Swami V. Ānanda
Member
- Aug 23, 2021
- 34
- 14
It's important to note that this argument is rooted in the assumption that the natural universe requires an external cause, and that this cause must be supernatural.The problem of having to consider about the supernatural is this.
No matter how you slice and dice the universe, no matter how minutely you subdivide its components, the reason for itself must lie outside of itself.
Regardless of how we subdivide down to atominc and sub aromic and quantum level components, the reason for their existence must be looked for outside of themselves. This necessarily requires us to consider the supernatural.
Look at the sentences of this post. We know that pixels are arranged to form letters which convey thoughts unless it is just gibberish randomly fired off. We cannot assume that the meaning these sentences is generated from the chemicals or materials of the computer or computer screen themselves. An outer agent not the PC imposes meaning in information onto the letters typed.
The smallest fundamental building block of the universe still needs something outside of the universe to account for its existence. And outside of the universe is not natural but supernatural.
I can give a few guesses at what you mean. Obviously, when you compare the definitions between cause and effect, there is a difference. I suppose you're referring to some timeless part of the universe, or something else?Free-will is a trap. In reality all is one. There is no real difference between cause and effect.
I get this point and it is very reasonable in that we do experience cause and effect as being two separate things. I can understand that when applied to the Universe, which is supposedly the totality of all matter, that something outside or besides matter would have to cause matter. I don't see that as being a logical fallacy but rather the issue with me is thinking that that's the ONLY way. Is it really the only way (esp. in considering all of the other explanations, like Universe being self-caused or always existing in some form)?The problem of having to consider about the supernatural is this.
No matter how you slice and dice the universe, no matter how minutely you subdivide its components, the reason for itself must lie outside of itself.
Regardless of how we subdivide down to atominc and sub aromic and quantum level components, the reason for their existence must be looked for outside of themselves. This necessarily requires us to consider the supernatural.
It is an assumption but a sensible one. If matter did not always exist, then it would not be reasonable to say that matter is the cause. Something non-matter would have to create matter. Supernatural is a candidate in my view. But then like you I question if the supernatural is needed. It is definitely a loaded term requiring a lot of other things to be proven. Like if it is the traditional God, then you have to prove some things about its nature, how does He have free-will, how does He experience, why did he need us if he's perfect, etc, etc.It's important to note that this argument is rooted in the assumption that the natural universe requires an external cause, and that this cause must be supernatural.
I got ya. It takes into account the naturalistic explanations in regards to 'matter', and all of the variations of things that comes from it, while also not creating some of the assumptions or difficulties that some of the supernatural explanations can bring on.By integrating organized matter as a property of The Mind, the naturalistic explanation avoids the need for external or supernatural forces to account for its existence. Instead, it recognizes that the complexity and organization of matter can give rise to the rich and varied experiences we associate with consciousness and The Mind.
Your view deviates from the most accepted form of materialism that atheists and scientists tend to accept (theirs being that the mind is nothing more than brain matter) but I can still see it being natural depending on how you define "Mind." The only thing I don't understand is in the last bullet point, like how the Mind engages with mind.By integrating organized matter as a property of The Mind, this Natural Philosophy explanation avoids the need for external or supernatural forces to account for its existence. Instead, it recognizes that the complexity and organization of matter can give rise to the rich and varied experiences we associate with consciousness and The Mind.
- Organized Matter: The naturalistic view acknowledges that the universe consists of organized matter, ranging from subatomic particles to galaxies. This matter is mindfully arranged into intricate systems, including living organisms with cognitive capabilities, which is significant of said mindful Mind experiencing biological arrangements of Matter through the matter itself.
- Emergence of Consciousness: Within this framework, consciousness is seen as an emergent phenomenon that – while appearing to arise from the complex organization and interactions of matter, particularly in the brain – are explained as The Mind which arranged said Biological Matter, engaging with and through the matter – and in this context - is the subjective experience and cognitive processes associated with consciousness.
- Interconnectedness: The naturalistic explanation emphasizes the interconnectedness between The Mind and the physical processes of the brain and body. The Human mind is not separate from or imposed upon the material world but emerges from it as a product of the overall Mind responsible for the organization and functioning of organized Matter.
- Mindful Experience: The naturalistic approach acknowledges that The Mind engages in mindful experiences, where cognition, perception, emotions, and subjective awareness arise from the physical processes occurring within the brains and the sensory systems and translated as thought and actioner the human experience The Mind is involved with . These experiences can be studied and understood through scientific methods, including neurobiology, cognitive psychology, and other relevant disciplines.
This would be no different than how we sentient humans can change our programing. The will to either accept the programing we have or to change it, is relative to the freedom we have to do so.Let me make my last post on self-causation more believable.
Not only is the AI controlled by its programming, but it also knows that it is being controlled by it. And it also knows how to rewrite its coding to reach any outcome that's possible to it.
I like the Ai example because it is a simple. Not too many factors to deal with in terms of what influences choice... All we have is programming.This would be no different than how we sentient humans can change our programing. The will to either accept the programing we have or to change it, is relative to the freedom we have to do so.