h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Relationship advice... a nice intermission or commercial between Deep Philosophical Discussions?

It's too hard to find a good mate without adding unnecessary qualifications/specifications. Compatibility can come in all sorts of age matches.

But as a 28 year-old man, you'll seem worldly and well-traveled to a mature 23 year-old woman. Not that I'm implying anything...

Signed, 28 year-old spouse of an amazing 23 year-old

Ok Elfrida, I hope you are ready now for my answer to the unspoken question!

Reality is the cause of the information we receive. Reality sends information on many different chanels, and we can receive through different means. For example, if you speak, I can hear you, I can see you and I can record your speech with a computer and analyze it. Many chanels which all give me the *same* picture seen from different angles.

If I only can read your words on my computer screen then I'm quite doubtful about the information. But in your case I believe that you are indeed Elfrida, because you are original. In my case there was doubt about me being only one person. Well, at least there is now a photograph of me at www.butlak.de

BTM, or can I say Colonel?, are you still with the woman you wrote about some 2 years ago in h2g2?

The very one. You may remember she made me despair of the existence of mutual love about three years ago. How times change...

"relationships, don't talk to me about relationships, a heart the size of a planet and they just want me to have sex..."



Blatherskite:

"|P-c and Ben: If god is an emergent property of life... what *is* god?

"If god is a property of life, then it must be observable. For instance, my desk has properties of size, shape, density, texture, temperature, strength, and color, to name a few. All of these can be observed, measured, tested, and in various ways altered.

"So, if god is a property of life, how can it be observed? What are its characteristics? If we don't give definition to the term, then it becomes meaningless."

Whoah - back up a tad there Blatherskite.

I am not going to answer your question, but I am going to explain a metaphor which works for me. Unlike Wonko, I don't care whether or not my world-view works for anyone else.

PC's comment that god is an emergent property of life made total sense to me. Whether it makes the same sense to me as it does to him is anyone's guess.

I guess it all hinges on how one defines the word 'god'. Let's start with the definition of god as the ultimate uber-being. I am more hestitant to describe god as an ur-being, as you will see.

The whole of the universe is a single system. It all interlocks and interweaves and interworks. There are subsystems which have a degree of coherence but the boundaires always blur.

I wrote a whole load of other stuff here, but ended up with Jung's concept of the collective unconscious: and let's just play with the idea.

Let us assume that the concept has some validity. I can see god emerging from the universe as beings develop consciousness, and as their consciousness and the collective unconsciousness grows. In other words the collective unconsciousness = the uber-consciousness = the uber-being = god.

One of the points at which this can be challenged is whether that form of god has any direction, any coherence, any volition or any potency.

It is certainly not a traditional deity, and cannot really be a creator in the traditional sense, though it is arguable that the universe could be self-creating, and the self it creates is - for want of a better word - god.

Ben

BTM, rest assured that it will change back...

Ben, your big heart reminds me of my explanation of True Love! Sex is an art only a chosen few are given to experience.

"Women, women, don't talk to me about women, a penis the size of a planet and they just want me to talk about relationships ..."



Well, it is not true. No, not the part about the size, but the part about women not wanting sex. The truth is, they want sex, but *not* with their partner. My theory is that this is because of genetical variance.

Ben, I agree with your definition of consciousness, but I don't see the need to introduce a new symbol (god) for it. Let's just call it Conscious Life.

Good night Ladies and Gentlemen (it's midnight in Central Europe)
Wonko

I guess that means the intermission has concluded.

Thanks, Ben... that's a very coherent explanation, and opens the door to a discussion I've been trying to have for a very long time, but never managed to quite pull off. So here we go...

Unfortunately, I'm not terribly clear on the reference to Jung... too much time spent in cabling diagrams and Collective *un*conscious? If it's not conscious, how is it uber-conscious?

If it's not really conscious, then how does the term "universe" differ from "god"?

A quick google gave me these, Blatherskite:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3976/Jung2.html

http://religions.myztek.com/holbrook/colluncon.htm

http://www.kheper.auz.com/topics/psychology/Jung/collective_unconscious.html

Reading this, I find it implid that the collective unconscious is almost a static thing, but this contradicts the self-evident truth that Jung (aware of Darwinianism as he was) would have had to have taken the view that it evolved. So if the collective unconscious is an evolving thing, then what - ultimately - will it evolving into?

Wonko - I would argue that it is actively in the man's interest to stray - he then gets a child with no overheads. Think cuckoo, and indeed, that is the origin of the word cuckold. It is in the woman's interest to have a stable relationship while her children are infants. Who the father is is irrelevant to the continuance of her genetic code. So there is no disadvantage to the woman for straying, but there is a postitive advantage to the man. A subtly different state of affairs than the one which you imply.

B

BtM:

I did? That was stupid of me.... I still don't like it.



I stick with 'the god tale' because it *feels* right. Any theory compatible with all known evidence is acceptable. If six theories fit the facts, pick the one that you like the best. That's what I've done!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

From what you write, Ben, our ideas about god have quite a lot in common.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The German word Über-Bewustsein is over-consciousness, that means consciousness not based on a single individual, I suppose. This kind of consciousness is another word for Evolution, as the feedback loop of Evolution has the same effect as consciousness, only that it is inherent in dynamic systems and doesn't need an outside source.

Evolution (over-consciousness) creates Life, Life becomes conscious and creates new forms of Life to carry on.

One must know the limits of consciousness, it is not possible to fully achieve it, as every thought needs another thought which is aware of the first thought - this is recursive and thus impossible.

I have great doubts that Evolution will answer the questions of harmony, how to be happy. Wonko's law says that life is a mixture of good and bad, and no matter how sophisticated our brains or intelligent computers will get, the blues will continue.


Well, you are right with that. On the other hand there is always the risc of the father having genetic defects, so it is very important for the mother to have children from many fathers in case one of them is not ok. That's why women loose interest in the father of their first child.

A Nash equilibrium is a simple strategy for both players where neither has incentive to change their move if the opponent continues playing as before.

Similar to an ESS, but I think ESSs also include mixed strategies where you assign a probability distribution to your moves; Nash equilibria are only with a simple strategy of one move.

Between 23 and 40, I can live with that.

P-C: "Any theory compatible with all known evidence is acceptable. If six theories fit the facts, pick the one that you like the best."

I disagree, I'd say if six theories fit the facts, pick the one that introduces the fewest unprovable ideas. What is this evidence that your 'emergent-über-consciousness = god' theory is compatible with anyway? A bit difficult to argue against it if I don't know?

Ah... model parsimony... a good thing.

Although I like to say that if two explanations are indistinguishable then they are equivalent.

P-C:

NAITA:

Disagree all you like - you're just using your own criteria to chose the one *you* like best. I *know* you're not trying to tell me that a theory which accounts for all available evidence is *not* acceptable, are you?



Who cares? I have come across nothing in the Real World (i.e. evidence) that *conflicts* with my personal god theory. That's enough for me. I'm not trying to convince you: that's *your* problem.



I don't mind discussing this stuff, in fact I love it. [Which is one reason we're all here?] But I'm putting nothing on the line here. I am happy with what I have, and I have no *need* to convince anyone else. I'm happy to give you the reasons which justify my beliefs to me; if they're not good enough for you, that's your problem.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

BtM: <...a discussion I've been trying to have for a very long time, but never managed to quite pull off.>

Before the theme of this thread disappears up its latest enthusiasm, would you care to describe the discussion you want to have, Baltherskite? I think I'd like to contribute, but I'm not sure what the topic is, other than that it has to do with god, and what she is. With a bit of Jung thrown in for good measure, of course.

What would you like to achieve by this discussion?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

NAITA:

PC:

Eek. That's not good thought. There's no evidence that God exists, but it's consistent with the Real World. There's no evidence that I am a benign supreme being playing games with all of you, but it's consistent with the Real World. Similarly for everything being a pipe-dream of a butterfly somewhere.

Consistency with the evidence is not enough to make something a 'good' theory. The ideal model should tell us about how and why things are as they are, so we can perhaps use that knowledge to help us with other problems.

Besides, I'm not sure there _could_ be any evidence that could contradict your theory; it's bad practice to say lack of a counter-example strengthens your case when we wouldn't expect contrary evidence even if your theory were false.

P-C:
NAITA:
P-C:

Depends on what you mean by acceptable now, doesn't it? This isn't science though, so I agree, it's acceptable. But it doesn't make sense. As Q says above, your 'method' allows any old insane theory, which I guess you're happy with. But we're still wondering where it comes from. What evidence is it you seek to be compatible with? What facts lie at the base of your theory? Is the reason you haven't mentioned them yet that:
a. They don't contradict the other theories proposed here lately.
b. Not-a, but you don't feel the need to play missionary.
c. There is none, exactly, and you're making everything up from whole cloth.
?

If the collective unconcious is based unpon some kind of genetic inheritance, it can only be encoded within DNA, which since it is subject to evolution, means that the collective unconcious must be constantly evolving.

I quite like the concept, but from the point of view of humanity and other life on earth, I can't see the concept as an ultimate uber-being in terms of the universe. It would seem to me to be a lesser, more localised property of the local planetary system, simply because we can not confirm whether DNA was brought to earth or originated here.

This would be the Gaia hypothesis, wouldn't it?

Any sort of collective unconcious can't be found within DNA; the genome simply doesn't have the memory capacity to store such a wealth of complex information. In any case, this would lead to the idea that the collective unconcious was subject to speciation.

It's only when we look the behavioural aspect that we seem to get it; and it as a behavioural phenomenon that is has most meaning. I don't think it's sensible to extrapolate to the wider universe. The larger scale we look, from organisms to cities to countries, the greater autonomy the units seem to have.