brain being the seat of consciousness, awareness.

7
In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.

No, it's simply sometimes the case that some dreams, particularly waking dreams, are noted by our awareness, and sometimes they're not. But dreams are wholly internal, artifacts of brain function, as various clues eg REM show. Nothing suggests otherwise.

8
The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know that the thing that we touch, for example, is the same thing that we earlier saw and the mind itself is an object to the experiencing consciousness.

No, but it's correct that the brain is compartmentalized, as our more and more exact brain-mapping research shows. Things can happen in one part of the brain that the consciousness isn't aware of ─ a far far more usual state than self-awareness regarding brain function. I go back to my old example, where are these words I'm typing in the quarter-second before I type them, where are the words I speak in the quarter-second before I say them, because they're not in my consciousness ─ How do I know what I think till I hear what I say? as Auden famously put it. And as for compartmentalization, our forebrain editor is at work in both cases, censoring, doing last-instant intercepts and imposing amendments. (And this ability can be lost through forebrain physical injury, particularly countercoup injuries.)

It boils down to this. If you're correct, what stops you showing me, and showing science, that you're correct? Where are the demonstrations, the repeatable experiments, the real-time brain scans, that would persuade people pursuing reasoned enquiry to agree with you?

And going the other way, why does science not find evidence that supports you, in the course of its own enquiries into brains?

 

[atanu]

On the one hand we agree that the sense of self is, to its subject, a datum. On the other hand we could scarcely be further apart as to its source.
I'm content that reasoned research is continually enlarging our understanding of brain function. I note that so far it discloses nothing at all, zero, unrelieved absence, that might suggest that "self is infinite sea of unborn, unformed, uncreated awareness and individuals are as if waves of that sea" is an accurate statement about reality.
How exactly do you say "unformed, uncreated awareness" can be independent of its own underlying mechanism?

Or do you say it works by magic?

3 should read,

Therefore, adding that to a great deal of examinable evidence about brain function from scientific research (a great deal of which was not available to enquirers before the 1990s), we can conclude that the brain is the only known source of consciousness.​

Obviously therefore consciousness was dependent on the brain and ceases to exist when brain function ceases to exist.

The materialist holds that there is only matter / mass-energy. So the materialist holds that matter/mass-energy is the subject and the object of motion. But how can a car, which is matter/mass-energy, move itself? It is like claiming matter is independent of matter. And how can an autonomous car choose its own destination, and proceed there choosing its own course and constantly making decisions, since it is not conscious?
We would on the contrary have to conclude that we do that all day every day, by sensory input to the brain by well-described processes.

And while consciousness is limited in its access to the workings of the nonconscious brain, we can study the nonconscious brain, and do, accumulating understanding via scientific method aided by modern tools, and developing more and more exact descriptions of brain functions and their biochemistry.
Why? Consciousness is one aspect of our ability to respond to sensory input. It isn't the same thing as sensory input. The computer and the keyboard are not the same class of thing.
Do you mean that our sense organs can report to us about our body? For some purposes they can, for others they can't.
Yes, the sense of self includes the feeling of being inside looking out. That's completely consistent with the brain being the seat of consciousness, awareness.
No, it's simply sometimes the case that some dreams, particularly waking dreams, are noted by our awareness, and sometimes they're not. But dreams are wholly internal, artifacts of brain function, as various clues eg REM show. Nothing suggests otherwise.
No, but it's correct that the brain is compartmentalized, as our more and more exact brain-mapping research shows. Things can happen in one part of the brain that the consciousness isn't aware of ─ a far far more usual state than self-awareness regarding brain function. I go back to my old example, where are these words I'm typing in the quarter-second before I type them, where are the words I speak in the quarter-second before I say them, because they're not in my consciousness ─ How do I know what I think till I hear what I say? as Auden famously put it. And as for compartmentalization, our forebrain editor is at work in both cases, censoring, doing last-instant intercepts and imposing amendments. (And this ability can be lost through forebrain physical injury, particularly countercoup injuries.)

I do not see the answer to the question why brain lies dead and does not cry out "I will be conscious and living"? I do not see answer to any of the points repeated below (including the question of a dead brain at number 1):

1. When death occurs, we see the body/brain but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Obviously, therefore, consciousness must be something other than the body.
2. The materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception. But how can X be perceived by something which is a quality of X? It is like claiming that the quality of fire, i.e. ‘heat’, could burn the fire.
3. Materialist proposes that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body. Just as the eye cannot see itself, we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.
4. If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc. Properties of the body are objects of the sense organs. Yet we are not aware of consciousness as an attribute or object at all. Rather it is we, as Consciousness (the subject), who are aware of everything else.
5. In our dreams, the gross body is absent and we assume a ‘dream body’ and experience a dream world, which exist entirely within our own mind. The gross body does not contribute to our experiences in the dream but lies motionless on the bed. In fact, it is not the eyes/brain/body that ‘see’ but the consciousness sees all these.
6. The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know

It boils down to this. If you're correct, what stops you showing me, and showing science, that you're correct? Where are the demonstrations, the repeatable experiments, the real-time brain scans, that would persuade people pursuing reasoned enquiry to agree with you?

And going the other way, why does science not find evidence that supports you, in the course of its own enquiries into brains?

I think that you are being a bit dishonest. Brahman by definition is that which sees/knows. It is the subject. So, I have said repeatedly that your query as to why the intellect does not have empirical proof of God is like a character in a novel asking for proof of its creator. Furthermore, as we agreed earlier that the self is the datum. It is the axiom. Self needs no third party proof. And furthermore, as repeated often, you have to taste the mango. No external proof will tell you about the exact experience.

Bye for now. Best wishes.

 

[blü 2]

I do not see the answer to the question why brain lies dead and does not cry out "I will be conscious and living"?

The answer was, Because once it's dead, it ceases to function.

1
When death occurs, we see the body/brain but all consciousness-related signs have gone forever. Obviously, therefore, consciousness must be something other than the body.

It's a biochemical/bioelectrical pattern maintained by the physical structure of the brain. (That's why we can get information via EEGs, for example.) As a rough analogy, if you deprive your computer of electricity, it won't work. If you damage any vital part, it won't work. If the software gets corrupted, it may work in a faulty manner or not at all.

2
The materialist believes that there is only matter; no such thing as ‘consciousness’ separate from the body. So, materialist holds that matter is both the subject and the object in the act of perception.

How exactly does being a material subject prevent one from receiving information about a material object and materially processing it? Computers do that all day and every day. So do I. What's the mystery? (And I don't see how the fire analogy is helpful.)

3
Materialist proposes that consciousness is the attribute of the body as locus. This would mean that consciousness is able to objectify everything except two things – consciousness itself and its substrate, the body.

Certain brain functions inform the consciousness about certain brain functions, but by no means all. But as I keep pointing out, consciousness is rarely where the brain does its heavy lifting. The nonconscious brain does that ─ think of 'sleeping on a problem' or my repeated example, where is this sentence I'm typing in the quarter-second before I type it, because it's certainly not in my conscious brain. Or if you've played chess, you know you don't work out the best move consciously (except sometimes counting squares in the endgame, maybe).

Just as the eye cannot see itself

The eye can see itself with the help of the right tools. I've looked in real time at the back of my right eye by my left eye glimpsing a screen, for instance. You can likewise watch your brain in action in real time if you have the right tools.

we would have to conclude that we could never experience our own body or our own brain.

Why? My camera can take a photo of itself if I use mirrors. My material body informs my material brain of its condition, position, degree of comfort or discomfort (and so on) all the time.

4
If consciousness were an attribute of the body/brain, we ought to be able to experience it in just the same way that we experience the body’s form and color etc.

Without the right tools, I can't watch the electrons at work in my computer or my phone, even when I take the cover off. Why, without the right tools, would you expect my brain to be able to watch the interactions of functioning neurons? If it had been useful to surviving and breeding, no doubt evolution would have provided us with such a skill, but we don't have it. We have to devise it.

5
The agent must be separate from and ‘superior’ to the organs/mind because otherwise it would not be possible to know.

That simply isn't true. It isn't true of a computer either.

Brahman by definition is that which sees/knows. It is the subject.

But how does it see? How does it know? How does it store memory? How does it reason? What underlying mechanism enables these functions?

Because the alternative is that it works by magic, and I'm a bit old for that explanation.

Please at least clarify this last question, since it's central.

 

[atanu]

...
But how does it see? How does it know? How does it store memory? How does it reason? What underlying mechanism enables these functions?

Because the alternative is that it works by magic, and I'm a bit old for that explanation.

Please at least clarify this last question, since it's central.

The very nature of consciousness -- jnana in Sanskrit -- is to know.

How does a chemical molecule know? How does it store memory? Who reads and understand the memory? Who remembers the "I am"? What is the mechanism?

 

[Dell]

If we ever encounter a particularly powerful being who can do things we can’t – create universes, destroy worlds, read thoughts, restore the dead to life, convert water to wine, become invisible, act remotely, grant wishes &c – what test will tell us whether that being is God (or, a god) or not?

What, in real terms, is ‘godness’? What real quality does God have that a superscientist doesn’t? What objective test must we apply to resolve the question?

I've pondered a similar question considering the whole Intelligent Design question.
Consider this..

Its 6000 AD, lets say, humans mastered DNA and Gene's to "cut out" all diseases i.e. Cancer, birth defects, all retro viruses. And have boosted IQ with internal brain AI inhancements and superior body strength and stamina. They also created extra senses like telepathy, collective networking, infrared vision... so on... so at the 61st century, a new race of super humanoids designed for long life and ability to deal with interstellar travel exist.
So then xhumans have settlements on 2 or 3 earth like planets. These settlements function to start a new ecosystem from thousands of frozen bacteria, seeds, and embryos of all species, used to evolve in the new environment new plants, trees, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals, and man.
See where I'm going... in the 61st century these super humaniods would be doing their jobs "propagating and survival of life", to us in the 21st century they are playing God...

 

[blü 2]

The very nature of consciousness -- jnana in Sanskrit -- is to know.

That tells me nothing. How does it actually work? What are the elements, their behaviors, their processes, the underlying mechanics of consciousness. In other words, what is the very nature of consciousness?

How does a chemical molecule know? How does it store memory? Who reads and understand the memory? Who remembers the "I am"? What is the mechanism?

>Here<'s a more accurate overview of how memory works. The net has plenty of information about researches into the nature and description of consciousness too.

 

[blü 2]

See where I'm going... in the 61st century these super humaniods would be doing their jobs "propagating and survival of life", to us in the 21st century they are playing God...

So your answer to the question in the OP is that there's no such real thing as godness, there's nothing to distinguish a god from a superscientist?

 

[Dell]

So your answer to the question in the OP is that there's no such real thing as godness, there's nothing to distinguish a god from a superscientist?

Well yeah, no being can do something that is just physically impossible, i.e. like most miracles in the bible. So what I was referring to was a super intelligent race, post human as we know it. But on top of that, I was speculating how ID would apply because that is as close as your going to get to a God.

 

[blü 2]

Well yeah, no being can do something that is just physically impossible, i.e. like most miracles in the bible. So what I was referring to was a super intelligent race, post human as we know it. But on top of that, I was speculating how ID would apply because that is as close as your going to get to a God.

A clear reply to the OP then. Thanks.

 

[Milton Platt]

I think I responded to that question earlier. Somewhat rephrased: I define God as life. I believe I am alive. Therefore, I believe God exists. Comparison to a scientist seems oxymoronic.

Oops, I see you already clarified. Sorry

So your god is not anthropomorphized, but rather the collection of processed that produce and sustain life? Or is it the life the processes produce and sustain?
Do you classify all life as god, or only human life? Inotherwords, would a gut parasite also be a part of your god?

 

[Milton Platt]

If we ever encounter a particularly powerful being who can do things we can’t – create universes, destroy worlds, read thoughts, restore the dead to life, convert water to wine, become invisible, act remotely, grant wishes &c – what test will tell us whether that being is God (or, a god) or not?

What, in real terms, is ‘godness’? What real quality does God have that a superscientist doesn’t? What objective test must we apply to resolve the question?

I guess until,we come across a god, this question will remain unanswered.

 

[jeanie]

A real God is hope.
Hope in the afterlife, hope there is more out there, hope that life has purpose.

 

[syo]

If we ever encounter a particularly powerful being who can do things we can’t – create universes, destroy worlds, read thoughts, restore the dead to life, convert water to wine, become invisible, act remotely, grant wishes &c – what test will tell us whether that being is God (or, a god) or not?

What, in real terms, is ‘godness’? What real quality does God have that a superscientist doesn’t? What objective test must we apply to resolve the question?

Creation out of nothing. Even a superscientist needs tools and material, ie something, to create anything.

 

[blü 2]

I guess until,we come across a god, this question will remain unanswered.

Ahmmm .... how will we know it's a real god?

 

[Milton Platt]

Ahmmm .... how will we know it's a real god?

Point taken.