in Godel, Escher, Bach, Hofstadter suggests that matter exists first and exists in such a way so that consciousness will naturally arise? If true, this completely dispels the notion of a god. It also brings to a light an interesting question, if part of us, as in our atoms and molecules cannot be destroyed, and they disperse out into the universe, if it is set up in what Hofstadter describes as a loop, then consciousness can arise again, so in effect, we live on, but simply without the personality we developed on the physical plane…




28 Comments

Leave a response

You must be to post a response.

  1. Jear77 2 weeks ago

    Even though I am no longer a Christian, i don’t think the statement if matter came first, there can be no god. Christian theology is based on god being outside this frame of reference.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 2 weeks ago

      @Jear77 PE

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 2 weeks ago

        @Scarlett PE? (I don’t get the reference)

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        Scarlett 1 week ago

        @Jear77 Please expound

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 1 week ago

        @Scarlett if some outside source created everything, it is under no obligation to create a system whereby it would be obvious by casual observation which created which. It’s like the idea of young earth. The proponents of it say that the process of making the earth, the disasters that took place only grants the illusion of an old earth.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  2. ladybarbara 2 weeks ago

    This morning, when I awoke and was getting out of bed, I said, “Ow!!! Ouch!!!”

    Then Immortal Pirate asked me, “What’s the matter?”

    So, consciousness came before the matter that Immortal Pirate was asking about.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  3. immortal_pirate 2 weeks ago

    The rooster…
    This question is just an over blown which came first, “the chicken or the egg”…
    The answer is the rooster came first…think about it. :wink:

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • ladybarbara 2 weeks ago

      @immortal_pirate But, maybe it was the hen, if the rooster was good at what he was doing.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

    • griz 2 weeks ago

      @immortal_pirate
      Just as perhaps Greater Consciousness needed to come before lesser consciousness.

      And perhaps the lesser developed in a way we can contribute to natural process, because the Greater ordained it that way?

      Callow children and even callow adults, like to believe they got to where they are exclusively because of their own magnificence!

      And according to several wisdom traditions, this kind of arrogance always precedes a fall.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

    • Jear77 4 days ago

      @immortal_pirate not according to my research. The egg did. How? Cross species genetics. To say the chicken (rooster) did first, is saying there’s been no changes to the species from the day it came into being… and if there are subspecies, that truly is not so!

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

  4. griz 2 weeks ago

    It depends from what perspective. From our perspective matter came first; and then consciousness a rose to discern what matters.
    But we don’t have nearly the scope to suggest presume or assert that consciousness is a naturally emergent characteristic of matter.
    If we run The evolutionary clock fast forward are rocks and trees going to develop consciousness?

    Is God consciousness? We certainly like to act as if our consciousness is God! But what if our consciousness was just a pale inkling of something Transcendent beyond current scope?

    We can be quite clever when we set our mind to it. But we are just as capable of making that Journey unto greater truth as unto deeper folly.

    With foolish pride and arrogance being the proverbial Canary in the coal mine.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Jear77 2 weeks ago

      @griz what if the entirety of nature is a conscious, but nothing like anything we would understand. That idea is echoed in Disney’s animated feature Pohantas in the song “the colors of the wind” song.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 6 days ago

        @Jear77
        What is our consciousness, as grand and rich and varied as we might believe when manifest at its absolute best, is simply a remote (perhaps even impoverished) outpost of a greater Empire?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 6 days ago

        @griz outpost? What is this, Star Trek? And if your analogy were true, you realize that god, should it exist, couldn’t possibly monitor everything going on… nor would it particularly care. So all those things you deny yourself in the name of god… don’t truly matter.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • griz 5 days ago

        @Jear77
        The analogy is a good one, particularly the Star Trek spin. The farther it is removed from the Federation, the fewer benefits it feels. Yet if contact is lost the Federation goes looking for why.
        Now imagine if that outpost was mobile, and could move closer to or farther away from the support of the Federation.
        Contrast the pros and cons of each.

        We cannot fathom omniscience (and even less so if a grudge gets in the way). Neither can we speculate the intent of something we are not in fellowship with. All that’s left is a god of oneself passing edicts. Our decision to reject and isolate are the tools of decline.

        There’s not a single thing I have given up that was not the best thing for me in the long run.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 5 days ago

        @griz yet there is one aspect of the analogy you miss. God is (supposedly) omnipotent. It would be like the American revolution being able to have taken place with a battalion of England’s officers every single revolutionary at all times. Likewise , for anything to go wrong in the Christian’s life the forces against him/ her have to beat the cumulative power of the entire omniscience and omnipotence of god!

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • griz 5 days ago

        @Jear77
        How exactly did you come to the assertion that the ideal life is about “nothing going wrong”?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 5 days ago

        @griz i’m saying with the entire power of god at one’s beck and call, that’s how it should be. Remember: all or nothing.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • griz 3 days ago

        @Jear77
        Are you sure you are human?

        Or perhaps just so isolated you do not know how humans function or flourish?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Jear77 3 days ago

        @griz quite sure. However, remember that humanity needn’t have to existed in the 1st place. Given that, what’s offered in exchange for fellowship is… below meaningless, given what god supposedly is.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • griz 2 days ago

        @Jear77
        Nothing needed to, but it does!

        Even if one wants to remove all metaphysical connotations, this existence is the reality that evolved. Adapt or die, is The Credo of evolution.

        Being angry at the evolved process of life, just seems an overly-convoluted construct of self-sabotage.

        And even if the construct of God be entirely mythological, it has a significant history of ameliorating the above process.
        There is a significant body of psychological study showing our brains have been conditioned by evolution to flourish under the challenging quest of finding sufficient meaning to offset the tragedies of life.

        And that failure to undertake and continue in this quest leads down a path of psychological self-sabotage.

        Who exactly is it you are seeking to punish Jear?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 1 week ago

      @griz maybe what is just is without any explanation for it. Isn’t it a human thing to want to explain things? It seems to me that explaining the universe by way of a god is the same as trying to explain it every other way. It my be driven by the human fear of death. I can’t remember the correct name for it but there is actually a theory that suggests every human drive is due to their fear of death.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 6 days ago

        @Scarlett
        If that were so our desire to understand and explain things would just be a horrendous waste of resources that evolution would have weeded out a long time ago.

        Consider it this way. In order for there to be any value there has to be ultimate value. We’re really not that much better at expressing what this is then our early ancestors. But for tens of thousands and perhaps even hundreds of millions of years, that has been something akin to the Divine the Transcendent or God. And then religions spring up around this.
        This evolved over time from pantheism ( a little meaning here and the little meaning there), to monotheism (one grand unifying meaning/value).

        And then that perhaps degrading into US thinking that we are that grand meaning! But having evidence that we are not could produce terror.

        And it’s interesting that spiritual belief systems don’t just try to address this, but seem in some to succeed.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 1 week ago

      @griz found it. it is called terror management theory

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 6 days ago

        @Scarlett
        Yea, I figured it was them! I rather dodgy bunch, IMHO.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

©2018 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account