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

God was an emergent quality of life, and now he's a quality of the universe. Which is it?

I guess the next logical question is, is the universe (or god, if you prefer) really alive? And if so, how can we tell?

Do you think, if that question had a simple and obvious answer, that we'd be sitting here talking about it thousands of years after humans first started thinking about such things?

I don't want simple and obvious. If I did, I'd be asking questions about navel lint and pop bands in Ask H2G2.

I want hopelessly convoluted and impossible to understand, as only the FFFF can provide.

I like to collect odd conceptions of what God might be, one of my favourites is Kurt Godel's mathematical definition and proof of the existence of God. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedels_ontological_proof

Karl Popper also defined God (in the language of logical positivism) in an essay from his book "Conjectures and Refutations". Unlike Godel, he didn't really believe in his definition, he mostly came up with it to annoy the logical positivists.

If the universe is alive (let's do the hypothetical question!), what does that make us? Is the Milky way just one big atom then? Or is a solar system an Atom? If so, is our planet a proton or an electron?......oh dear, must stop now....but I suspect that it is true we will never know for sure, it is quite a complicated question....perhaps we would have to go over what makes a living thing living...

What Makes a Living Thing Living

1.) Organisms are composed of cell(s).
2.) Living organisms grow and develop.
3.) Organisms move, respond to stimuli, and organisms reproduce.
4.) Organisims take in food.

I'm sure there is a better list, but this is mostly from memory.......but let's try to do this using good ol' biology, it could help....

Wonko - post 2592 - "That's why women loose interest in the father of their first child."

*All* women? *Allways*?




NAITA - post 2593 - "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"

Can I get back to you on that? I was making it up as I went along, based on my agreement with what P-C said and on my existing thoughts about evolution, life force, and what the bookshops term 'spirit'.



QQ - post 2597 - "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."

Hmmm. I like thought and am a reasonably rigourous thinker, and am *definitely* irritated by sloppy thinking when I discern it. However I am not convinced that it is the best way to approach the divine. In fact I am certain it isn't. My spirituality is - among other things - very earthy and very physical, (not in a sexual way, so down Wonko ).

When people approach god through rational thought you end up with theological colleges and angels on the head of a pin, which is not spirituality, it is hair-splitting. If there is such a thing as god, (be that a Jungian uber-consciousness, or a creator, or whatever), then that god is - by definition - a spiritual thing, and - equally by definition - not apprehendable logically. It is like using chopsticks to listen to music. A useful tool, but completely inappropriate to what you are trying to do. However, and unfortunately, it is the main tool that we have for thinking with.



Madent - 2599

"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 guess it depends on whether or not you think there is more to people than their DNA. I think that there is. I also think that spirit or soul or whatever is probably evolving in sophistication and - er - spirituality, in the same way that the universe is becoming elementally more complex, and that life has evolved from simple single cell organisms.

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

Yep. If it is limited to the Earth. I AM making this up as I go along, but making it up from other things I have thought for a while. I have no issue at all with this form of god comprising other-than-human spirit. (I *hate* that word... ). I am not convinced that the term 'god' is a useful one in this context, or that this form of 'god' is the right one. Hell, on Mondays I am an atheist, and on Tuesdays I believe in a spirit-of-the-universe, and on Wednesdays I read my horoscopes, and on Thursdays I read the Economist, so I have no conclusions, anyway.



Madent - 2600

"Any sort of collective unconcious can't be found within DNA...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."

Bugger it, I think you may be right. I will carry on in the direction I am going, and see if it leads me anywhere interesting, or if it is a dead end though, if I may.



Madent - 2601

"There seems to be some confusion about what is meant when we use the term *god*....whilst others have some other concept of a higher life form (?) which has no means or desire to interact with us directly, but might have *some* indirect affect on us."

I am currently assuming that the relationship between us and the form of god that I am proposing is analagous to the relationship between a cell and the body, or a bee and the hive.



P-C - Post 2605

"'c' comes the closest. I view this discussion as one about feelings, emotions and faith, not science and 'facts'."

Me too.

Big surprise!



Jose Minge - Post 2614

What the *hell* is a skinless mole? And am I going to really regret asking that?



Blatherskite - Post 2616

"You've identified that god should be something greater than human. But the thing you've identified, the collective unconscious, can never be greater than human. It is a sub-component of a human mind."

Hmmm. As I said, I am not speceist about this. Having shifted the terminology to 'spirit' and / or 'life force', I am including all forms of life. But I am slippery like that.

Also - no - if it appears that what I am describing is less than human, then I described it badly. The hive is not less than the bees. The body is not less than the cells. Actually, I like the body and cells metaphor better. What I am trying to get at is that maybe there is a god who we cannot understand because it comprises the whole of the living universe, (and presumably the non-living universe) and that that god is developing as the universe is developing. We can no more comprehend the nature of that kind of god than one of your braincells can comprehend you.

"You've identified that god should be something greater than human. But the thing you've identified, the collective unconscious, can never be greater than human. It is a sub-component of a human mind."

Yep - my mistake, I used his terminology without checking out how he used it.

"1) If the universe is something we can call "god," then why call it "god," when we've already got a word that describes it, without the mythological connotations: universe. How is the word "universe" unsuitable?"

Because it does not include the concepts of spirituality, spritual experience, spiritual development, or spiritual growth.

And your next question is?




Noggin - 2620

"It's a commonplace of philosophy that ethical statements cannot be reduced without remainder to nonethical statements. Is the same thing true of religious statements?"

Very probably.

"And if it is true, is there any way that those of us who just don't "get it" could be persuaded that something extra is being said?"

Very probably not.




Blatherskite - 2621

"I guess the next logical question is, is the universe (or god, if you prefer) really alive? And if so, how can we tell?"

Depends on how you define alive, I guess. And we probably can't tell. See my comment about braincells.



There! Caught up with the backlog!

B

meant to say hairless, never mind. If anyone saw the Horizon the other week on the Beeb, they would have seen experiments done with EM radiation on the temporal lobes in an isolated environment. What they found was that most subjects within the sensory deprived environment had a feeling of something else being in the room with them, even though they knew no-one was. A few of the subjects that were tested had no reaction at all.

What the scientists hypothesised was that EM radiation triggered seizures in the temporal lobes of certain people. Through checking through the personal information of their test subjects they found that the subjects that had the seizures belonged to a religious group of one kind or another, yet the ones that did not show this presupposition were either athiests or agnostics.

Therefore, due to evolution, religious people are more succeptable to EM radiation and their brains interpret this as a higher being/plane.

There was also a study done on prayer and meditation, where they found that during intense sessions of either the blood travelling to the areas of the brain that promote individuality, personality and conciousness - the very parts of our brains that control our sentience - dramatically reduces.

I saw it and found it interesting, though none of it was actually news to me. Ste wrote something about Neurotheology a while ago: A933635, and he and I wrote something about the survival benefits of belief at the same time: A934283.

I am going to irritate the atheists here by saying that being able to monitor what is going on in specific areas of the brain in certain circumstances, and being able to trigger similar reactions in the brain in whatever way, does not mean that the original circumstances do not exist. Being able to create aural sensations by banging together tin cans does not mean that there aren't any sky-larks, (though in fact there are precious few, any more).

Just because we know more about what happens when people believe that god is manifesting, does not mean that god does not manifest.

a devil's advocate, called Ben

I wonder if you have considered the possibility that 'religious' people are capable of sensing the presence of real spiritual beings, and that this otherwise reliable sense can be fooled by the application of EM radiation into detecting something when there is nothing there?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Which is exactly what I was trying to say, P-C. And it leads on to something very interesting, that the term "sixth sense" may be literally true.

Thanks

B

Hi Ben Biddy no more? And getting wider, I see....



Me too. That means we're more likely to learn something as this discussion progresses, doesn't it? I hope so. Should be interesting....



Well I prefer the bees. I think hives are better known, and easier to understand than bodies as collections of cells. The latter is not a familiar perspective, although it *ought* to be.

<"You've identified that god should be something greater than human. But the thing you've identified, the collective unconscious, can never be greater than human. It is a sub-component of a human mind."

Yep - my mistake, I used his terminology without checking out how he used it.>

Well there's the first thing I've learnt. I had the same misapprehension as you, Ben.

BtM: <"I guess the next logical question is, is the universe (or god, if you prefer) really alive? And if so, how can we tell?">

If you're searching for unequivocal 'scientific' evidence, I suspect there's none. For those who already believe, the indirect evidence is all around. I think you can paint the canvas as you want to. Now I'm annoyed I can't come up with a better answer to your question than that. I'll carry on thinking about it....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

JM:

bcb:

I didn't see the Horizon programme, since I'm in Norway... well, actually I do get BBC Prime on cable, but I have no idea if or when interesting stuff airs there, I've mainly watched Weakest Link reruns... oh, well, back to topic.
I have however read about that research and my impression is that the quote from JM does not reflect the findings of the research. EM directed at other parts of the brain give other responses, depending on the function of that part of the brain. But this is directed EM focused on a small areas of the brain to provoke a response. Naturally occuring EM wouldn't trigger them. What this shows is that the feeling of being open to the universe, of a higher presence, etc., that many people say is why they believe in something bigger than us, can be a product of the physical brain.

Ben's comparison is not a good one. We know that people have these feelings when certain parts of the brain are stimulated artificially. We know that people have these, or very similar, feelings during religious seremonies, after meditation, and possibly at random other times. (I at least have sudden surges of unexplained euphoria.) These latter could be caused by metaphysical interaction between the physical brain and a spiritual world, or they could be just activity in the brain triggered by the situation. Ben's example seems to imply stimulation from EM should be the trigger in the case of 'real' spiritual experiences as well.

The brain does not have particular EM receptors. Unless directional, naturally occuring EM would affect all parts of the brain equally, so no sixth sense. And I think if you set up arials in a curch you would find that there is no diving EM bouncing around even when the congregation feel at one with god.

True, but they did find certain frequencies of EM radiaton provoked these responses irrespective of direction, although yes in the experiments the pulse was directional. But in athiests there seemed not to be any response at all (remembering that the guinea pigs were not told the reason for the experiment until after it had been carried out).

And yes I agree, having faulty temporal lobes does not neccassarily discount religion on its own.

Would it be more accurate to say it can be a product of a physical brain *in conjunction with* a suitable stimulus? I think the experimental subjects detected something *only* when they were subjected to EM bombardment. No spontaneous 'religious' experiences.



There is also the possibility that the 'god-sensor' in our heads can detect real supernatural beings () *and* EM radiation. I.e. gods may not, or need not, emit EM radiation.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hey girls and guys, this is the FFFF, there is no god. I just read that crazy stuff by Gödel, it's a play with words which looks like logic.



Sorry, that's bullshit played with words. Who defines? What? One phantasy (god) is proved by another phantasy (absolute perfection).

Pink Elephants, by definition are pink. Non-existence is impink. Therefore, Pink Elephants exit.


Ben <*All* women? *Allways*?> YES!

Do you really think? I don't believe in Pink Elephants.

Wonko - "Ben <*All* women? *Allways*?> YES!"

Prove it.

B

<...this is the FFFF>

No it isn't!

<...there is no god>

Quite so!



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P-C:

Um, just because none of the experimental subjects reported spontaneous 'religious' experiences, doesn't mean there aren't any... You are arguing backwards here P-C! There is no doubt in my mind many people experience these feelings, all the time, all over the world.

Every part of the brain is affected by EM, the experiment focused the EM on the temporal lobes to get the described effect. Supernatural beings don't enter into it when we look at the scientific part of the question, and introducing them only confuses the picture.

I expressed myself badly. My point was that the brain didn't create religious events by itself, but detected them only when it was stimulated with EM from the outside.



I know what you mean - I think - but some might consider it odd that the central core of the investigation could serve only to muddy the waters! I think there is a serious point here, albeit not one justifying large amounts of our time and attention.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well Ben, we're speaking of genes here. Genes do vary among the population, but this "I'dont want to have sex with the father of my first child" gene does not vary very much, as it's the genetical equivalence of putting all your money on one number in roulette.

Where do you think do all the headaches come from?