The Most Astounding Fact (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

[Aggie]

Warning: Provocative post.

I wonder who the first person to think of a G-d (or Gods) was. Like is there any evidence Stone Age (wo)men hadd this concept (I suppose they might have laid stones at funny angles or something). Anyway, it seems it was a very bad idea to me and they should have been sent to the naughty corner for inventing something that was going to cause wars, madness, and blind faith. (I'm all for faith if it is not blind).

I was going to comment that it's not god that causes wars, madness and blind faith, it's people. But then again, if I have a sense that god is the (bloody great big) organism of Being, then we are part of god, and so in a way god did invent these terrible things.  But not all alone. We did, as part of the whole. Just as we are part of what creates peace and sanity and seeking truth.

I'd think it was more likely that the people who invented Big Sky Man Gods were already at war with some other tribe, and found that having the Biggest Man on your tribe's side helped encourage your warriors.  As long as you kept winning, your god must be on your side. When you lose, you must have pissed him off somehow, so it's time to make up some rituals to appease him.  Whoever wins the most and ends up slaughtering or displacing the surrounding tribes must have the best god.  A god of peace in this context would be unlikely to exist within the broader culture for long; OTOH violent, vindictive gods that either caused destruction of one's enemies when pleased or punishment by defeat when angry would be positively selected for.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Bob, I think that the difference between you and I is only that you define god as a (fictional) benevolent individual and I define god as the (possible) consciousness of all things.

I believe god is (a) malevolent (concept). 
--

I hate the term, the implications, and the relations with how it was defined, that's why while I'm agnostic in the broader sense, consider myself a hard atheist in the strict sense.

I love the idea of Gaia, I feel connectedness to the world and the universe, I feel empathy by the surrounding living beings, but, because I like it and respect it so much I refuse to call that god. God has been defined as absolute and I abhor the absolute, I consider it the most destructive force in existence and with every passing day I come more and more to the conclusion that it is the tyrannical definition of evil.

There may be a spirit or a collective of spirits that may be watching, there may be a consciousness that may permeate the universe and/or living things, but that -to me- will NEVER can be called god as a matter of principle because the current definition is:

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

^ that simply doesn't exist and represents evil to me.
---
Sorry, I'll get down of my soapbox now.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Zono--

I'm with you 100% here-- strictly defined gods are the root of all evil, I say.

Why? 

Because there is no compromise with a strictly defined deity's "commands", is there?

I mean-- what can you say to someone who claims, "God Said Thus!"  (and yes, they would speak in capitals).

You may either agree with the proclamation, or you may disagree: "No he didn't!"

If the issue is forced?  Violence is usually required.

Which is why I am pretty certain that there are no deities who care about the fate of humans-- what sort of deity would permit the squabbling in it's name, like we puny humans are so wont to do?

Either one that was hamstrung, and therefore useless as a deity, or one that enjoyed the constant fray-- neither is a good thing.

So, I say either the deity does not care (or not aware-- almost the same thing) or does not exist at all.

I, personally, have no use for a deity that is powerless--it's not really a deity at all, but Something Else... interesting, perhaps, but not a god.

And I do not think an evil deity (or deities) exist-- there is simply too much good that happens on earth-- either by chance, or by the collective and individual activities of humans.  An evil deity would not allow such things, I would say-- no more than a tyrannical human dictator permits the triviality of free speech.

But that is just me-- there are some more ethereal possibilities with regards to the subject that I am ignoring.  Mainly because I'm human, and tend to anthropomorphize these things.

I know of no mainstream religion that worships a giant amoeba-deity.  Do you?

[Swatopluk]

You meet few Shoggoth woeshippers, do you?
I believe that the most basic forms of religion (animism in particular) do very well without anthropomorphic deities.
And even in the great monotheistic religions there has always been a struggle (occasionally extremly violent) between the abstract and the god-as-extrapolated-human concept. God as old fart with long beard accompanied by winged guys in dresses and a lot of ex-human spoilsports (aka saints) had a lot to do with concessions to those that could not cope with the idea of an invisible abstract entity. I loath the cult of Mary but I can see why it is more appealing for many to pray to a once flesh-and-blood commoner than to a being that is defined by lack of materiality.
It's easier to worship the vacuum*, if one can focus on a vacuum cleaner

*the Mongols (before converting to Buddhism and Islam) came imo close with their worship of the Eternal-Blue-Sky (Menke Kökö Tengri)

[Opsa]

I agree with Zono and Bob, and would like to point out that I was using the word "god" to explain my lack of atheism. I am more likely to refer to the spiritual whole as the Great Spirit, or Great Everything.

Still, I do not feel that I am technically an atheist (not that there's anything wrong with that!). Am I wrong?

[Aggie]

@ Zono: I understand where you're coming from regarding the term God.  My usage of the word isn't completely unrelated; I would like to think I'm taking the word back from the narrow definitions that have been attached to it.  Well, that and the fact that my loose definition of it is quite useful for inducing cognitive dissonance in both theists and atheists.  

@ Bob: Interesting point about a powerless deity being Something Else, but not a god. My imagining of god is somewhere along the lines of Something Else, Including All This. Tinkering willfully in the material universe seems a bit pointless if it's all a 'natural' manifestation of that Something Else in the first place. Of the list of attributes that Zono quoted from wikipedia, only divine simplicity, eternal 'existence'* and arguably omnipresence make sense to me.  I simply don't see how omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence can be concurrently attributed to god without a logical epic fail.

_{*to get quibbly about the semantics, I would insist that god doesn't exist, but that's a failing more of the word than god.}

And even in the great monotheistic religions there has always been a struggle (occasionally extremly violent) between the abstract and the god-as-extrapolated-human concept. God as old fart with long beard accompanied by winged guys in dresses and a lot of ex-human spoilsports (aka saints) had a lot to do with concessions to those that could not cope with the idea of an invisible abstract entity. I loath the cult of Mary but I can see why it is more appealing for many to pray to a once flesh-and-blood commoner than to a being that is defined by lack of materiality.

In that sense, Christianity is easier to grasp for people than the abstracts, and is more easily evangelized, I should think. God-as-a-man is something you can put a face to.

For myself? It's easier to understand something I cannot understand that to make the logical compromises necessary to put a vaguely human mask on god. I suppose that's why systems with more abstract ideas of The Great Whatever appeal to me more. The idea of worship has zero resonance with me, but I can get my head around practising a set of mindscaping exercises in order to allow an increased level of perception of the divine.

It's easier to worship the vacuum*, if one can focus on a vacuum cleaner

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I may have mentioned this here, several years back, or it may have been at TOP.

But bear with me if I have, please.

Let's presume that humans do not manage to wipe themselves out as a species for the next million years or so, and they also manage to learn an adult culture, such that they begin to self-accelerate the evolution of the human species-- willfully and with forethought¹.

The result would be difficult to predict, and I would expect a kind of diaspora/divergence into a multiplicity of vastly differing sub-species as time went on, and the various off-shoots traveled the galaxy, and perhaps later, the larger universe itself.

But the final/end result of deliberately accelerated human evolution?  If you could even call it that [evolution] any longer?   Who can say-- but what if they learn to become pure-energy based beings, with immortality, vast powers of mind-control directly on matter itself.

And here's the kicker:  what if these powerful ultimate descendants learn how to manipulate the very fabric of space and time itself? 

And what if these beings begin to wonder about their own humble beginnings as self-replicating DNA creatures of flesh and blood?  And at the unlikelihood of that happening in the first place?

And conclude that they really ought to make certain that it happens as it happened-- just in case. 

And so, travel back to the beginning of the universe itself, scrambling the cosmic egg in just the right way, such that the Laws of the Universe are what they are today, and also watch carefully, to make sure a certain yellow sun condenses at just the right time, at the edge of a certain type of galaxy, and that a rocky dirt-ball condenses 3 steps out from that yellow star.... replete with all the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms in just the right mixture.... such that life begins there ..
... and the rest, as we say, is history.

We become our own self-creators, our own gods.....

.... what then? 

Once such beings ensured their own beginning, why would they stop there?  Why not continue to fabricate other universes, by scrambling other Cosmic Eggs, and let the Laws of the Universe be slightly different, Just To See What Would Happen.

And what if, instead of we being our own creators, we are instead, one of those Just To See universes instead?   In a long, infinite line of Just To See What Happens universe with similar, but ever so slightly different attributes?

And... what if we humans, one of an infinite number of self-aware beings, in an infinite number of similar universes, still manage to live long enough to evolve into super-beings of pure energy (or some, as yet unheard of material that is neither matter nor energy), and go Out There only to discover that there is already an Infinite Number of similar (but different) beings, who have been doing this Make A Universe game for a near-infinity of time Before? 

Okay... I've drifted a bit here--

-- my point really was this:  what if we humans are destined (should we live to long) to become our own Gods, some day in the far-flung future?

How would we treat our distant-past, flesh-and-blood selves?  How should we flesh-and-bloods respond to such beings who are orders-of-magnitude more complex than we are now? 

The best I can wish for, is that these distant beings follow some form of a Prime Directive.



__________________

_{¹ If Moore's law states that computational power doubles every few years or so, what would happen once humans unlock the secrets of DNA/epigenetics?   I'd predict vastly accelerated modification, by way of genetic engineering of animals and plants first-- quickly followed by manipulation of humans themselves.  Some would object, sure, but they'd be left behind, to fade back to a stone-age subsistence existence, or even go extinct.}

[Griffin NoName]

@ Zono:

@ Bob:

Someone on TV tonight said that on Twitter if you use tha @ sign like that, then it means you are shouting..

Anyone here use Twitter? If so, can you confirm or deny this?

(I know nothing about Twitter, but feel I should)

[Aggie]

@ Zono:

@ Bob:

Someone on TV tonight said that on Twitter if you use tha @ sign like that, then it means you are shouting..

Apologies if I've offended.  I'm not a twit.  

If Moore's law states that computational power doubles every few years or so, what would happen once humans unlock the secrets of DNA/epigenetics?   I'd predict vastly accelerated modification, by way of genetic engineering of animals and plants first-- quickly followed by manipulation of humans themselves.  Some would object, sure, but they'd be left behind, to fade back to a stone-age subsistence existence, or even go extinct.

I personally think we're much closer to cybernetic enhancement of those well-off enough to afford it. I'll be surprised if I don't see devices that allow messaging-by-thought (i.e. telepathy - for a modest monthly fee!) happen in my lifetime.

Epigenetics is an interesting path by which one could modify existing DNA to produce a desired outcome.  I'm sure we'll see scam artists offering "epigenetic reprogramming" popping up soon (I'm aware that some new-age circles believe in reprogramming DNA, but I would like to hope it's a metaphor or that they at least mean epigenetics? maybe? ).

[Swatopluk]

I have my doubts about tech telepathy. Each individual brain runs on its own operating system, so there can be no generic solution beyond very basic stuff (more or less on/off actions). To tailor a device to deduct specific thoughts like text might be possible one day but it would imo take more effort than it is worth because it would take ages and the results would be cumbersome. There have been experiments with the goal to pilot planes by thought. It was possible but far too slow. The main problem: for the tech system to detect the command signals from the brain, the thoughts had to be conscious while typical piloting is for the most part sub-conscious. A pilot does not think left-right-up-down or even stick-forward-back-left-right even as a raw rookie, he reacts instinctively and the conscious thought follows when the action has already taken place. It's an old joke: how do you make a millipede stumble? You ask him how he is able to coordinate all his legs individually. The millipede begins to think consciously about it, gets confused and stumbles over his own feet.
The brain is a purely results oriented system the function of follows no 'logic'. It's input-black box-output for everything, and the black box part is individual. Only because all humans start from basically the same oiginal blueprints there are some things in coomon, like putting some functions into specific general areas. But as recovering brain patients have shown even some of these can be moved with considerable effort, if the original place is damaged beyond repair. Relatively new functions like speech and esp. reading are to a degree handled differently depending on culture. E.g. Chinese that have lost the ability e.g. by stroke have it much easier to recover it than Europeans because Chinese image-based scripture is processed differently from European abstract alphabet scripture. The functions that process the former seem to be more flexible and easier to relocate. I guess it is spread farther, so injuries are less likely to wipe it out completely.

[Aggie]

You have a point.  I have wondered about how one would segregate outgoing thoughts from ones you wanted to keep to yourself.

However, I wouldn't rule out alternative modes of physical data entry (iris trackers etc) that could be used and trained to be quite as quick as typing, which as you point out doesn't require conscious thought to drive the physical action. This would work well enough for the outgoing message. I think texting comes close for some people.  The key to 'telepathy' would be to be able to directly stimulate the auditory nerve to make one hear the incoming message.

I understand what you mean about conscious vs. sub-conscious actions; I am quite adept with sports that involve individual sub-conscious weight shifts and whole-body action (skiing, mountain biking, swimming), but am rubbish at throwing and catching type team sports.  It takes far to much conscious effort to monitor the field of play and I haven't practised the various actions enough to make them sub-conscious, so I'm hopeless at getting various limbs in the correct place to contact or release a projectile with any accuracy (unless it's made of lead and moving very fast, although I try not to make contact with those).

[Griffin NoName]

@ Zono:

@ Bob:

Someone on TV tonight said that on Twitter if you use tha @ sign like that, then it means you are shouting..

Apologies if I've offended.  I'm not a twit.  

No, that's why I was asking, as @joeblogs normally just means "I am directing this to joeblogs" and hs nothing to do with shouting which is denoted by using upper case. Why would twitter be different? Is it, or was the person on TV mistaken?

It's an old joke: how do you make a millipede stumble? You ask him how he is able to coordinate all his legs individually. The millipede begins to think consciously about it, gets confused and stumbles over his own feet.

A centipede was happy quite
Unitl a toad in fun said
Prey which leg comes after which
Which brought his mind to such a pitch
He lay dejected in a ditch
Considering how to run

Taught me at my mothers knee when very little! I've often wondered why it was a toad - Wind in the Willows?

[pieces o nine]

I am directing this to joeblogs" and h[a]s nothing to do with shouting

1. Yes.

or was the person on TV mistaken

2. Yes.

[Griffin NoName]

I am directing this to joeblogs" and h[a]s nothing to do with shouting

1. Yes.

or was the person on TV mistaken

2. Yes.

@ P09 - Do you have a Twitter account? I am thinking abiout getting one. I don't know why as I always thought I didn't want one. Also, I can't decide whether to use my real name (advice?).

[pieces o nine]

No, I don't have twitter and don't anticipate getting an account.  I'm just going off the conventions I've seen in quoted tweets. 

I'm [guessing] that the assumption about shouting comes from observing people commenting to each other, and sometimes angrily.  Since some message boards do not permit members from commenting on other member's posts addressing topics, I'm [guessing] a conflation of the two observations has caused confusion to the person(s) objecting to @responses.

If you're comfortable using your real name in other public settings, then use it on a twitter account. If not, then choose a pseudonym.