|
|
What is God Really?
What if anything deserves the title GOD?
|
Just as a thought experiment what does the word God really mean? Is there any way to make the God concept make sense on a scientific context and is it useful to do so? Or is the whole God concept obsolete and we should just push it aside and never speak of it again? Or maybe there is value in exploring the idea for the purpose of disproving it?
The Church of Reality itself started with a thought experiment. We live in a world with all kinds of different religions that believe a lot of different things. So at best only one religion could be the right religion. If there were the right religion, would that right religion look like? The right religion would be the religion that believed in what was actually real. And thus the Church of Reality came to be. Believing in what's real. What an amazing yet simple concept.
We could do a similar thought experiment on the question of God. It's not just a question of if God exists, but which God exists? What does the word God really mean? Before you determine the existence of something you first have to define it and there are a lot of Gods out there to choose from. Every religion, even every believer, has their own God. So it's a matter of determining which God, if any, is the "Real God" first.
When it comes to gods, size matters. If God isn't the greatest then it's not God
If we look for things that are common in defining God (monotheism Gods), the statement "God is that for which there can be nothing greater." would apply. For example, if you have a God and I have a God and my God is bigger than your God - my God wins! When it comes to gods, size matters. Would you want to worship a god knowing that the church down the road has a greater god? I don't think so.
If the term God has any real meaning in the real world then what we have to do is find the biggest/greatest thing out there, and then determine if it is worthy of the title God. If it is then we have found God. If it isn't then there is no God because the God would be smaller than the biggest thing out there. If God isn't the greatest then it's not God. So with this thought experiment we can determine which is really the one true God or determine if any God exists at all.
|
So, what, if anything, deserves the title GOD? What is the biggest thing that exists? What is that for which nothing can be greater? Is there something that is clearly and indisputably greater and bigger than everything else? If there is - we have our God candidate. We can ten put the god candidate to the god tests to determine if our candidate deserves to be God.
Is Reality God? If Reality isn't God then there is no God.
There actually is a fairly obvious answer to this question, Reality deserves the title God! Reality is the sum total of everything that exists. Reality includes everything that is actually real. It includes everything in the universe. It includes all other universes in the multiverse if there is a multiverse. Reality includes all other realities that might actually be real. Reality would include all other god candidates of all other religions that actually exist. If anything is real, then it is a part of Reality. If something isn't part of Reality - then it doesn't exist. And if God doesn't exist - then it can't be God.
So - since Reality is the biggest and greatest then if anything is God it has to be Reality. If there were some other God candidate it would be a lesser God. And we all know that whatever God is - it's can't be lesser. In a God contest, Reality would always come out on top. Therefore if there were something that deserved the title God - it would be Reality. And if Reality isn't God - then there is no God. |
If anything deserves the title God it would have to pass reasonable God tests to show it is a worthy candidate for the title God. So as part of this thought experiment is to present some God tests and compare Reality as God to the God of the Bible Stories or GBS for short. This section will be somewhat imprecise and humorous because you can't really come up with definitive tests as to what is God. You can get a little more precision as to what God is not.
- The Size Test - When it comes to God, size matters. God would have to be the biggest and greatest thing out there. So who has the biggest God? Reality or GBS? Reality is everywhere and everything. There is nothing out there that's real that isn't part of Reality. Reality is omnipresent.
GBS however is a more limited God who lives outside of Reality in some parallel dimension. GBS used to be thought to live in the clouds (Tower of Babel) buy now we have aircraft and satellite imaging and we now know clouds are just water vapor. No streets of gold there. So when we compare Reality as infinite to GSB which is xero - Reality wins!
- Present and Accessible - Reality is here. Reality is everywhere. You can see it, touch it, smell it. It speaks to us through evidence. It has a will and a purpose and it expresses it through evolution. Reality is observable by non-believers. The rules of Reality apply everywhere.
GBS on the other hand hasn't been seen in a long time. If your Jewish it's thousands of years. Christians generally it's 2000 years. Mormons it's 150 years. There is no actually historical confirmation these sightings are real.
- Miracles - Miracles is a term defined within the Bible Stories. Miracles aren't defined in a Reality based world so we will use examples of miracles as defined in the Bible Stories. That should in theory give the GBS the advantage by defining the miracles tests. Let's see how Reality and GBS compare in the miracles competition.
- Raising the Dead - Jesus is said to raise the dead. bring someone thought to be dead back to life. We do that all the time now. In some cases where someone drowns in ice water they can be restarted after over an hour. We can take the heart out of one person and put it in another, which if that were witnessed by people thousands of years ago would surely have been considered a miracle. So when it comes to raising the dead - Reality wins.
- Healing the Sick - Jesus is said to be able to cure Leprosy. But Jesus hasn't cured a Lepor in 2000 years. Today we can cure all Leprosy because we have studied Reality and Reality has revealed a cure through science. Leprosy is curable with treatment. Treatment for paucibacillary leprosy is with the medications dapsone and rifampicin for 6 months. Treatment for multibacillary leprosy consists of rifampicin, dapsone, and clofazimine for 12 months. Most people today don't even know what Leprosy is.
Reality through science has not just cured diseases - we have eradicated many diseases from existence. Many other fatal diseases can be cured with just taking a pill. A round of antibiotics and the deadly infection goes away. When it comes to the miracle of healing the sick, Reality is the clear winner.
- Virgin Birth - Jesus is said to be born of a virgin, which according to Bible Stories is both a miracle and a criteria for being God. Technically virgin birth was technically possible 2000 years ago if a virgin's vagina came in contact with freshly ejaculated semen. Something that would hardly be classified as a miracle.
Today however virgin birth is trivial and happens all the time. We have sperm banks where a woman wanting to become pregnant can select from a variety of donors to conceive by. Technically a lesbian who had never been penetrated by a male is a virgin and women like this have babies regularly in this modern scientific world. With today's technology we can fertilize an egg outside of a woman and implant it in a woman who is not biologically related to the genetic parents. Soom we might be able to grow the baby without a uterus or we might be able to make a person from scratch with a DNA sequencer. So - when it comes to virgin births - Reality is the winner!
- Ascending into the Heavens - The Bible Stories say that Elijah ascended into the heavens in a flaming chariot. Thousands of years ago - that's a miracle. But today many people ascend to the heavens in a flaming chariot. We call the airplanes. Airplanes not only go into the heavens - but so high they can look down on the heavens.
Not only to we fly into the heavens, Neil Armstrong too a flaming chariot all the way to the moon. He went up so high that up and down no longer had meaning. Clouds 4 miles high would be probably the max that Elijah could have survived without a pressure suit. Neil Armstrong went 240,000 miles high, which is 60,000 times higher than Elijah. So Reality beats GNS in the ascending into the heavens competition.
- Making Rocks Think - This is a Reality based miracle. Today we can make computer chips out of silicon and store both information and logical processes on them. We can implant our thinking onto what is essentially a rock and make it think for us. It can even think for us after we are dead. Software is a level of miracle that is so radical that people of the Bible Story era wouldn't even be able to comprehend what is in front of their eyes. Reality's miracles are so miraculous that people in ancient times couldn't even conceive of them. When it comes to new miracles - Reality wins!
- Getting the Creation Story Right - Starting with the first paragraph of the first book of the first Bible they got the creation story wrong. The universe was not created by a supernatural person in 6 days some 6000 years ago. The Bible Stories are just plain dead wrong.
Reality tells us through science that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. We can "see" the cosmic microwave background for the Bib Bang today. We can detect the gravity waves from the moment of creation and measure them today. So when it comes to the creation of the universe - Reality wins!
- The Authority of Truth - The Bible claims to be the authority of truth. The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. One could say, everything on this wen site is true because it says so. but that doesn't make it true. If the Bible is true then nothing in the Bible can be false. but we already know that Bible is full of errors starting with the first paragraph claiming a supernatural person created the universe in 6 days. Although the Bible has some truths, it lacks the authority of truth.
Reality however is the very definition of Truth. Truth is after all, that which is real. And Reality is the sum total of all Truth. So Reality wins the authority of Truth test.
- Moral Authority -The Bible is a document originating thousands of years ago and reflects moral judgment of that era. In the Bible Stories slavery, human sacrifice, women as property, and stoning people to death were all considered normal and moral. The Bible did make advances in civilization in condemning lying, stealing, and murder. In it's day those were the forefront of moral thinking.
Today our morality comes from living in Right Relationship to Reality. Building the kind of society that is in harmony with nature, that allows us to study our creator (Reality) and if we do what's right we thrive and evolve. If we don't do what's right then we go extinct and Reality will try again on perhaps some other planet. Reality is teaching us more and more every day about what is moral.
- The Living God - Is God alive or dead? People ask that question about the God of the Bible Stories because no one who is a non-believer has witnessed the GBS. There is no objective evidence that any of the events of the Bible Stories ever happened. There was no historic exodus from Egypt. There was no great flood. There was no Ark with 2 of each animal on board. We know these things didn't happen.
There are those who claim miracles, but if God actually were intervening and actively messing with this world then scientists would be able to detect it in statistics. Casinos would ban Christians if God helps them win. But if you think God is on your side and you want to gamble - the casino will send a church bus to pick you up and provide a minister to pray with you on the way.
If GBS existed then science would be easily able to prove it. Something as huge as an omnipotent creator would be everywhere in the data. Scientists wouldn't be able to ignore it if they tried. But GBS is invisible to science. Maybe GBS is using his supernatural powers to hide himself from scientists? If that were true then GBS wants scientists to be Atheists and if that's the case - then they are doing what he wants. Someone, after all, has to go to Jell just so those who go to Heaven can appreciate the contrast.
Reality however would be a living God. Reality created life and it continues to create life every day. Reality is omnipresent and it speaks to us through evidence. And unlike the GBS the reality has the same message for everyone. If you are a space alien on a planet on the other side of the universe the speed of light is exactly the same. The laws of physics apply to everyone everywhere. So when it comes to God is alive - Reality wins again!
So in the God test competition Reality wins over GBS every time. It doesn't matter if it's GBS or Allah or any other God from any other holy book, Reality always wins. Reality will always come out on top.
If there is a God then Reality is the one and only true God.
So if there is anything worthy of the title God then Reality is clearly the winner. Reality is the one and only God candidate. Why would someone choose a God who is absent, impotent, trivial, and inconsequential when one can choose the only think worthy of the title God - and that is Reality. If there is a God then Reality is the one and only true God. |
So is Reality itself God - or is there no God? Why is it necessary or useful to even have a God? As we all know the most common usage of the word God is the Biblical God, and that God clearly doesn't exist. So isn't redefining God to mean something else really just creating confusion? Isn't it easier to just accept that God doesn't exist? Why should the Church of Reality even address the God issue at all? Why is God even worthy of our attention?
Just as the Church of Reality was a thought experiment, we can look at the concept of God as a thought experiment as well. Since we have already determined that Reality is the only legitimate God candidate, the question now is, "Is it useful to mix God and Reality?" Or - "Aren't we degrading Reality but associating it with something that doesn't exist?"
Let us look at the traditional definition of God in more detail. Is God the Biblical God, some other God, or something else entirely? The Biblical God was invented thousands of years ago by primitive people who were, like us, trying to figure out how the world worked. They didn't have the science we have today. Even the concept of Reality wasn't part of their world. They didn't have the benefits of scientific methodology. Evolution however favors those who learn to live in Harmony with Reality and the first step in living in harmony with Reality is to understand Reality. Understanding Reality is vital to the survival of humanity.
Bible stories were state of the art science, philosophy, government, and morality thousands of years ago.
So if we look beyond the actual God story and look at what the people who wrote the Bible stories were trying to do, they were trying to make sense of Reality, and how to live in harmony with reality. It's just in that era they didn't have as much to work with at the time. Today we know that much of what's in the Bible is just plain wrong. But in its day the concepts that murder, stealing, and lying were fundamentally wrong was a revolutionary idea. And these ideas helped bring society forward to what we have today.
Hundreds of years ago Issac Newton discovered newtons laws of motion. It replace the work of Aristotle who also attempted to explain motion, but was dead wrong. Then came Einstein who came up with Relativity and replaced Newton. But do we laugh at Newton and Aristotle because they were wrong? Was Newton actually wrong? It could be argued that Newton was right in that his equations actually worked except for extreme gravity or extreme speed. Perhaps some day when we unite gravity with quantum mechanics that we will have new equations that make Einstein obsolete. In a thousand years will we look back at today and laugh at our primitive understanding of Reality? I sure hope so!
Like Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein, Bible stories were early attempts to understand Reality in a world where the concept of Reality didn't exist. Just because they got it wrong doesn't negate what they were attempting to do. So the Bible is not about God as an invisible white haired farther figure who lives in the clouds. God is really a personification of Reality much the way Uncle Sam is a personification of the United States. Then God is to Reality what Aristotle was to the laws of motion. It was an early attempt to understand the world we live in.
Bible stories are better understood as obsolete rather than wrong.
Since the Bible stories were an early attempt to understand and explain Reality it is more accurate to say that it is obsolete rather than wrong. When one evaluates these stories one has to see beyond the fact that this stuff didn't actually happen, and look at the principles that these stories were trying to establish. In that context they got a lot of stuff right and, over time, we have built on some of those ideas.
One has to credit Bible stories with at least making the attempt and to establish the idea that there is a right and wrong way to do things and that people should strive to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. In fact - the Church of Reality is just a modern day extension of what the Bible stories were trying to do. it's just that we have a more advanced paradigm to explore it from.
In the Bible stories God is omnipotent and omnipresent. God is in all things. God is that for which nothing is greater. We are commanded to understand God because if we don't live in right relationship to God we are condemned to death. If we substitute the word Reality for the word God then the above statements actually come close to making sense from a modern scientific perspective. If we don't live in Right Relationship with Reality we will go extinct. In order to preserve our existence we are compelled to understand Reality. Reality is our creator.
Bible stories just used the word God in part to understand our role in Reality.
In the context that Bible stories were an early map of Reality then Reality can be seen as the upgraded version of God. Reality is like God 2.0. So one isn't really converting from God to Reality as much as they are upgrading to the latest version. Bible stories challenge us with questions about "Why are we here?" "What is the purpose of humanity?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Where does right and wrong come from?" "What should I do to make my existence meaningful?" "What is a good life to live?" On these issues the holy books of the religious world are ahead of science and it challenges the church of Reality to answer these legitimate questions in a scientific context.
Thus if you look at the term God in a historical context as to what it was humans were trying to do with Bible stories you can see that God was just a prototype of what we call Reality today. Thus Reality is not just the only God candidate, Reality is the rightful successor to the God title. To be clear, this isn't saying that the God of the Biblical stories is real. That God doesn't actually exist. What this is saying is that if we are going to continue to use the word God, the only context for which God makes any sense in this modern scientific world is if we use the term God to personify Reality.
|
Is personifying Reality by using the term God useful? What good does it do to tag Reality with the label God. Is the Church of Reality bowing to social pressure by including God references? Shouldn't Realists just reject the idea of God completely? If we reference God in the context of Reality won't religious people misinterpret it to say that scientists believe in God? Isn't using God and Reality together a form of scientific blasphemy? Can't we please just make God go away and move on to pure science?
These are all good questions. But there are arguments to be made that applying the word God to Reality is useful. Since this is about labeling and definitions of words ultimately it is subjective. So there isn't a right or wrong answer on this one. It's more of a way to explore and understand existential concepts. So let's look at the other side - why defining God as a personification of Reality is useful.
Reality fills God's empty chair.
One of the problems with God is that God has been the ultimate empty chair. I remember as a boy I had to go through the Passover Seder where we would fill Elijah's cup with wine. Elijah was sort of like Santa, an invisible guy who would come around to all the Jewish households to drink a little from each cup. At least that's the way I understood it as a kid. But Elijah never came and I closely monitored the level of the cup to see if the level ever changed, and it didn't. One Seder I drank Elijah's cup. My father got angry. "What happened to the wine?", he asked. "Elijah came and drank it!" (Now who isn't the believer?)
God and Elijah have the same problem. They are both an empty seat inviting all sorts of fictional ideas to be treated as real. There's even the expectation that "someone is sitting in the empty chair and it is called God." You are supposed to imaging that you see someone in the empty chair and then we can all believe God is there sitting in the empty chair.
The problem with the empty chair is that there are all these religions who are making up gods to sit in the empty chair. God of the Jews gave them Israel and they take great offense to anyone who even questions their right to real estate the the guy in the empty chair gave them. Christians believe that they have an updated God as defined by the New Testament that makes them successors to the Jews, and anyone who doesn't believe what they believe will burn in Hell forever. Islam also has exclusivity to the empty chair claiming that if you aren't a Muslim then you are an Infidel and you deserve to be killed. And in many parts of the world it is acceptable to murder Infidels.
The empty chair is dangerous because it creates an expectation that God is sitting there and invites invites people to take this seriously and make this their central premise for relating to Reality. The empty chair is a false god. Reality is the most mighty God. Reality it tougher that Jehovah, Yahweh, or Allah because Reality is real and the rest of them are not real.
As we can see the only true God candidate is Reality, and we have also seen that all religions claim to pursue the Truth. The definition of Truth is Reality. So if we put Reality in the empty God chair then the chair is no longer empty. Reality displaces and replaces all other Gods and becomes the One True God.
Reality as God displaces mythical gods.
They say that you can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative. But actually you can. By showing as we do here that the only God candidate is Reality itself, and by putting Reality on the God chair, it disproves all other gods. Maybe the best way to prove God doesn't exists is to prove God does exist - but the God that exists isn't the one from the Bible stories, but the one that is backed up by science. By elevating Reality to the title God it pushes all the other gods out of the way.
If we personify evolution as Darwin, then what does Darwin want us to do?
Personification is also useful in helping the human brain understand complex ideas. For example, let's personify evolution and call it Darwin. Darwin will be the personification of the process of evolution. So we can then ask the question, "What does Darwin want us to do?"
Since evolution is a process that selects on what survives the Darwin wants us to survive. Darwin wants us to succeed. Darwin doesn't want us to fail because then Darwin has to start over. If we do what Darwin wants we will continue to evolve and thrive. If we don't then we will go extinct.
So what is Darwin telling us? If we look at the historical record we can see that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid. Why did they go extinct? Because they failed to develop a space program. The lesson we can learn from this is that Darwin wants us to fund NASA. If we don't fund NASA then the next big asteroid will wipe us out too. But if we do what Darwin wants then we'll see it coming and we'll be able to push it out of the way. Darwin wants us to limit our population. Darwin wants us to stop poisoning our environment. Darwin wants us to migrate into Space.
Darwin wants us to live in Right Relationship with Reality. In order to live in harmony with Reality we have to study Reality, We have to know Reality. Or - if we personify Reality as God then Darwin wants us to know God.
When Reality is the new God, Science is the new Bible. Evidence is Scripture.
Personification is useful in that it creates an upgrade path for the old Bible Story version of God to the science based modern version of God where God is really Reality. One doesn't convert to Realism, it's more of an upgrade to the latest version. Reality is essentially God 2.0. Science is the new Bible. Evidence is the new scripture.
One can make the argument that why should you worship an old dead God who hasn't been seen in thousands of years when you can have a relationship with the new God (Reality) which is very much alive and still speaking to us through evidence.
|
Barriers to understanding the role of humanity in the universe don't come just from the religious world of believes locked into old Bible stories as their map of reality. The Atheist culture is a barrier to understanding as well. In the religious world we have multiple warring camps arguing about what isn't real that what is real gets left behind.
Atheists care more about the God of the Bible Stories than religious people do.
The big problem with Atheist culture is that they are so fixated on the God of Bible stories that nothing else matters. Much like alcoholics who no longer drink, not believing in God for people who were believers is a very big deal to them. Although it is true that the God of the Bible stories isn't real, knowing that is like getting one answer right on a test with and infinite number of questions. And what they get wrong is the importance of their one answer. What Atheists don't get is that Reality is what's important, not the God of the Bible stories.
What Atheists don't get is that no one cares what you don't believe in. What people are interested in is what you do believe in. Atheism is somewhat frustrating in that it is difficult to move the focus away from God and the Bible stories and put the focus on science and Reality where it should be. In contrast the Church of Reality focuses on what is real rather than what is not real.
Message to Atheists, no one cares what you don't believe in.
In Atheist culture it's hard to discuss meaning of life and purpose of humanity issues because these topics because it's religious sounding and anything that sounds religious is taboo. The very name Church of Reality even tends to shut down conversations with Atheists because once they hear the word "church" they have already filtered everything they hear. To suggest that a person has a "soul", even one that ceases to exist when you die, is treated as if it were blasphemy. But ignoring the soul eliminates the possibility that in the future when a person's conscientiousness can be uploaded to a computer. Your "soul" can live forever in "the cloud" if we keep advancing technology by increasing our understanding of Reality over time. The term, "If we know God we will live forever.", makes sense in the context that God is the personification of Reality.
The scientific community has barriers as well when you get into questions about Meaning of Life and Purpose of Humanity in the universe. Science, which is the study of Reality, is often at war with the religious community which is taught to put belief ahead of Reality. Because of these conflicts scientists tend to stay away from subjects that are anywhere close to the religious world topic. So scientists, who have better things to do than get caught up in religious arguments tend to stay away from the edges.
But things are changing in the world of scientific disciplines in that there is more overlap between different disciplines. For example, historians study history. Generally the study of history was limited to humanity and mostly to the time after writing was invented. But we have a new historical discipline called Big History, which is the study of everything from the Big Bang to the end of time. In Big History one has to start with physics, then chemistry, the evolutionary biology. Only through the lens of multiple scientific disciplines can one see history from the widest possible angle.
Similarly to understand Reality as a whole one must be able to include philosophy into the mix to talk about concepts like meaning, purpose, and value. Some in the scientific community think that in the context of pure science there is no purpose, no meaning, no value. That whatever happens is just whatever happens. But if nothing has meaning then why do science? If science has meaning then meaning exists.
|
What is the meaning of meaning in the context of the universe. Does existence have value? What matters to Reality itself? Maybe nothing has meaning. Maybe nothing has value. Maybe nothing matters to Reality. Maybe we are just a roll of the dice that is no different than any other roll. To exist or not to exist - who cares? Why does it matter? Who is to say that any outcome is better than any other outcome? What does "better" even mean?
Does humanity just exist for no reason at all. Does it matter what I do with my life? Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What does it mean for anything to matter. What makes something better than something else? Is survival really better than extinction? Wouldn't the world be better off if humans went extinct? Why should we care about what the Truth is? Who is to say what's important? Does importance even exist in the context of the universe? Why should we even ask why? What is it that wants to know? Is there value in knowing anything? Does Reality care if I exist? What does Reality want me to do?
What is knowledge? What is thought? Do I have free will? Do I have agency? Or - am I just a puppet in a deterministic universe acting out a script that has already been written? Is Reality itself real? Or are we just an app running on someone's cell phone in a higher plane of existence? Maybe this is just a dream? Maybe I'm just part of someone else's dream? Maybe I'm a brain in a vat? Maybe I'm just running code? Maybe the space aliens are controlling my mind?
What is this place? Why am I here? What am I supposed to do? Why am I alive? What is life? What does it mean to be aware - or not aware? Who are these other people who share existence with me? Are they like me. Should I care about them? Should they care about me?
And the biggest question of all. How did I end up in a world where I, Marc Perkel, own the Registered Trademark to the word REALITY and isn't that just a little sad?
So how do we answer these questions? Let's start with Reality itself. Let's start looking at the world and seeing what's going on.
The important question is - What does Reality Want?
Whatever this universe we live in is - this is Reality to us. So if this is a simulation and we are part of that simulation - then this is still our Reality. If we are a brain in a vat this is still reality to us. So if the universe isn't real then neither are we. So let's assume Reality is real. The question now is - what does Reality want? What is Reality itself trying to do?
At this point you might be questioning the question "What does Reality want to do?", because Reality itself doesn't have a brain and without a brain, or other information processing unit, the term "want" is meaningless. However human language is sometimes imprecise and humans tend to personify. What we are really talking about is the nature of the thing. Examples of this would be, "An apple wants to fall to the ground." "Plants want to grow towards the sun." We are really talking about natural laws and not something desiring something, which is a different kind of want.
Ever since the Big Bang Reality has been evolving. Starting out as pure energy and then forming particles, then atoms, then stars, then heavier elements, then planets, then life, and eventually us. As the evolutionary process continues the universe becomes more complex. In isolated areas such as here on this planet the universe has become very complex.
We are the mechanism through which Reality contemplates its own existence.
Evolution can be looked at as a rather simple process. Evolution is randomness that selects on survivability. That which survives is here, that which doesn't survive is not here. This simple process however created us and we have evolved to the point where we are beginning to be able to understand and contemplate the very processes that created us. Since we are a product of Reality evolving then we are the part of Reality that allows Reality to contemplate its own existence. Reality contemplates itself through us.
To understand understanding, we have to figure out what is doing the understanding. What is it that understands? What is it that is understood? The simple answer is, "I understand.It is me that's doing the understanding." in some contexts that answer is sufficient. But if you get more specific, isn't it the brain that understands? Isn't the body more of a biological robot that caries the brain around and supports it's functioning?
I think - therefore I am - a complex network of nerve cells forming a biological computer.
But that answer is too simplistic. The brain is a collection of nerve cells. So is it the nerve cells that understand? Not hardly. A nerve cell isn't complex enough to understand anything. It's really the collection of nerve cells forming a network that forms a biological computer that makes up our awareness and gives us agency. But - does that tell the whole story?
Consider this. A child is raised on a desert island where there are no other humans. Let's say the child is raised by wolves. What is that child's experience of Reality going to be like? What is that person going to understand? Not a whole lot. That person's existence would be about the same as any other animal. If the child were adopted by a tribe of chimpanzees the child's experience would be a little batter, because the child is part of a group. As a group - even a group of chimps - individuals have the collective knowledge of the tribe.
I think therefore I am. vs We think therefore we are.
Although we as individuals have understanding, how much of what we know is actually known by us individually rather than collectively? Do I know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, or do WE know the universe is 13.8 billion years old. And if there are things that WE know rather than I know - what is the mechanism of collective understanding?
Just like our brains are a collection of neurons forming a biological computer, humans are more like individual computers forming a computer network. The internet as a computer network is a model that reflects in many ways how humans organize in societies and it helps us understand the function of society in collective understanding.
|
|
As they say, sometimes you have to just stop and smell the roses. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Newsflash |
|
The IRS has approved the 501(C)3 tax exempt status of the Church of Reality. |
|
Please link to us, discuss us in online forums, and blog about us. Every time anyone thinks about reality the world becomes a little smarter.
Spelling and Grammar errors? spelling@churchofreality.org - please identify page and location in the page of the error.
The Church of Reality is a non-prophet organization.
"RealityŽ" and "Church of RealityŽ" are registered trademarks of the Church of Reality.
|
|
|
|
|
What is God Really?