Consciousness

[Agent Smith]

Of course, many people would not be happy except with an anthropomorphic god

How true! What's so anthropomorphic about the Abrahamic god?

All the desert religions are anthropomorphic, meaning made in the image of man, like a god with a human temperament who gets pissed off with his believers----lol!!

True, true! Do you know of any god that isn't anthropomrphic?

[popeye1945]

How true! What's so anthropomorphic about the Abrahamic god?

All the desert religions are anthropomorphic, meaning made in the image of man, like a god with a human temperament who gets pissed off with his believers----lol!!

True, true! Do you know of any god that isn't anthropomorphic?

Good point, only one Spinoza's god---substance is God, God is substance in its many forms.

[Agent Smith]

All the desert religions are anthropomorphic, meaning made in the image of man, like a god with a human temperament who gets pissed off with his believers----lol!!

True, true! Do you know of any god that isn't anthropomorphic?

Good point, only one Spinoza's god---substance is God, God is substance in its many forms.

Spinoza's god is, in a sense, real(er) (than) ...

What's our part in pantheism?

[popeye1945]

True, true! Do you know of any god that isn't anthropomorphic?

Good point, only one Spinoza's god---substance is God, God is substance in its many forms.

Spinoza's god is, in a sense, real(er) (than) ...

What's our part in pantheism?

Spinoza presents a totally rational argument, whereas the desert religions indulge in a great deal of fantasy.

[Agent Smith]

Good point, only one Spinoza's god---substance is God, God is substance in its many forms.

Spinoza's god is, in a sense, real(er) (than) ...

What's our part in pantheism?

Spinoza presents a totally rational argument, whereas the desert religions indulge in a great deal of fantasy.

Desert religions are fantasy? Spinoza's religion is rational? How fascinating then to see how things have panned out over the centuries and millennia that have passed by. I wish we had some figures to aid us in furthering our understanding of the matter.

What's our role in all of this? Stuff that seem so familiar now appear so odd and vice versa.

[Belinda]

Spinoza's god is, in a sense, real(er) (than) ...

What's our part in pantheism?

Spinoza presents a totally rational argument, whereas the desert religions indulge in a great deal of fantasy.

Desert religions are fantasy? Spinoza's religion is rational? How fascinating then to see how things have panned out over the centuries and millennia that have passed by. I wish we had some figures to aid us in furthering our understanding of the matter.

What's our role in all of this? Stuff that seem so familiar now appear so odd and vice versa.

It's always easier to see evil than to see good. Like evil is absence of good, so ignorance is absence of reason, and submission to authority qua authority is absence of freedom. Our role is to make reason and freedom happen.

[Agent Smith]

Spinoza presents a totally rational argument, whereas the desert religions indulge in a great deal of fantasy.

Desert religions are fantasy? Spinoza's religion is rational? How fascinating then to see how things have panned out over the centuries and millennia that have passed by. I wish we had some figures to aid us in furthering our understanding of the matter.

What's our role in all of this? Stuff that seem so familiar now appear so odd and vice versa.

It's always easier to see evil than to see good. Like evil is absence of good, so ignorance is absence of reason, and submission to authority qua authority is absence of freedom. Our role is to make reason and freedom happen.

That's not all there is to it or, as some say, there's more! I once asked on another forum the question that's obvious as far as I'm concerned vis-à-vis our beloved Sky Daddy and his various versions, but I realized later on that that probably wasn't the best thing to do! We need to really work out the details of the issue if we're to get anything out of all this.

[Belinda]

Desert religions are fantasy? Spinoza's religion is rational? How fascinating then to see how things have panned out over the centuries and millennia that have passed by. I wish we had some figures to aid us in furthering our understanding of the matter.

What's our role in all of this? Stuff that seem so familiar now appear so odd and vice versa.

It's always easier to see evil than to see good. Like evil is absence of good, so ignorance is absence of reason, and submission to authority qua authority is absence of freedom. Our role is to make reason and freedom happen.

That's not all there is to it or, as some say, there's more! I once asked on another forum the question that's obvious as far as I'm concerned vis-à-vis our beloved Sky Daddy and his various versions, but I realized later on that that probably wasn't the best thing to do! We need to really work out the details of the issue if we're to get anything out of all this.

The place to begin is possibility. Given that possibilities alter, some durable
theories of existence are more reasonable, or more productive than others.

[popeye1945]

It's always easier to see evil than to see good. Like evil is absence of good, so ignorance is absence of reason, and submission to authority qua authority is absence of freedom. Our role is to make reason and freedom happen.

That's not all there is to it or, as some say, there's more! I once asked on another forum the question that's obvious as far as I'm concerned vis-à-vis our beloved Sky Daddy and his various versions, but I realized later on that that probably wasn't the best thing to do! We need to really work out the details of the issue if we're to get anything out of all this.

The place to begin is possibility. Given that possibilities alter, some durable
theories of existence are more reasonable, or more productive than others.

One needs a philosophy that brings humanity to the point of self-responsibility, instead of passing the buck to a generalized fairy godfather. Morality based upon its proper subject would be a fine start. A morality based upon life's common carbon-based biology and its sufferings and joys would be an evolutionary advancement. This would create a sacred world environment, the environment held in reverence would mean a healthy environment and thus healthy life forms.

[Sculptor]

Is consciousness just a function of the brain, like digestion is a function of the digestive organs. When the digestive organs die, then there will be no more digestion. Similarly, when the brain dies, there will be no more consciousness. Therefore, there is no afterlife. What do you think?

All the evidence points in this direction without exception.
We might not like it, but the alternatives are pretty absurd.

[Agent Smith]

It's always easier to see evil than to see good. Like evil is absence of good, so ignorance is absence of reason, and submission to authority qua authority is absence of freedom. Our role is to make reason and freedom happen.

That's not all there is to it or, as some say, there's more! I once asked on another forum the question that's obvious as far as I'm concerned vis-à-vis our beloved Sky Daddy and his various versions, but I realized later on that that probably wasn't the best thing to do! We need to really work out the details of the issue if we're to get anything out of all this.

The place to begin is possibility. Given that possibilities alter, some durable
theories of existence are more reasonable, or more productive than others.

Looks as though we're finally where we were supposed to be a hundred thousand years ago. That said, it ain't anybody's fault.

[Belinda]

That's not all there is to it or, as some say, there's more! I once asked on another forum the question that's obvious as far as I'm concerned vis-à-vis our beloved Sky Daddy and his various versions, but I realized later on that that probably wasn't the best thing to do! We need to really work out the details of the issue if we're to get anything out of all this.

The place to begin is possibility. Given that possibilities alter, some durable
theories of existence are more reasonable, or more productive than others.

Looks as though we're finally where we were supposed to be a hundred thousand years ago. That said, it ain't anybody's fault.

There have been new paradigms. Monotheism was a new paradigm that arose among the ancient Egyptians. Subsequently there was the Axial Age;

The term 'Axial Age,' coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), refers to the period between 900 and 300 BCE, when the intellectual, philosophical, and religious systems that came to shape subsequent human society and culture emerged.

The Axial Age affected the post-Socratic Greeks among others. For historical reasons Greek learning became obscured in Europe, until the dawn of the early modern age when post-Socratic ideas were revived notably through the agency of Islamic scholars. Thence the European scientific Enlightenment some centuries after.

There has been progress although sometimes it feels like a well kept secret. Within the Christian tradition there is the parable of Good Samaritan with the comment of Jesus "Who is my neighbour?" Who is my neighbour Partly due to the politicising power of Paul the universal and anti tribal message grew beyond Palestine and Jews , until today who is my neighbour is literally universal, applying as it does to swathes of the natural world, and the cosmos.

[Walker]

Is consciousness just a function of the brain, like digestion is a function of the digestive organs. When the digestive organs die, then there will be no more digestion. Similarly, when the brain dies, there will be no more consciousness. Therefore, there is no afterlife. What do you think?

All the evidence points in this direction without exception.
We might not like it, but the alternatives are pretty absurd.

In other words go back to sleep, Jori

[Walker]

Is consciousness just a function of the brain, like digestion is a function of the digestive organs. When the digestive organs die, then there will be no more digestion. Similarly, when the brain dies, there will be no more consciousness. Therefore, there is no afterlife. What do you think?

Consciousness requires form. The form is the perceived body. Without brain functioning the body will react to stimuli, thus the body is conscious. With brain functioning, stimuli is put into a natural ordering, then tweaked by thoughts until it may cause a movement in the body to relieve discomfort. The more complex the brain the more complex the ordering of body consciousness, and the more complex the connectedness to the stimuli sources until voila, human apprehension, fully functioning within the individual and group delusions of what should be rather than what is, and blaming everyone including God for the discrepancies imagined.

Don’t get the wrong idea. This is a good thing. This quality of humanness, the creativity, causes humans to work tirelessly to make the up the difference between what is and what should be, until one day they look around to find themselves flying through the air at high altitude while dining on tea, or coffee if floating eastward above the Atlantic. Without making up the difference between what is and what should be, the Ganges would be even more filthy and polluted than it is, and this does a disservice to the purpose of ablutions. What do you think?

Question: Could the form that co-arises with consciousness, be a form other than that perceived within the limitations of human senses? Say, for instance, an Invisible Dark Matter form? Or perhaps, a silicon based intelligence?

[henry quirk]

Is consciousness just a function of the brain(?)

Nope.

All the evidence points in this direction without exception.

Really?

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/08/a-neuros ... f-a-brain/

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/08/people-w ... ych-tests/

https://mindmatters.ai/2020/01/yes-spli ... you-think/

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/12/how-can- ... th-matter/

https://mindmatters.ai/2019/07/four-res ... he-mind/#1

Each piece linked to has links to other pieces and so on.

Let the dismissal (and insults) begin...