What is a real God?

[blü 2]

Third, you confuse mood with the faculty that enables the mood to be discerned.

Mood, emotion, are the result of biochemicals. If some politician or other makes us angry, then that feeling of anger is due to the release of biochemicals to the brain. Without eg adrenalin or testosterone, particular moods and emotions are simply not available to us. Our feelings are biochemical: think of the changes at adolescence as a clear example, or check out the biochemistry of sexual attraction, bonding, copulation.

In your model, there is nothing at the substratum of intellect other than brain chemicals. But who will control and direct those chemicals and how?

Who controls your breathing? Your heartrate? Your digestive process? The function of your liver, kidneys and so on? Why do some people attract you sexually and others don't? Why do I find pumpkin unpleasant? The great majority of the time, your consciousness is the last to know what your brain is doing ─ you'll recall those experiments that demonstrated this, around 2012 or so.

Science is not the sole property of materialists.

The science for immaterialists is psychology.

There is nothing that stops me to study all categories of this waking world. The point is that even 100% knowledge of all objects of this world will not tell me a bit about the ‘knower consciousness’ and will not give me mastery over the dancing monkey called mind.

You can use your will to map the effect on you of various quantities of alcohol, that at some point your mood changes, that you may feel disinhibited, that your balance is effected &c, and that you can't wish a hangover away but that in the end your metabolism deals with the situation without your asking.

My own experiences and verbal reports of many mystics.

So you have no objective standard for truth? Truth is whatever feels right to you? Appearances don't need to be probed, the earth is flat and the sun goes round it, and this wisdom is confirmed and underlined by the fact that the ancients taught it? And brain science need only concern us when it affirms what we already think?

 

[atanu]

Mood, emotion, are the result of biochemicals. If some politician or other makes us angry, then that feeling of anger is due to the release of biochemicals to the brain. Without eg adrenalin or testosterone, particular moods and emotions are simply not available to us. Our feelings are biochemical: think of the changes at adolescence as a clear example, or check out the biochemistry of sexual attraction, bonding, copulation.

There is nothing new in what you say. There are foods and chemicals that alter moods. However, there is no food that creates the power of discernment.

Who controls your breathing? …

Tell me, who? It is actually laughable that you ask this, since it is actually my question. You do not even comprehend that. When breath ceases in a body, the life-consciousness ceases. Then who controls your breathing? Who owns the body? Is there any ‘you’ sans the breath?

Ha. You asked a deep question unwittingly. I request you to pause and reflect more on this.

…The great majority of the time, your consciousness is the last to know what your brain is doing ─ you'll recall those experiments that demonstrated this, around 2012 or so.

You say so because your ‘consciousness’ is superficial. Libet’s experiments are much older than 2012 and Libet’s data actually demonstrated that consciousness ran deeper than the mind that seems to consciously know. Eastern sages have noted this long back.

The science for immaterialists is psychology.

No. Scientists who do physics or chemistry can very well be idealists .. like me.

You can use your will to map the effect on you of various quantities of alcohol, that at some point your mood changes, that you may feel disinhibited, that your balance is effected &c, and that you can't wish a hangover away but that in the end your metabolism deals with the situation without your asking.

That is because some people chose to lose themselves in alcohol. It is a matter of choice.

So you have no objective standard for truth? Truth is whatever feels right to you? Appearances don't need to be probed, the earth is flat and the sun goes round it, and this wisdom is confirmed and underlined by the fact that the ancients taught it? And brain science need only concern us when it affirms what we already think?

Not so. I do go by objective third party ratification but there is more. I do not neglect the first person phenomenal consciousness. In other words, to truly know the taste of mango, I go by subjective experience. Similarly for the mediation.

You have been consistently denigrating the first person subjective experience. That is you are ignoring your own self that knows. You have cut away the basis of knowledge, giving the status of knower to mute chemicals. Sad.

 

[blü 2]

There are foods and chemicals that alter moods.

How?

However, there is no food that creates the power of discernment.

The brain is an evolved discerning device. If you don't have a brain no question of discernment arises. If you have a brain you don't need anything else.

Tell me, who?

Aspects of your evolved nervous system, in association with your glands and organs. Just as they control your heart, your gut, your body temperature, the water content of your cells, hunger, thirst, randiness.

When breath ceases in a body, the life-consciousness ceases. Then who controls your breathing? Who owns the body? Is there any ‘you’ sans the breath?

Your body and brain are an integrated unit, but many of the body's functions are largely autonomous. You can directly control breathing but 99% of the time you don't. The same is true of walking, driving, &c. You can't directly control your heart or your gut, which have their own nervous systems, though you can indirectly control them with drugs, and some aspects of them through control of other parts of the body.

And as I've pointed out in previous conversations, the words you speak, the words I'm typing, don't come from the consciousness ─ they arise instantly from your or my nonconscious (though we can edit them, mostly nonconsciously, unless damage to the forebrain prevents us).

You say so because your ‘consciousness’ is superficial. Libet’s experiments are much older than 2012 and Libet’s data actually demonstrated that consciousness ran deeper than the mind that seems to consciously know.

What definition of 'consciousness' was Libet using? How did he define the border between conscious and non-conscious functions of the brain?

That is because some people chose to lose themselves in alcohol. It is a matter of choice.

The reason they choose to do so may very well relate to the way alcohol alters brain function, including (amongst much else) brain function.

Incidentally, how does anaesthesia work? Why do bromides and no doubt these days other chemicals put a temporary end to consciousness, despite anything consciousness may wish?

to truly know the taste of mango, I go by subjective experience. Similarly for the mediation.

But 'the taste of mango' is simply an evolved brain response to data from the taste buds and olfactory receptors. Understand those and at last you understand why mango tastes to you as it does. And why it would taste much the same to other people, particularly those whose receptors exist in the same quantity and proportion that yours do (though the connotations which that flavor evoked might vary widely)

You have been consistently denigrating the first person subjective experience.

Not as such ─ I indulge it all the time.

What I emphasize instead is its unreliability in many circumstances ─ so when witness evidence and video evidence disagree, which should you believe?

That is you are ignoring your own self that knows. You have cut away the basis of knowledge, giving the status of knower to mute chemicals. Sad.

You think your neurons aren't biochemical devices whose interconnections permit the most part of your brain functions, including consciousness ie awareness and self-awareness?

You think your brain is a fish tank to contain an immaterial goldfish called 'consciousness'?

And this goldfish is in direct contact with the universe, just not in any way that reveals any actual data about it?

 

[atanu]

How?
The brain is an evolved discerning device. If you don't have a brain no question of discernment arises. If you have a brain you don't need anything else.

Not at all. A dead body has a brain but has no consciousness.

Aspects of your evolved nervous system, in association with your glands and organs. Just as they control your heart, your gut, your body temperature, the water content of your cells, hunger, thirst, randiness.

Nervous system control the breath in the body? Why do brain-nervous system let go the breath at death? Brain should shout “Let the body live”? No?

Your body and brain are an integrated unit, but many of the body's functions are largely autonomous. You can directly control breathing but 99% of the time you don't. The same is true of walking, driving, &c. You can't directly control your heart or your gut, which have their own nervous systems, though you can indirectly control them with drugs, and some aspects of them through control of other parts of the body.

I asked “Is there any ‘you’ sans the breath?” I see no answer to that.

And as I've pointed out in previous conversations, the words you speak, the words I'm typing, don't come from the consciousness ─ they arise instantly from your or my nonconscious (though we can edit them, mostly nonconsciously, unless damage to the forebrain prevents us).
What definition of 'consciousness' was Libet using? How did he define the border between conscious and non-conscious functions of the brain?

I have told you that for us, consciousness is not only what is manifest in mind. Consciousness comprises: the power of discernment, the “I sense and all associated memories”, and the intellect.

We seem to have no consciousness in deep sleep but we exist in deep sleep with our identity intact. We come out with our “I” intact.

The reason they choose to do so may very well relate to the way alcohol alters brain function, including (amongst much else) brain function.
Incidentally, how does anaesthesia work? Why do bromides and no doubt these days other chemicals put a temporary end to consciousness, despite anything consciousness may wish?

That is a very significant question. I will, if situation allows, go deep into that. For the present, I will say that alcohol does nothing to the “Identity” consciousness. You can alter the the intensity or colour of a light bulb, although the bulb and electricity remain unchanged. Even when the bulb is destroyed, electricity remains.

But 'the taste of mango' is simply an evolved brain response to data from the taste buds and olfactory receptors. Understand those and at last you understand why mango tastes to you as it does. And why it would taste much the same to other people, particularly those whose receptors exist in the same quantity and proportion that yours do (though the connotations which that flavor evoked might vary widely)

All your seemingly erudite descriptions leave me frustrated. I get no idea of the actual taste of mango.

What I emphasize instead is its unreliability in many circumstances ─ so when witness evidence and video evidence disagree, which should you believe?
You think your neurons aren't biochemical devices whose interconnections permit the most part of your brain functions, including consciousness ie awareness and self-awareness?

Do neurones know neuronal firings? Do biochemical reactions know anything?

You think your brain is a fish tank to contain an immaterial goldfish called 'consciousness'?
And this goldfish is in direct contact with the universe, just not in any way that reveals any actual data about it?

You have not followed me at all. You are way off. All objects that you know directly or through report are in consciousness, which is not located here or there.

 

[blü 2]

Not at all. A dead body has a brain but has no consciousness.

Picky, picky! Okay, a working brain. Nothing else has ever been shown to have consciousness, and working brains have that only part of the time.

Why do brain-nervous system let go the breath at death? Brain should shout “Let the body live”? No?

It metaphorically does when it can. But the physical systems of the body are interdependent, and if a key system fails, then down comes the tower. The brain can fail for any number of reasons, anoxia being a big one.

I asked “Is there any ‘you’ sans the breath?” I see no answer to that.

Death is the irreversible failure of brain-body functions. The self, 'you', is the product of those brain-body functions, and when they irreversibly cease, so does the self.

I have told you that for us, consciousness is not only what is manifest in mind. Consciousness comprises: the power of discernment, the “I sense and all associated memories”, and the intellect.

So what is unconsciousness? The temporary absence of those things?

For the present, I will say that alcohol does nothing to the “Identity” consciousness. You can alter the the intensity or colour of a light bulb, although the bulb and electricity remain unchanged. Even when the bulb is destroyed, electricity remains.

In the case of alcohol (and many other drugs) alteration of brain function is the direct result. I mentioned earlier the effectiveness of serotonin reuptake inhibitors for certain kinds of depression. They work principally by increasing the amount of serotonin in the synapse by slowing the rate at which serotonin is naturally reabsorbed by the brain. What does it tell us about consciousness if consciousness can't control certain kinds of depression but drugs can? Certainly it points to a direct, unambiguous dependence of consciousness on biochemistry that functions appropriately, no?

All your seemingly erudite descriptions leave me frustrated. I get no idea of the actual taste of mango.

But you get no idea of anyone else's sensory data of any kind, sight, hearing, touch &c. It's simply our experience of reality that tells us we're both looking at a 1959 two-tone Customline that's a pale blue and a dark blue. And just as the brain processes visual input for each of us to discern that, so the brain processes the flavors of mangos, the smell of fried chicken or sump oil, and so on. If certain wavelengths are registered via the eye we get blue. If certain combinations of signals from taste buds and olfactory receptors are registered, we get mango. Both are the brain processing sensory input.

Do neurones know neuronal firings? Do biochemical reactions know anything?

The biochemical brain functions of which huge numbers of neurons are part certainly know these things. It's like asking whether a square inch of pressed metal is a two-tone 1959 Customline: no, but it's a part of it.

Exactly how do you think the brain knows things?

consciousness, which is not located here or there.

All the evidence is against you. Consciousness is a brain state, as eg anaesthetics vividly demonstrate.

 

[atanu]

Picky, picky! Okay, a working brain. Nothing else has ever been shown to have consciousness, and working brains have that only part of the time.

You equate consciousness with your waking state intellect, discarding all evidences pointing to intelligence all around.

But okay. You agree that a working brain generates consciousness. So, do you have any mechanism as to what makes the brain working?

Second. You are not updated regarding this point. Please study the following links regarding intelligence sans a brain:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160427081533.htm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_intelligence
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15068-smart-amoebas-reveal-origins-of-primitive-intelligence/
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ets-of-intelligence-lie-within-a-single-cell/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)

And many more.

It metaphorically does when it can. But the physical systems of the body are interdependent, and if a key system fails, then down comes the tower. The brain can fail for any number of reasons, anoxia being a big one.
Death is the irreversible failure of brain-body functions. The self, 'you', is the product of those brain-body functions, and when they irreversibly cease, so does the self.

Do you have a mechanism? The way you describe it, it appears that you know the truth.

So what is unconsciousness? The temporary absence of those things?
In the case of alcohol (and many other drugs) alteration of brain function is the direct result. I mentioned earlier the effectiveness of serotonin reuptake inhibitors for certain kinds of depression. They work principally by increasing the amount of serotonin in the synapse by slowing the rate at which serotonin is naturally reabsorbed by the brain. What does it tell us about consciousness if consciousness can't control certain kinds of depression but drugs can? Certainly it points to a direct, unambiguous dependence of consciousness on biochemistry that functions appropriately, no?
But you get no idea of anyone else's sensory data of any kind, sight, hearing, touch &c. It's simply our experience of reality that tells us we're both looking at a 1959 two-tone Customline that's a pale blue and a dark blue. And just as the brain processes visual input for each of us to discern that, so the brain processes the flavors of mangos, the smell of fried chicken or sump oil, and so on. If certain wavelengths are registered via the eye we get blue. If certain combinations of signals from taste buds and olfactory receptors are registered, we get mango. Both are the brain processing sensory input.
The biochemical brain functions of which huge numbers of neurons are part certainly know these things. It's like asking whether a square inch of pressed metal is a two-tone 1959 Customline: no, but it's a part of it.

This is word salad. Alcohol clouds the intellect. No one doubts that. The whole concept of Ayurveda is that -- food interacts with intellect since they are of same nature.

Exactly how do you think the brain knows things?
All the evidence is against you. Consciousness is a brain state, as eg anaesthetics vividly demonstrate.

You tell me the mechanism. Or show a brain crying out "I will not lose consciousness. Let me live on". Or show the neurones sans a living body exhibiting intelligence.

 

[atanu]

Picky, picky! Okay, a working brain. Nothing else has ever been shown to have consciousness, and working brains have that only part of the time.
It metaphorically does when it can. But the physical systems of the body are interdependent, and if a key system fails, then down comes the tower. The brain can fail for any number of reasons, anoxia being a big one....

We have been going in circles. So, I will depart from this discussion after this post wherein I wish to make 2 points.

1. One can believe that intelligence is created through biochemical reactions. So, of what value that intelligence is? Can an intelligence engendered of an unknown mechanism be competent to unravel that mechanism? And if the intelligence is engendered of a mechanism how can it be objective? How can it objectively determine the ruth value of a proposition?

2. Going back to OP--the true God . Bringing in the example of mango, we can generate millions and millions of scientific papers on what, why, and how of taste of mango. Reading those millions and millions of PhD thesis will however not tell us a bit about the subjective taste of mango. I need to simply pick up a mango and eat it.

Similarly we can produce infinite number of scientific papers on infinite numbers of mental objects. Let us suppose that there are folks who can without error assimilate all knowledge of those papers. Yet the self that knows all the objects remains unknown.

As per Vedanta, to know God one first know the self.

Thank for your patience. Best wishes.

 

[blü 2]

You equate consciousness with your waking state intellect, discarding all evidences pointing to intelligence all around.

I don't regard intelligence as an aspect of consciousness, rather as a tool available to the brain both in conscious and nonconscious states.

But okay. You agree that a working brain generates consciousness. So, do you have any mechanism as to what makes the brain working?

A reductionist description? No, nothing like it. But I see no reason in principle why machines, even if they're bio-machines, should not be intelligent; and when we have a definition of 'consciousness' useful for the task, it should be possible to develop machines that are 'conscious' in that they satisfy the definition.

Second. You are not updated regarding this point. Please study the following links regarding intelligence sans a brain:

The ability to learn in the sense of adjust responses to environment no doubt appears early in evolution, since it's exactly the sort of thing evolution would naturally select for. How does that help your argument?

This is word salad. Alcohol clouds the intellect. No one doubts that. The whole concept of Ayurveda is that -- food interacts with intellect since they are of same nature.

And balance. And mood. And judgment. And self-control. And so on. The biochemistry of the working brain is altered. Just as other chemicals may alter it in various ways, and the lack of particular chemicals may affect its functions.

You tell me the mechanism. Or show a brain crying out "I will not lose consciousness. Let me live on". Or show the neurones sans a living body exhibiting intelligence.

As I keep saying, there's nothing else there to do the work. Nor have you specified a real alternative.

What real thing do you say carries out the brain function that isn't biochemical? What does it do that neurons don't? Give me a real alternative.

1. One can believe that intelligence is created through biochemical reactions. So, of what value that intelligence is? Can an intelligence engendered of an unknown mechanism be competent to unravel that mechanism?

Of course, since we're both citing parts of brain research.

And if the intelligence is engendered of a mechanism how can it be objective? How can it objectively determine the ruth value of a proposition?

Chimps can reason. So can many animals. Do you say they have to access a nonphysical something to do this?

Going back to OP--the true God .

Not the 'true God' as such: any real god, one with objective existence, hence not simply imaginary. As I keep saying, I have no trouble with imaginary gods; but I don't understand the concept of a real one.

taste of mango.

As I tried to point out with my parallel with eyesight, flavors are simply the way the brain interprets sensory input from the taste buds and olfactory receptors. There's no essential mystery.

As ever, a pleasure to engage you in debate as we struggle to get each other to see the light.

 

[atanu]

...
...But I see no reason in principle why machines, even if they're bio-machines, should not be intelligent; and when we have a definition of 'consciousness' useful for the task, it should be possible to develop machines that are 'conscious' in that they satisfy the definition.

Yeah. This is Dawkins like. Premise: It should be possible to develop machines that are conscious. Conclusion: And therefore our consciousness is only mechanical.

Not the 'true God' as such: any real god, one with objective existence, hence not simply imaginary. As I keep saying, I have no trouble with imaginary gods; but I don't understand the concept of a real one.

How does one objectively prove one's existence?

 

[blü 2]

Yeah. This is Dawkins like. Premise: It should be possible to develop machines that are conscious. Conclusion: And therefore our consciousness is only mechanical.

Once we have that clear and sufficient definition of consciousness, so that the task is precisely understood, then I see no reason why the task should be impossible.

But you do. And I keep pushing you for specifics, but you omit them from your replies. Does that mean you think they're indefensible?

How does one objectively prove one's existence?

The fact that people acknowledge your reality by eg greeting you, or walking around you on the pavement. Or even talking to you on the net, though I can't completely rule out that you're a Turing machine with a particular and subtle sense of humor.

 

[Sir Doom]

I would like to expand on 'conviction' from my previous answer.

For a being to convince me that it was God (or a god, as the case may be) it would have to go quite a long way. It would have to prove to me somehow that it was, at the very least, responsible for life on Earth. In part or in total, directly or indirectly, as a result of artifice or 'caretaking' (not sure of a better word for that) and any combination of those, shades of grey and all that.

In short, I would expect the being to have some sort of owness for this silly ball of mud and the critters it's produced.

 

[blü 2]

For a being to convince me that it was God (or a god, as the case may be) it would have to go quite a long way. It would have to prove to me somehow that it was, at the very least, responsible for life on Earth.

IF there's a real god, a god with objective existence, one that's not imaginary, then in what real quality lies its 'godness'?

In particular, how can we distinguish an authentic (real) god from an authentic (real) superscientist?

Or is there no such distinction? Is God just a superscientist?

In which case, why worship a superscientist?

That was the question I asked in the OP but some 230 posts down the track, I confess I'm none the wiser.

 

[Sir Doom]

IF there's a real god, a god with objective existence, one that's not imaginary, then in what real quality lies its 'godness'?

As previously stated, it hinges entirely upon how the being considers itself as well as how it wishes us (anyone) to consider it and it's relative ability to enable that consideration. What other qualities it must have to 'be God' only matter when it comes to convincing others, and that will be highly subjective based on who is being convinced.

In particular, how can we distinguish an authentic (real) god from an authentic (real) superscientist?

Other than the possibility that God may not be a scientist at all (god forbid) I don't see any reason to assume these are exclusive qualities.

Or is there no such distinction? Is God just a superscientist?

I wouldn't say there is no distinction at all, but I don't see the distinction as necessary. If God (regardless of other attributes) conducts experiments and draws logical, rational conclusions from them, well that's science. How and what a god might be testing for is anyone's guess, but surely even the most minor of gods must be capable of this. It's only the gigantic super mega Omni god that has no use for science on account of knowing everything already. I don't really think that sort of God makes sense even hypothetically so I don't think it qualifies for the parameters of your thread.

In which case, why worship a superscientist?

That depends on what they are trying to demonstrate, I suppose. There could be a trillion reasons to do so. But then again, why worship a god for that matter? Hopefully there would be some useful purpose if that's what the thing wants. I don't think that's a given though. God wanting worship. Seems useful to established religion more than to God.

was the question I asked in the OP but some 230 posts down the track, I confess I'm none the wiser.

I suppose I'm not much help, either. It's difficult to nail down what would fit the bill. I try to think from the bottom up meaning what's the least I would accept given the knowledge to choose. Which is why I point more to intent vs capability. If it wants the job and interviews well, it's hired. The caveat being it's got to want something from this rock full of parasites we call Earth (but that's only what it would take to get me on board, so rather inconsequential).

 

[blü 2]

it hinges entirely upon how the being considers itself

A self-awarded title, so never objectively discernible? You or I could be gods, it's just a matter of wanting to?

I wouldn't say there is no distinction at all, but I don't see the distinction as necessary.

I may not have made my point clearly. The superscientist's role in this argument is to represent powers that are derived from an understanding of physics (in particular) way beyond ours ─ to create universes, raise the dead, turn one set of elements into a set with other elements eg water into wine. What then would distinguish such a being from an authentic god, what real quality 'godness' does the god have that the superscientist lacks.

But if 'god' is just a self-awarded title, as I understand you to say, then no difference at all need be involved, whether between god and a superscientist or god and a parking attendant, since both may like to award their respective selves the 'god' title.

 

[atanu]

Once we have that clear and sufficient definition of consciousness,

We do not understand even a bit of the subconscious, the identity, the huge memory.

The fact that people acknowledge your reality by eg greeting you, or walking around you on the pavement. Or even talking to you on the net, though I can't completely rule out that you're a Turing machine with a particular and subtle sense of humor.

You do not see how absurd that is? Do you?

You see/know the other people. But you think they prove your existence.
....

I think I will totally withdraw since I feel that either you are being intentionally flippant or you are not getting that you alone are the best proof of existence.

 

[`mud]

Other than a few nut cases here,
this could be a pretty good thread,
I give up now !

 

[`mud]

Spit on the sidewalk,
see the spit ?
That's your spit there !
Is that a sidewalk ?
Is that still your spit ?
Then you exist,
now swallow the next time !

 

[blü 2]

We do not understand even a bit of the subconscious, the identity, the huge memory.

BUT we're working on it. And when we know what we're talking about, we'll see if we can make some.

You do not see how absurd that is? Do you?

You see/know the other people. But you think they prove your existence.
...

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.

 

[Sir Doom]

A self-awarded title, so never objectively discernible? You or I could be gods, it's just a matter of wanting to?

Wanting it isn't enough, you also have to convince others. That's a difficult task when you think about it. In most cases you will need to demonstrate something 'godlike'. And since we all have differing ideas as to what that means, there are still no garauntees it will work. Appearing as a pillar of flame seems to have been enough for Moses, I would have had a few questions, myself (not that I believe that story, exactly).

I may not have made my point clearly. The superscientist's role in this argument is to represent powers that are derived from an understanding of physics (in particular) way beyond ours ─ to create universes, raise the dead, turn one set of elements into a set with other elements eg water into wine. What then would distinguish such a being from an authentic god, what real quality 'godness' does the god have that the superscientist lacks.

But if 'god' is just a self-awarded title, as I understand you to say, then no difference at all need be involved, whether between god and a superscientist or god and a parking attendant, since both may like to award their respective selves the 'god' title.

Internally, yes. Externally, we could assume a scientist (super or otherwise) may be more capable of demonstrating their godhood than a parking attendant, but also less likely to make such a claim in the first place. That is, of course slightly biased on my part but I think you'll follow my meaning.

The reason I mentioned desire in this is precisely because scientists do actually, demonstrably exist and depending on what one believes regarding extraterrestrial life it makes sense that super scientists also exist. If such a being exists and has no intention of being thought of as god than who are we to force it on them? Even if they are 'the creator'.

 

[blü 2]

Externally, we could assume a scientist (super or otherwise) may be more capable of demonstrating their godhood than a parking attendant, but also less likely to make such a claim in the first place. That is, of course slightly biased on my part but I think you'll follow my meaning.

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?