Here on Earth we have how many gods?

Of course at this point most of the people believe in "one god", allah, spirit being or whatever. To me this seems like the natural evolution of ideas.

But...

I ponder if this "evolution" can really be so in 'idea space'. It seems to me that perhaps the notion of "god" is possibly discovered from the "abstract landscape" - if you will. Did we stumble along this abstract path over generations to create or discover the idea?

Let's assume somewhere else in the universe there is life of similar intellectual capacity as humans. Did they come up with 'one god'? I think that the idea of god is kind of like "pi", in that it is a natural facet of the "abstract landscape". If you don't agree, why?

Side note: So to me, god is as real as Pi.

I think that almost makes a good bumper sticker. If you steal my phrase, take pity and send money. Lol, I need to photoshop a crown and a beard or something onto a pie. Probably taken as "pie king" though eh?

*clears throat*

Okay so but really - sure we can't know for sure cuz we don't talk to aliens (at least they don't talk to me... yet), but what would you guess?

"god is like pi"?

*scratches head*

t-shirts.

that and "get dao'n" Still think that one's got potential.

I think that the idea of god is kind of like "pi", in that it is a natural facet of the "abstract landscape". If you don't agree, why?

Side note: So to me, god is as real as Pi.

I think you mean the basic idea of 'something more than this' which refers to anything supernatural, rather than something specific like a God.

I can't agree or disagree before I know exactly what you mean.

Pi, btw, is something real.. it can be calculated and proven to exist. Not so with a God or anything else supernatural.

the evolution of this God idea is to realize that we are Gods by becoming more and more God like

I think you mean the basic idea of 'something more than this' which refers to anything supernatural, rather than something specific like a God.

No I mean the basic idea of "the creator", the definition of god as is typically used by religions - a generality of that - not necessarily the same word of course, but the idea.

Pi, btw, is something real.. it can be calculated and proven to exist.

?

DUDE. Come on. Pi is NOT real in the same sense that my keyboard is. It's a natural feature of abstract space, but for instance doesn't come before the creation (or is it, discovery) of numbers or a coordinate system. Pi is a tool in modelling things. It only exists as an idea.

Not so with a God or anything else supernatural.

I disagree. Why does the idea of god exist? I'll argue that it's a tool for modelling things - like pi. It could be argued that even pi is very very difficult to specifically define (numerically), though it's relationship and function in a mathematical model is rather clear.

Further, I think the idea of god is a natural or transcendental idea, like pi.

So was pi created or discovered?

the evolution of this God idea is to realize that we are Gods by becoming more and more God like

Meh, perhaps... but that's apart from the point of the thread.

Do the hypothetical aliens have the conceptual equivalent of god? If so, does that prove it's a 'transindental concept', discovered independently by multiple groups, or no? If not, we came up with the idea, so why didn't they? I can think of a few possibilities, you?

Dont you see the concept of God is being completely abolished? These aliens you talk of, if they are so far in their technological progress that it would be equated to our million years ahead, what does that do to a concept of God? First there were many, now there is one, and than there will be none. In future most will just not care. As different as these aliens might be, their whole outlook on life through time will tell them the right way to exist. I am saying that its just impossible to entertain idea of a concept of God for other civilizations. I think that this concept is probably limited to Earth and their reference maybe to as vague of concepts as say "love" being their God. Math as God? Math is everything, yet we don't see it as God.

Dont you see the concept of God is being completely abolished?

No. Are you serious? Ha! No. It's possible that i'm wrong, but I don't think you've really thought that through. Even if no person on earth believed it true, the idea would still be there. I submit however that while the idea exists, it will be accepted as "real" in some minds.

These aliens you talk of, if they are so far in their technological progress that it would be equated to our million years ahead, what does that do to a concept of God?

Hey I said for simplification, "of similar intellect to us". And what that does do the notion of god, I'm not sure eh? Could be "really clarifies"? Could be "lost in their history" but the idea still is known? The deal is, it's basically impossible to relate to something that far ahead - and they themselves probably would be taken as "gods" were it possible for humans to encounter them. That's why I tried to keep the example simple with rough equivalence.

First there were many, now there is one, and than there will be none.

I'm not so sure, but maybe you're right. There are still many depending on where you go and who you ask. Most would say "one". How long till there's none? You're making a pretty big assumption there i think. While the idea perhaps "evolves", I don't see it as "gone" or even "going" for sure.

In future most will just not care.

That's one possible outcome, but not for some time to come it would seem, as parents continue to indoctrinate their children and so forth. You seem rather presumptuous about this. I mean it's not a certain outcome.

As different as these aliens might be, their whole outlook on life through time will tell them the right way to exist. I am saying that its just impossible to entertain idea of a concept of God for other civilizations.

No it isn't, it's possible to imagine, but at this point at least impossible to confirm in any way. I said that in the OP.

I think that this concept is probably limited to Earth and their reference maybe to as vague of concepts as say "love" being their God. Math as God? Math is everything, yet we don't see it as God.

I think that is was 'discovered' rather than 'created' here, and that its 'discovery' would as such be the likely to be discovered in any civilization.

"First there were many, now there is one"

I think this would happen in the natural development of any intelligent species.

wesmorris, it seems to me this is not about aliens or their Gods. It is about what we believe in.

wesmorris, it seems to me this is not about aliens or their Gods. It is about what we believe in.

No it's about the evolution of ideas, and whether or not 'god' is a transcendental idea. It's about whether pi or god is created or discovered. The alien god thing just served as a decent vehicle it seemed, perhaps not I guess. Lol.

According to gray aliens, God is the universe, which is exactly like Pi: it's infinite and unpredictable. Mostly there are no patterns we can see in Pi, so we just see space (nothing) in the universe, but because Pi is infinite, eventually there are perfect patterns that create stars and human beings who eat pies which we can predict.

Pi contains all these things we will ever write, in binary 101010010101 language.

According to gray aliens, God is the universe, which is exactly like Pi: it's infinite and unpredictable. Mostly there are no patterns we can see in Pi, so we just see space (nothing) in the universe, but because Pi is infinite, eventually there are perfect patterns that create stars and human beings who eat pies which we can predict.

Pi contains all these things we will ever write, in binary 101010010101 language.

So to you it's 'discovered'... rather than created?

Remember the Force is a allien god too

I think you mean the basic idea of 'something more than this' which refers to anything supernatural, rather than something specific like a God.

I can't agree or disagree before I know exactly what you mean.

Pi, btw, is something real.. it can be calculated and proven to exist. Not so with a God or anything else supernatural.

Pi is like talking about god; it never ends.

Pi is like talking about god; it never ends.

and God, never ends?

I ponder if this "evolution" can really be so in 'idea space'. It seems to me that perhaps the notion of "god" is possibly discovered from the "abstract landscape" - if you will. Did we stumble along this abstract path over generations to create or discover the idea?


Before the idea of a transcendant single God, you have a vibrant living everything. No deadness anywhere. Then the monotheisms came in with their primarily dead universe and a transcendant God. Oddly enough they birthed modern science that kept the primarily dead world and clipped off God. Used to be alive until proven dead. Conscious until proven not. In need of some respect until it can't be - we have to eat it, but even then - or it attacks us. Intelligent, in its own way. Now these are considered exceptions that must be proven.

I feel like the 'one transcendant god' is a kind of painted ourselves into a corner kind of thing. The monotheists deserve the scientists who've come and clipped off the impotent abstract deity.

I get what you mean about PI and God.
It is absolutely clear that some people - for example many AA members - can make incredible use of the concept of God. It's as good as a wedge in some cases. Maybe even a lever.

Pi, btw, is something real.. it can be calculated and proven to exist. Not so with

Where does pi exist?

I feel like the 'one transcendant god' is a kind of painted ourselves into a corner kind of thing. The monotheists deserve the scientists who've come and clipped off the impotent abstract deity.

I see what you mean, but I still wonder if the notion itself is transcendental. Is it an inevitable discovery (as I presume pi may be or 'e' and some others. Are numbers a transcendental notion as well... would any intelligent species with the capcity for language eventually develop numbers? Will they find the same proofs (or at least quite similarly prove the same things we have in pure mathematics)?

I get what you mean about PI and God.

Well I'm glad someone does. sheeeeeeeezus it's a tough crowd in here. lol.

It is absolutely clear that some people - for example many AA members - can make incredible use of the concept of God. It's as good as a wedge in some cases. Maybe even a lever.

Indeed. I find the utility of the idea a very interesting topic. I think it can be shown that the "god thing" is hella useful to all different types of folks in all different types of scenarios.

DUDE. Come on. Pi is NOT real in the same sense that my keyboard is. It's a natural feature of abstract space, but for instance doesn't come before the creation (or is it, discovery) of numbers or a coordinate system. Pi is a tool in modelling things. It only exists as an idea.

Without getting too complicated or preachy, I would assert that π represents a concept that is significant to us. The ratios and relationships of the Universe simply are. There are many organisms capable of perceiving the effects of those relationships, but only a few (one known to date) species capable of perceiving the relationships.

In the evolutionary sense, this capability is not extraneous. Indeed, our species has achieved what heights it has in part because we are able to perceive and manipulate the effects of π and its relationships. However, I'm pretty sure that circular things exist regardless of whether or not any organisms exist to call them circles.

In that sense, then—

So was pi created or discovered?

—I would say π was identified. "Discovered" works. After all, this sort of discovery is a bit different than, say, discovering an unpopulated wilderness land that the people already living there already knew about.

Er ... um ... yeah. Anyway, I'd rather get your thoughts on the above before I go delving into the God aspect.

I see what you mean, but I still wonder if the notion itself is transcendental. Like the idea is 'out there'. A platonic kind thingie - though I bet you don't like plato, think that it is more real than things here.

Well I'm glad someone does. sheeeeeeeezus it's a tough crowd in here. lol.Well, I said I got it, anyway. Who knows?
Probably some researcher is looking for the 'god' gene. You know the one that 'makes' one believe - or leaves one susceptible. They would have kind of the opposite belief to you. It's not 'out there'; it's in here.


Indeed. I find the utility of the idea a very interesting topic. I think it can be shown that the "god thing" is hella useful to all different types of folks in all different types of scenarios. And as the NRA over in the US is always pointing out: guns don't kill people, people kill people. I leave you to connect the dots. Not that it will be hard, especially with this hint: tool.

we don't discover to know, we know to discover

Without getting too complicated or preachy, I would assert that π represents a concept that is significant to us. The ratios and relationships of the Universe simply are.

First, that the concepts are significant to us does not assert that they are transcendentally significant. Surely you're aware there is no such thing as a true circle. Since there really is no such thing, what relevance is pi? Well its relevance is in our thought and the utility it offers in the models we use to establish relationships regarding the universe. The universe simply is, relationships are interpretations of that is-ness. From this I come to the question: Are there fundamental ideas? Is there in reality an abstract space that has topological features like perhaps pi, or god? Whilst these features may come with different names, is it not like a nickname for your favorite bar in the sense that no matter what you call it - the bar is still there... well until the owner goes on a coke binge and heads to mexico before THE MAN slaps the shackles on....

God and pi are both symbolic of those interpretations. I think though, that they are symbolic of discoveries - like mining for gold in the 'abstract plane'.

There are many organisms capable of perceiving the effects of those relationships, but only a few (one known to date) species capable of perceiving the relationships.

Side note: actually it's been hypothesized recently that fish can count sort of (article from fark, can't remember details), and i'd say a few apes and maybe monkeys might but yeah that's not relevant just a curiosity.

In the evolutionary sense, this capability is not extraneous. Indeed, our species has achieved what heights it has in part because we are able to perceive and manipulate the effects of π and its relationships. However, I'm pretty sure that circular things exist regardless of whether or not any organisms exist to call them circles.

I think you're right. Pi comes from circles though - an idealized form of circular things. One that doesn't actually phyically exist. *shrug*

—I would say π was identified. "Discovered" works. After all, this sort of discovery is a bit different than, say, discovering an unpopulated wilderness land that the people already living there already knew about.

I agree, but tend to think of a conceptual equivalency between 'unpopulated wilderness' and the unknown facets of 'abstract space'. If you meant the difference is a matter of degree, then I agree there too.

Er ... um ... yeah. Anyway, I'd rather get your thoughts on the above before I go delving into the God aspect.

Well just a couple of points of clarification, I jive with it for the most part.

Like the idea is 'out there'. A platonic kind thingie - though I bet you don't like plato, think that it is more real than things here.

Well in my own rationalization I've identified "abstract space" as a facet of reality. Here I ponder its structure and to some extent, its relationship to what is typically thought of as "reality" (space-time). I don't think it is 'more real' per se. I think it is part of reality. What is important is established by perspective. As such, it is more important some times than others per perspective.

Well, I said I got it, anyway. Who knows?

Do you? All I can do is gauge from words, and from yours - given my estimate as to your capacity to comprehend it - I think you probably do. But who am I to say? lol.

Probably some researcher is looking for the 'god' gene. You know the one that 'makes' one believe - or leaves one susceptible. They would have kind of the opposite belief to you. It's not 'out there'; it's in here.

Yup. I would ask them though: is it in here because it's out there? Then I'd blow their minds and tell them "out there" and "in here" are the same place and subject to the same apparently ubiquitous conditions of existence. Each is simply an extension of the other. 'out there' only comes from 'in here' in terms of experiencing it.

And as the NRA over in the US is always pointing out: guns don't kill people, people kill people. I leave you to connect the dots. Not that it will be hard, especially with this hint: tool.

Ok, so you've successfuly exposed that I'm stupid, thanks.

Well in my own rationalization I've identified "abstract space" as a facet of reality. Here I ponder its structure and to some extent, its relationship to what is typically thought of as "reality" (space-time). I don't think it is 'more real' per se. I think it is part of reality. What is important is established by perspective. As such, it is more important some times than others per perspective.
yes, that fits what I thought you thought. And by the way the sentence should have read....you don't, like Plato, .... two commas. I made assumptions about your personal feelings for the guy, I was contrasting your (plural) ideas.

Is this 'abstract space' out there? I first thought of patterns in ice. But then you could actually find differences in those portions of the ice that were, say, whiter. It seems like that space is to some degree phenomenological - not that I am sure one can speak of degrees of phenomenologicalness.


Do you? All I can do is gauge from words, and from yours - given my estimate as to your capacity to comprehend it - I think you probably do. But who am I to say? lol.I saw it as an act of faith on your part. Perhaps on mine. I'll try not to burst our bubble.

Yup. I would ask them though: is it in here because it's out there? Then I'd blow their minds and tell them "out there" and "in here" are the same place and subject to the same apparently ubiquitous conditions of existence. Each is simply an extension of the other. 'out there' only comes from 'in here' in terms of experiencing it.
As I've said elsewhere, I like imagining that what is outside me is inside me and 'mine' and what is inside me is really not mine. I mean is there a reason we should identify with what we refer to as in here. I know next to nothing about topology, but my gut sense says that - especially in a closed universe,inside and outside are structurally the same. I can easily imagine, in fact if I meditate with my eyes open it seems so, that I am facing inward.

Ok, so you've successfuly exposed that I'm stupid, thanks.

I think you must have connected the dots incorrectly. That was not my assertion. I was just responding in advance to the 'rationalist' atheist types who may find the idea of God as a tool offensive, because of all the naughty things done by them. Hence the NRA's counterpunch.

This means that you made an interpretation error, but the conclusion drawn from this is that you are not stupid.

I think you're right. Pi comes from circles though - an idealized form of circular things. One that doesn't [i]actually phyically exist. *shrug* don't give up. He based PI's 'outthereness' on circles.
Circles don't exist. How could they. A round figure that is made of a LINE having no width. How would we detect one?

I think you must have connected the dots incorrectly. That was not my assertion. I was just responding in advance to the 'rationalist' atheist types who may find the idea of God as a tool offensive, because of all the naughty things done by them. Hence the NRA's counterpunch.

This means that you made an interpretation error, but the conclusion drawn from this is that you are not stupid.

No I just meant that I didn't even realize there were dots to connect, let alone connecting them. Seemed like you left me with a riddle to which I was all "no clue". Just teasing about the stupid.

Oh so you mean 'god' = 'mental tool' like wedge or something. You basically said that so I thought you meant something else by the dot connecting thingy, hell I dunno - no worries though.

Circles don't exist. How could they. A round figure that takes up absolutely no space. How would we detect it?

That's what I said, why you ask me? lol. You being rhetorical?

don't give up. He based PI's 'outthereness' on circles.
Circles don't exist. How could they. A round figure that is made of a LINE having no width. How would we detect one?

no not giving up. I think i saw his statement differently than you. hard to explain, will clarify as / if he responds. can you see a place where what I said about him being right and our mutual note that circles don't exist, could exist?

we don't discover to know, we know to discover

were you in that movie 'mystery men'?

and God, never ends?

I don't think he even got started or trhat he always was. But talking about him goes on and on and on and .......but nothing changes.

No I mean the basic idea of "the creator", the definition of god as is typically used by religions - a generality of that - not necessarily the same word of course, but the idea.



?

DUDE. Come on. Pi is NOT real in the same sense that my keyboard is. It's a natural feature of abstract space, but for instance doesn't come before the creation (or is it, discovery) of numbers or a coordinate system. Pi is a tool in modelling things. It only exists as an idea.



I disagree. Why does the idea of god exist? I'll argue that it's a tool for modelling things - like pi. It could be argued that even pi is very very difficult to specifically define (numerically), though it's relationship and function in a mathematical model is rather clear.

Further, I think the idea of god is a natural or transcendental idea, like pi.

So was pi created or discovered?

Pi is real. It's the ratio of a circles circumference to it's diameter; you can measure it. So Pi is discovered, not created.

Where does pi exist?

Pi exists as a ratio, it's measurable..

Pi exists as a ratio, it's measurable..

Where?

don't give up. He based PI's 'outthereness' on circles.
Circles don't exist. How could they. A round figure that is made of a LINE having no width. How would we detect one?

Circles do exist, they exist in algorithms. Living circular things are modeled after a perfect circle.

no not giving up. I think i saw his statement differently than you. hard to explain, will clarify as / if he responds. can you see a place where what I said about him being right and our mutual note that circles don't exist, could exist?
Now you're moving into Zen koan territory.
Let me try to paraphrase that last one:

Is there a portion of existence where
both
your agreeing with him - about pi being real(?)
and
with me - circles do not exist
both exist.

Funny it reminds me of the status in QM before collapse.

Where?

In circular things.

Circles do exist, they exist in algorithms. Living circular things are modeled after a perfect circle.

This latter almost sounds like an argument for God by design. How do you model something after something that is not present?

This latter almost sounds like an argument for God by design. How do you model something after something that is not present?

Experimentation.. i.e. evolution :p

In circular things.

'In' them. Where, in them? Can you see this circle that is 'in them' in an electron microscope? When you say 'in' do you mean under the the surface? So of like a skeleton only thinner.

Experimentation.. i.e. evolution :p

Experimentation is generally used for a conscious process performed by a human. How does evolution know about perfect circles? How does it model after them?

'In' them. Where, in them? Can you see this circle that is 'in them' in an electron microscope? When you say 'in' do you mean under the the surface? So of like a skeleton only thinner.

If you would take all the circular things in the world and average them you would get a perfect circle. Life is variable.

Experimentation is generally used for a conscious process performed by a human. How does evolution know about perfect circles? How does it model after them?

Are you saying God did it ?

From a tombstone in a graveyard near my friend's house.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3158/2316944332_300db2117c.jpg

Are you saying God did it ?

No, I am noticing and pointing out how you are thinking and arguing like a theist. You are not concluding there is a God, but your arguments are very similar to theirs.

No, I am noticing and pointing out how you are thinking and arguing like a theist. You are not concluding there is a God, but your arguments are very similar to theirs.

So what if they are ? Not that I agree with it.

So what if they are ? Not that I agree with it.
To answer would be to go off on a tangent. I like that right here we are focusing on your assertions. I want to stay on that. How does evolution experiement and model from circles which cannot be perceived and, in any case, cannot be perceived by evolution which in your understanding is not aware.

To answer would be to go off on a tangent. I like that right here we are focusing on your assertions. I want to stay on that. How does evolution experiement and model from circles which cannot be perceived and, in any case, cannot be perceived by evolution which in your understanding is not aware.

You do understand evolution right ?
If circular is the best form, for a body part for instance, chances are it will eventually evolve like that, given that the basis is there of course.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_GzXYfK-lDG4/RrhLgNHIGLI/AAAAAAAACbc/Ds4czab3xk4/s1600/full-circle%2Brainbow%2Bin%2BMalaysia.jpg

“The nature of God is a circle of which the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere”.

You do understand evolution right ?
If circular is the best form, for a body part for instance, chances are it will eventually evolve like that, given that the basis is there of course.

What you just said has nothing to do with modeling or experimentation.
You do understand evolution right? (Agreeing with Myles is one thing, but taking on his condescension would be another. He is the only person I have on ignore.)

What you just said has nothing to do with modeling or experimentation.
You do understand evolution right? (Agreeing with Myles is one thing, but taking on his condescension would be another. He is the only person I have on ignore.)

Huh ? I didn't mean that in a condescending way, I was just asking.
Those words I used were not correct, I didn't know you were going to make a big point out of it.

Pi is real.

By what standard? Can you put it in my hand for me to examine?

It's the ratio of a circles circumference to it's diameter; you can measure it.

A ratio is not a measurement. It is the contrast of two numbers. You've offered a definition, not attested to "realness".

So Pi is discovered, not created.

I agree, but for different reasons. To me, it's important to delineate the abstract aspect from the physical aspect of what's going on here. Pi and god are both purely abstract. They have no physical component at all. I think that god is just as natural of a reaction to questions regarding the nature of things as pi. Pi isn't something to prove or disprove and there would be no reason to bother trying. It's a definition. God is something that can't be proven or disproven, and is also a definition. To me, they are as such: equal in their "amount of reality". Further it makes me wonder if they're inevitable consequences of evolving thought. I think so, but of course can't know.

If you would take all the circular things in the world and average them you would get a perfect circle. Life is variable.

Take all the circular things in the world, average them and get the perfect circle? That sounds ludicrous to me. That life is variable does not imply that the mean of circular things is perfect. Neither does that there is variation amongst things circular. Physically, there is nothing but variation in a circle depending upon the scale at which it is viewed. Further, you can not physically produce 'the average' (the perfect circle) to prove your claim outside of the idea that it exists.

The circle is an idea based on a pattern noticed by awareness. In the sense that is purely abstract, it is not "real". Of course I generally find "the abstract" to be part of what is real, but will acknowledge that abstracts are not real like my keyboard or brain seems to be. They are real in different senses.

Now you're moving into Zen koan territory.


muahahahah.

Let me try to paraphrase that last one:

Is there a portion of existence where
both

your agreeing with him - about pi being real(?)
and

i don't think i exactly agreed that pi is real as in, something that is physical and pointed out exactly what you say here: I agreed 'circular things exist' though, and think they do. I think they are likely the source of the idealization 'circle'.

with me - circles do not exist

i wholly agree circles are ideas and only exist as such. perhaps you skimmed and missed my having touched on the point even before you got to it. :p

both exist.

perhaps my clarification helps.

Funny it reminds me of the status in QM before collapse.

welcome to my world.

Wes,
is this realm related to 'potential'?
is it incipient?
How about 'related to tendencies'?

Actually they seem to be on the other end and I think you need subjects - conscious beings - for them to 'exist'.

'Noticible patterns'?

Wes,
would pi and God be to the subject
what
something like
bilateral symmetry or eyes - perhaps better put as photosensitivity -
are
to
evolution.

Something the process stumbles across (ie. discovers).

I want to point out that these 'ideas' have different tendencies toward concreteness. Some, like bilateral symmetry, tend to coalesce matter around them. God, on the other hand, seems to be a meta idea, coalescings ideas around itself. (sure, eventually, churches and other matter contituted 'things', but this seems secondary).

the term circle arose from actual empirical data aka something actually observed
it is the usage of subsequent predicates that determine the level of abstraction

for instance.... the square circle
or perhaps the.... perfect circle

the latter getting a decent treatment here (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61017.html)

ja
reification is a bitch

Wes,
would pi and God be to the subject
what
something like
bilateral symmetry or eyes - perhaps better put as photosensitivity -
are
to
evolution.

If I follow correctly I think so, exactly.

Something the process stumbles across (ie. discovers).

I want to point out that these 'ideas' have different tendencies toward concreteness. Some, like bilateral symmetry, tend to coalesce matter around them. God, on the other hand, seems to be a meta idea, coalescings ideas around itself. (sure, eventually, churches and other matter contituted 'things', but this seems secondary).


You DO get it. This whole shit really came to me years ago as I was considering an article I read about chips programmed to 'evolve' to recognize a tone. Are you familiar with the experiment? I found it astounding. The real weirdness is that the program that ended up with the ability to recognize the tones didn't make a damned bit of sense to the experimentors, and wouldn't work on other 'identitical' chips.

Well, that and microwave ovens. (smirk) Okay not microwave ovens specifically but the notion that technology that exists now, could always have existed, but it was simply a lack of knowing that kept it from physical manifestation if you will. The universe didn't change to allow microwaves. We discovered the part of the universe (an abstract part) that allowed us to manipulate it to whatever end.

I think pi is a meta idea too, not quite as powerful as god though, as in the way I think you mean, god could well be the ultimate meta-idea, or at least 'of the highest rank' were there some sort of 'cardinal number' we could assign it.

And oh man you're blowing my mind being on my wavelength here to some extent, check this - this might make you lose sleep:

DNA is a language. Put that into your thing about matter above, stir and trip out on it.

ah
the perfect idea within which
lie an infinite of propositions

Wes,
is this realm related to 'potential'?

You see, this is where i think the 'quantum state' thoughts really start to kick in, because well you have "potential" and "existing" both existing at the same time. For instance you don't know my wife's name - as a rudimentary and not quite perfect example. It exists, but is known and unknown simultaenously depending on perspective. i'll address this further below...

is it incipient?

well I've always tended to think of it as 'bleeding through', but haven't decided if that's really the way to see it.

How about 'related to tendencies'?

Actually they seem to be on the other end and I think you need subjects - conscious beings - for them to 'exist'.

Now this is interesting to me.

For them to not 'exist' must we exclude abstracts from the medium in which things exist?

And if we do include abstracts as part of 'existence', which again I tend to... must there be consciousness to bring them into existence, or is it more like wandering through the forest and finding stonehenge - if you will?

ja
the semantics demand it
thoughts require a thinker

a rock and pi
how do we apprehend?

i sort of think of it as a brane sometimes, leaking or oozing or whatever into classical space-time

perhaps there are laws and forces and such in this domain.

leverage for instance?

i think of "conservation of mental energy" sometimes, maybe that's part of it.... stuff like that.

ja
the semantics demand it
thoughts require a thinker

true, but what do thoughts explore? what is their domain?

does that domain exist independent of the thinker? if not, how could the thinker think? in other words, i deduce that since it 'was stumbled upon' (say.... through evolutionary processes), it existed as part of the function of the universe. if so the thinker's thinking must then be part of the function of the universe. from a perspective in time like "before and after" it was while unrealized potential, then realized. From a perspective of time inclusive of before and after... what then? Like the microwave, the function (or potential depending upon your perspective) must have always been.

a rock and pi
how do we apprehend?

one in hand one in mind?

perhaps
i see standards in this here mental realm
laws of logic and math
and whatnot

one in hand one in mind?


now
i am not discounting the fact than we can physically apprehend the rock.
that still does not remove the abstraction of the stone.

there is a notion of a stone
there is a notion of a stone in ones hand
a notion of touch and feeling

pardon
a notion of whatnot

/mortified

Just to make a tangent

I think things get fucked up when you assume that an objective realm discovered through phenomena - I mean how else, you have to use them to some extent - is posited as more real than phenomena, period.

Every theory found working with phenomena
is poisoned fruit - to steal a metaphor from police and evidence and shift it to epistemology - if that theory wants to deny the reality of phenomena as a whole.

I think this relates to your ideas Wes, because part of what you are calling real here - ideas - cannot exist, I don't think, alone out there in the objective world - whatever the hell that is - for example if there is no one there to think them.

I think things get fucked up when you assume that an objective realm discovered through phenomena - I mean how else, you have to use them to some extent - is posited as more real than phenomena, period.


safety issues, pal
a semi can run you over, a number cannot

safety issues, pal
a semi can run you over, a number cannot
I hope this was meant to back me up and not counter what I said (me confused slightly by how I use 'pal' ironically in communication.
Being hit by a truck will be phenomenal. Ha, ha.

Just to make a tangent

I think things get fucked up when you assume that an objective realm discovered through phenomena - I mean how else, you have to use them to some extent - is posited as more real than phenomena, period.

I can think of no other way to get there when examining the nature of thought and such. On second thought I don't think I know what you mean here either.

Every theory found working with phenomena
is poisoned fruit - to steal a metaphor from police and evidence and shift it to epistemology - if that theory wants to deny the reality of phenomena as a whole.

Well I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I don't seem myself "denying the reality of phenomena as a whole" at all, so maybe you can splain a bit for me.

I think this relates to your ideas Wes, because part of what you are calling real here - ideas - cannot exist, I don't think, alone out there in the objective world - whatever the hell that is - for example if there is no one there to think them.

Well I'm not exactly saying ideas exist out there in the objective world alone. I'm adding a component to the objective world that allows for us to discuss it. Otherwise, I see no means, no aspect of reality that could possibly allow it.

Thinking is a path through abstract space. God "the phenomenal god" is not a thought per se, but perhaps "stonehenge" that we found on the path. Thought is the only way to find it. Now I'm not saying that god is real in any way like my keyboard is, but it's real like Pi is.

I can think of no other way to get there when examining the nature of thought and such.Me neither.

Well I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I don't seem myself "denying the reality of phenomena as a whole" at all, so maybe you can splain a bit for me. No, you're not. In a sense I feel you have to accept it even more if one agrees with your theory. Which is good, as far as I am concerned.

Well I'm not exactly saying ideas exist out there in the objective world alone. I'm adding a component to the objective world that allows for us to discuss it. Otherwise, I see no means, no aspect of reality that could possibly allow it. I understood that. These 'things' seem relational to me, rather than essential. Though given that relationships are essential....Maybe a better way to put it is that they are not monads. Can I say that they are dependent on the connection between either (at least) two things or two other ideas? Give that a mull.

Thinking is a path through abstract space. God "the phenomenal god" is not a thought per se, but perhaps "stonehenge" that we found on the path. Thought is the only way to find it. Now I'm not saying that god is real in any way like my keyboard is, but it's real like Pi is.
Can they be causal?

(I am going to swirl around your idea and splatter it. I think this will help me see the outline. Some of my statement questions may seem rather obvious, like this last, but they are helping me triangulate.)

By what standard? Can you put it in my hand for me to examine?

A ratio is not a measurement. It is the contrast of two numbers. You've offered a definition, not attested to "realness".
No, but one can measure the circumference and the diameter. The ratio between the two is Pi. So Pi exists in the natural world, it can be observed. I, at least, can't observe God.. and certainly not in the natural world.

I agree, but for different reasons. To me, it's important to delineate the abstract aspect from the physical aspect of what's going on here. Pi and god are both purely abstract. They have no physical component at all. I think that god is just as natural of a reaction to questions regarding the nature of things as pi.
I think Pi has as much a physical component as a surface area has, the physical components being circumference and diameter.

Pi isn't something to prove or disprove and there would be no reason to bother trying. It's a definition. God is something that can't be proven or disproven, and is also a definition. To me, they are as such: equal in their "amount of reality". Further it makes me wonder if they're inevitable consequences of evolving thought. I think so, but of course can't know.
Ok, the word Pi has a definition (as has any word). But the number is beyond definition, it is a universal constant. But one can prove that this constant exists in nature by demonstrating the ratio exists.

Take all the circular things in the world, average them and get the perfect circle? That sounds ludicrous to me. That life is variable does not imply that the mean of circular things is perfect. Neither does that there is variation amongst things circular. Physically, there is nothing but variation in a circle depending upon the scale at which it is viewed. Further, you can not physically produce 'the average' (the perfect circle) to prove your claim outside of the idea that it exists.

The circle is an idea based on a pattern noticed by awareness. In the sense that is purely abstract, it is not "real". Of course I generally find "the abstract" to be part of what is real, but will acknowledge that abstracts are not real like my keyboard or brain seems to be. They are real in different senses.

I admit that that was more a believe than a fact.. lol

But it does make sense doesn't it ?
If you take lots of imperfect shapes and average them the imperfections tend to cancel each other out.

These 'things' seem relational to me, rather than essential.

I understand I think, but what allows for anything to be "relational"? I'm trying to undercut everything thought.

Though given that relationships are essential....Maybe a better way to put it is that they are not monads. Can I say that they are dependent on the connection between either (at least) two things or two other ideas?

Which "they", specifically?

(I am going to swirl around your idea and splatter it. I think this will help me see the outline. Some of my statement questions may seem rather obvious, like this last, but they are helping me triangulate.)

ok, I'll try to help as much as possible, but unsure about the they above.

I understand I think, but what allows for anything to be "relational"? I'm trying to undercut everything thought. It is a dynamic between two things or ideas.

A staring contest. Where is it? It is both between and including the participants for a certain period of time. It weighs nothing.

Pi cannot be pointed out but it is a relation between facets of circles.

God could be seen as a relationship between a subject and the universe. A word for a different overall relationship to everything.



Which "they", specifically? Things that are like 'pi' and 'God'

No, but one can measure the circumference and the diameter. The ratio between the two is Pi. So Pi exists in the natural world, it can be observed.

You couldn't if you hadn't learned it (or on the highly unlikely prospect, discovered it on your own). Pi exists because of thoughts about optimal shapes in the natural world. That's not the same as it being part of the natural physical world. pi is a utility, not a physical thing.

I, at least, can't observe God.. and certainly not in the natural world.

You could if you'd learned it. I think if I'd been raised to believe may well be telling you where and how you can see it blah blah. I don't believe, so I won't bother... but still... god is a utility, not a physical thing.

I think Pi has as much a physical component as a surface area has, the physical components being circumference and diameter.

Neither has an actual physical component. You're reaching and coming up wrong, like your example about averaging circular things.

Ok, the word Pi has a definition (as has any word). But the number is beyond definition, it is a universal constant.

And it being a 'universal' constant somehow manifests it physically eh?

You can only get to pi through thinking it so. You have to notice the optimal pattern "circle" through things that aren't actually circles, but are 'circular', then have the idea of checking ratios about things you model regarding the circle - which itself, it's a mathematical construct used to approximate reality.

But one can prove that this constant exists in nature by demonstrating the ratio exists.

That's just wrong, sorry. One can prove it exists in mathematics, which is used to approximate nature. You may understand more clearly if you read the link about perfect circles provided by gustav above.

It is a dynamic between two things or ideas.

A staring contest. Where is it? It is both between and including the participants for a certain period of time. It weighs nothing.

True. It exists in the minds of those who observe or participate in it. Would the evolution of any lineage of thought eventually come up with "the staring contest"? I'd say, not necessarily, as "seeing" is specific to things that have eyes that see like ours do. Other intelligent species may have sonar or who knows what.

Pi cannot be pointed out but it is a relation between facets of circles.

True. I would hypothesize that any species of similar intellect would eventually think the optimal shape "circle" and derive an equivalence of Pi as an important feature. Thus in this case, it would seem to justify my ideas whereas the staring contest does not necessarily.

God could be seen as a relationship between a subject and the universe. A word for a different overall relationship to everything.

As above, I think that any species pondering 'what the shit is with this existing thing' and no means by which to 'know', 'god' would eventually be posited as an answer. To me, this reveals "features about a space".

Of course it's all based on conjecture though.

Things that are like 'pi' and 'God'

I don't think pi nor god are causal, but cannot say so with much confidence. Rather, I think they are features about a space as indicated above.

So you say they seem relational. I think that's true, but ponder if there are basically topigraphical features to the set of "things that are relational", if you will.

True. It exists in the minds of those who observe or participate in it. Would the evolution of any lineage of thought eventually come up with "the staring contest"? I'd say, not necessarily, as "seeing" is specific to things that have eyes that see like ours do. Other intelligent species may have sonar or who knows what.
Well, I would guess most species would come across what would essentially be a staring contest. Two blind neodophins clicking at each other. Focused attention versus focused attention. Nevertheless, I could imagine a species not doing this. I would think the exception would be rare, but that is pure intuition. (I am talking about some members, since, of course, not all of us contests stares)

True. I would hypothesize that any species of similar intellect would eventually think the optimal shape "circle" and derive an equivalence of Pi as an important feature. Thus in this case, it would seem to justify my ideas whereas the staring contest does not necessarily.

As above, I think that any species pondering 'what the shit is with this existing thing' and no means by which to 'know', 'god' would eventually be posited as an answer. To me, this reveals "features about a space".

To me 'God' is somewhere between pi and staring contest. I think it is possible that an intelligent culture might not hit this idea. though rare.

I don't think pi nor god are causal, but cannot say so with much confidence. Rather, I think they are features about a space as indicated above.

So you say they seem relational. I think that's true, but ponder if there are basically topigraphical features to the set of "things that are relational", if you will.

That went past me. Can you rephrase with another metaphor.

If you didn't catch it, I was tryign to answer the two questions from the post before where I'd asked which "they" you meant. Lemme know if you still need clarification.

so ah
this god concept
does it hang?

Well, I would guess most species would come across what would essentially be a staring contest. Two blind neodophins clicking at each other. Focused attention versus focused attention. Nevertheless, I could imagine a species not doing this. I would think the exception would be rare, but that is pure intuition. (I am talking about some members, since, of course, not all of us contests stares)

I agree.

To me 'God' is somewhere between pi and staring contest. I think it is possible that an intelligent culture might not hit this idea. though rare.

I have it backwards. To me god would be more sure than pi because god is simply a projection of self onto nature, so to speak. I've referred to it as the anthropomorphization of nature, but it's the x-pomorphization I think. In other words I just think it is relational in the sense of "here is self with no clue reaching for answers" -> here is the obvious conclusion self can make through itself via projection. God(s) first, leading to god, most likely. I'd think a rare case would be straight to a single god idea.

But it is this capacity for projection that accounts for at least the seeds of comparable intellect. And basically this thread is about what things that can project, do project, and what they will inherently have in common because of the nature of the relationship of the projector to its environment. I'm setting it up as a "space" to try to model it.

so ah
this god concept
does it hang?

With what?

I thought you were going to destroy ideas here. Tease.

i was?
must have been the usual braggadocio
pardon

"anthropomorphized extrapolation".....inserted into google.....turned out the former word did not exist. google then offered me this...."anthropomorphic extrapolation". i then queried "anthropomorphic extrapolation god"

voila....or they are anthropomorphic extrapolations and projections of human social structures onto that which we call God. (Robert G. Brown) (http://phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_king/god_king/node2.html)

so ahh
the concept is a psych projection. a daddy
nothing like pi

garcon! stop the presses!

"anthropomorphized extrapolation".....inserted into google.....turned out the former word did not exist. google then offered me this...."anthropomorphic extrapolation". i then queried "anthropomorphic extrapolation god"

voila....or they are anthropomorphic extrapolations and projections of human social structures onto that which we call God. (Robert G. Brown) (http://phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_king/god_king/node2.html)

so ahh
the concept is a psych projection. a daddy
nothing like pi

garcon! stop the presses!


wasn't saying they're the same thing, but that they're equally 'real' as in there is no apparent physical manifestation of either. round things exist, circles don't. you don't see pi in a circle. you see a circle. you think pi, as you may think god.

tangentially, some would liken seeing pi in the circle to seeing god in the circle.

i was?
must have been the usual braggadocio
pardon


no, sowhatifitsdark was gonna.

you were going to answer my question to you, but forgot or didn't wanna.

“ Originally Posted by Gustav
so ah
this god concept
does it hang? ”

With what?

wasn't saying they're the same thing, but that they're equally 'real' as in there is no apparent physical manifestation of either. round things exist, circles don't. you don't see pi in a circle. you see a circle. you think pi, as you may think god.

tangentially, some would liken seeing pi in the circle to seeing god in the circle.

ah
sounded good so was gonna concede
then.......

the 2 thought processes differ. pi was a consequence of an abstract math calculation. god, a consequence of extrapolating thru analogy

?

I thought you were going to destroy ideas here. Tease.
Moi!?
Hell, I was working hard to make sure I understood the ideas. Having, apparantly, had some success with that, I fell back in a Buddha-bellied if not Buddha-enlightened liminal state and hoped that sparring between you and Gustav would stir something up in me.

But OK. I'll take Enmos' part in the story. No, Wes. How absurd. Pi and God cannot be from the same realm. If I want to find hints that my version of Pi - say to 5 decimal places - is correct or useful I can run to my nearest retro hula hoop dealer with string and a ruler, paper and pen and a small calculator and find some support for my 'idea'. To the things themselves for verification.

So on day two - not in Genesis terms, but with some urge to allude to that day - I leap from my threshold again feistily toward the things in themselves to verify or at least find some verification that my version of God is accurate or useful and

what tools do I bring

what do I measure?

With Pi it is clear toward what objects I run?
With God it is not?

My tools in relation to God seem to be abstract and even more abstract than Pi.

I cannot find the linking point between the idea and the physical world as I can with Pi.

I am stymied and dumb.

Why does Pi's realm seem to touch the world and God's realm not.

I hereby, as incarnation of Shiva, declare there realms different and your idea destroyed.

ah
sounded good so was gonna concede
then.......

the 2 thought processes differ. pi was a consequence of an abstract math calculation. god, a consequence of extrapolating thru analogy

?

I don't disagree at all, this however does not address the 'reality' of either. math is a language, yada yada yada.

The main commonality is that they're both abstract thingies like everythign we're working with here, being words and all. However, I think these are both natural features of abstract space. In other words, you let evolution happen and species, if they evolve intellect capable of abstractions and whatnot - facilitate the 'coming forth' of these ideas.

It could be 'god' and 'the plus sign' perhaps, as the notion of addition would seem similar, as you mentioned I think - logic seems to be an inevitability of the capacity for abstraction.

But I like pi for the example, because i think it's a 'trascendental number', and i think the notion of god is a 'transcendental reason' for existence - if you will - in a very similar way as pi is consequential to the notion of a circle, god is a consequential notion of consciousness as it evolves through out the existence of a species. At least that's what I'm exploring.

Kind of a meta analysis of intellectual evolution on the god tip there.

I don't think it necessary to be accepted by each individual, but that the idea is a necessary and crafty proposed solution to unknowable questions. Its utility overall to the species as a catch-all to tweak emotional trajectory has been at least as useful to the species as pi! Hehe.

In support of your point perhaps, or at least to stab around at it two questions:

Can the species ever move beyond the utility of the notion of pi, ever, really?

Can the species ever move beyond the utility of the notion of god, ever, really?


In all honesty I guess I don't really know the answers.

Both cases seem possible, but not likely.

In the second case though, I'm not sure if we could and still classify ourselves as the same species.

in that case i propose everything is an abstraction
levels of abstraction
some more abstract than others

/giggle

god is simply a bunch of superlatives which in turn, are nothing but abstractions

so there?

To Sowhatifit'sdark -
Bravo!

Moi!?
Hell, I was working hard to make sure I understood the ideas. Having, apparantly, had some success with that, I fell back in a Buddha-bellied if not Buddha-enlightened liminal state and hoped that sparring between you and Gustav would stir something up in me.

Ha. As if I even understand the ideas. I open my word hole and words come out when I think stuff. Sadly, it's that simple. I think I understand it sometimes and then other times think I'm dumb. Then I realize I'm not, but then think I'm dumb for thinking I'm not dumb. THEN I realize it's pointless to entertain either position too seriously and sort of chuckle silently.

If I want to find hints that my version of Pi - say to 5 decimal places - is correct or useful I can run to my nearest retro hula hoop dealer with string and a ruler, paper and pen and a small calculator and find some support for my 'idea'. To the things themselves for verification.

Yes, I know and agree that the utility of either concept is quite different. One is a precise mathematical tool and the other is a variable emotional tool. Got it, check. I think that skirts the stuff I thought you got before though about the features of abstract space stuff - I say hoping I'm not contradicting something I said but if so it goes to show I can't keep track of my own thoughts on the matter any better than you can.

So on day two - not in Genesis terms, but with some urge to allude to that day - I leap from my threshold again feistily toward the things in themselves to verify or at least find some verification that my version of God is accurate or useful and

Understood but as I said... you're making it apples and oranges where I'm talking about fruit.

what tools do I bring

your mind.

what do I measure?

you gauge your faith I suppose?

My tools in relation to God seem to be abstract and even more abstract than Pi.

Both ultimately serve emotional utility. One allows manipulation of the environment, allowing a feeling of safety, power perhaps, economic gain (again providing stability/safety) or whatever. One well, does whatever people need it to do for them so long as it doesn't involve anything physical. Perhaps we could think of it for people as an emotional safety blanket, a source of inspiration, a mental filter (or focal point if you will), etc.

I cannot find the linking point between the idea and the physical world as I can with Pi.

They're both about surviving in the physical world... *shrug*, they are both tools that satisfy emotional utility (which is ultimately percieved survival I suppose) maybe... fuck I dunno. If you step out of the species in your imagination, and see the species use of god, and the use of pi - while the direct use is quite different, I think they're both probably simply a consequence of intellect (a species worth I mean) over time.

I am stymied and dumb.

Maybe I am too. A lot of times my big ideas in a moment seem to end up mere mental flatulence. Ultimately I suppose I'm just trying to make my same old point with a different argument. I'm fascinated by the status of "that which is abstract" in "reality" like, how real is it, implications, and some related stuff.

Why does Pi's realm seem to touch the world and God's realm not.

Try this: both touch the world, but one is a LOT more specific and independent of interpretation. does pi work as a very, very specific god? well maybe in the sense that it is a tool used by our species to deal with problems. the general problem "wtf?" is answered at first by gods, evolving to god. the general problem of "wtf is with that round shit?" is answered by the idealized circle, numbers, a coordinate system, some theorums and shit, from which we deduce the highly specific and effective answer -> pi.

perhaps I'm really, REALLY reaching, but meh, seems reasonable at the moment.

I hereby, as incarnation of Shiva, declare there realms different and your idea destroyed.

Well played sir.

that donut topography math comes to mind. geometric topography? is that it? hmm... can't think of it. i might be tryign to do the same type of stuff except with concepts instead of numbers? christ I'm thick.

Lol, and now the tangent seems to me:

Which is more real, god or mathematics?

Yes I agree you can't add god, you win on that point for sure.

But both are tools we made up from nothing to address things we decided we needed to know about.

The average person (species wide) likely thinks they know far more about god than math ya think? About the same maybe?

Lol, both are mysteries to most! Ok fuck it I'm beat gnite.

i am annoyed
i will turn on an extra brain cell
i will nuke this place

you ALL have been warned

i'm beat too
4.32 am
shall fall asleep to the tranformers movie

]Yes, I know and agree that the utility of either concept is quite different. One is a precise mathematical tool and the other is a variable emotional tool.
I disagree, devil's advocate and the other me can agree on this one. God is not merely an emotional tool. It is very much an intellectual one. It is an organizing point for a wide variety of categorizations, analyzes and so on. You are confusing your sense of motive with the tool itself. A gun seems like an emotional tool, but it fires a bullet.

Got it, check. I think that skirts the stuff I thought you got before though about the features of abstract space stuff - I say hoping I'm not contradicting something I said but if so it goes to show I can't keep track of my own thoughts on the matter any better than you can.
One realm touches, the other does not. I got. But I have run over to Napolean's lines. One Europe I scream, for the people.

Understood but as I said... you're making it apples and oranges where I'm talking about fruit. I am attacking your notion that fruit is a category. Pi seems more like monkey than God. Again, I can run out and look at a lot of monkeys. If I am really crass I can swab their gums and check their DNA. Yet nowhere is 'THE MONKEY'.

your mind.
Difference. I do not need physical tools. I claim a point.

you gauge your faith I suppose? You think of belief in God as an outsider and try to imagine what it would be to place it within the network already present in your mind. The notion of God stills something. It puts it to rest. Not emotions. You are thinking too much of worst case believers filing out of North Carolina Baptist churches looking for a homosexual to drag behind their pick ups. It rests (as in stills, becalms) the agitation of mystery that is quivering (and hard to place in ONLY subject or object) in a wide variety of places GIVEN how we are individually impacted. (I am an empath, you will have to believe me on this one.) And it is conceptual ALSO and has little to do with fear.

1) How does the big metal boat float? (it clearly does. quivering mysterious agitation......)

2) The teacher emerges from a bush. "Average densities, displaced water weight, blah, blah".

3) A mind becalmed. (stress on mind)

Let me give you a hint: the scientist becalms himself by saying 'one day' or 'some things cannot be known'. Generally at the same time. Right hemisphere not knowing what the left one is doing.

They're both about surviving in the physical world... *shrug*, they are both tools that satisfy emotional utility (which is ultimately percieved survival I suppose) maybe... fuck I dunno. If you step out of the species in your imagination, and see the species use of god, and the use of pi - while the direct use is quite different, I think they're both probably simply a consequence of intellect (a species worth I mean) over time.

Presumption: no God. By what tools come I to this presumption. I cannot evaluate use without knowing more about this presumption. Could be pattern recognition rather than simply a tool. AS PI WAS.......! When is it pattern recognition. When is it heuristic device. No question marks. And then question marks. Nothing is more important.


Maybe I am too. A lot of times my big ideas in a moment seem to end up mere mental flatulence. Ultimately I suppose I'm just trying to make my same old point with a different argument. I'm fascinated by the status of "that which is abstract" in "reality" like, how real is it, implications, and some related stuff.
For some, perhaps most individuals God seems to have nothing to do with anything in particular. There is no linking point. Faith is mentioned here a lot. I think we can translate for them 'God' into 'I am too ________ to (decide, know, explain, find, justify........) and this word allows me to move to cite a book or my local expert.

An 'out of my depth' detour sign.

but for others....?

We must not treat God, the word, as a single tool, process or something that refers to any one.............

Try this: both touch the world, but one is a LOT more specific and independent of interpretation. does pi work as a very, very specific god? well maybe in the sense that it is a tool used by our species to deal with problems. the general problem "wtf?" is answered at first by gods, evolving to god. the general problem of "wtf is with that round shit?" is answered by the idealized circle, numbers, a coordinate system, some theorums and shit, from which we deduce the highly specific and effective answer -> pi.

perhaps I'm really, REALLY reaching, but meh, seems reasonable at the moment.
.

No, this is too easy. Now I am going to challenge you. Imagine the best example - in your value system - of a God believer and answer three questions from his or her perspective:

1) Where is the contact point between this God and the world?
2) How is this not merely an emotional tool?
3) What can you do with this tool?

I think you will find that your argument will be weak to the extent that the believers you imagine are weak. You have a bias, yourself, towards seeing more utility and contact in the idea 'pi' than in the word God. And I am your mirror showing your bias. You wish to provoke. Good. But you must trust your provocation more. You must find the most utilizable God. An emotional tool!? could be replaced with Zoloft.

Think best case - it may be uncomfortable - the farthest from straw man. What does the God tool do?

I mean remember we've got people who are God believers who know their science, literature and they've meditated (to translate the term) as much as some Zen masters. I mean monotheists, even, even Christians. You know, like they look at you and they can see your problems, tendencies, habits of mind, self-hatred, relationship dynamics. Some heavy mystics - like a Rumi - some more banal in focus. And these guys are tossing around the word God. What the hell do they need another Zoloft for. Tool must be more a Swiss Army Knife, nudge nudge. What are they doing with it?

Prayer, for example, in the mouth of Notre Dames (jeez where do you put the apostrophe with that one, seems like it needs two, but I doubt us americans are even aware of that) football coach before a big game is not the extent of prayer. How about contemplation?

Let alone shamans.....(take it as an injunction perhaps)

Some more hints or provocations:

What is the use of God for those who have dialogues with God?
What is the use of God for those who have mystical experiences? (choose one kind)

Could 'God' mediate the conscious and unconcscious minds?
Could it connect the hemispheres? (not in the bicameral mind foo foo way.)

Why do religions often have techniques to quiet the mind?

But both are tools we made up from nothing to address things we decided we needed to know about.


No, no stay with 'found' or 'discovered'. Be provocative.

Been eyeballing this thread since it started ...


But both are tools we made up from nothing

Careful here. From nothing comes nothing.


to address things we decided we needed to know about.

This is tricky.

There are situations where we indeed find ourselves deciding whether we need to know something or not. Like whether that clothing item can be washed at 60°C or whether that person really loves us or how much we need to know before we first venture into the stock market.

But for the most part, I think, we glide through life, pursuing numerous interests, not really sure how much we want or need to know about them.

To address things we decided we needed to know about.
Can you really decide whether you need to know about the origin of the Universe?
Can you really decide whether you need to know about what happens after death?
Can you really decide whether you need to know about the meaning of life?
I think not. Because those questions are so big and so complex that in the process of trying to answer them, we rephrase them, turn them into some other questions which are perhaps easier to address.


And moreover, we are subject to various cognitive and memory biases. We will tend to interpet our past in a way that makes sense to us and empowers us in the present.
This means that it is quite likely that we will look back at our past and claim about some event or decision that we back then decided we needed to know about, when this might not be what was actually happening at the time.


The average person (species wide) likely thinks they know far more about god than math ya think?

Perhaps. But there is an important difference:
People do not tend to beat themselves up and consider themselves worthless if they don't immediately understand math, they tend to understand it takes a lot of time and practice to do well at math.
On the other hand, people seem to tend to think that God is something they can understand soon or even right away sufficiently enough to employ in everyday life and to rely on for now and forever.

I disagree, devil's advocate and the other me can agree on this one. God is not merely an emotional tool. It is very much an intellectual one. It is an organizing point for a wide variety of categorizations, analyzes and so on. You are confusing your sense of motive with the tool itself. A gun seems like an emotional tool, but it fires a bullet.

No I was just making a generalization. I didn't mean god isn't an intellectual tool, I was just saying that it seems that the average person utilizes it as such. Categorization seems to get fuzzy to me though. If one questions the origin of the universe and intellectually decides "god did it", is that not just an emotional tool? Bah it's beside the point though.

I do think it's arguable that all motivation for action is emotional. I see that car gonna hit me. I'd better move out of the way. It could be said that's an intellectual decision, but the motivation is "don't die", which is emotional as I see it.

One realm touches, the other does not. I got. But I have run over to Napolean's lines. One Europe I scream, for the people.

That sounds neat and stuff but sort of an inside joke that seems different every time I read it. If it's important please reformulate if you don't mind.

I am attacking your notion that fruit is a category.

Pfffffft. Pshaw even. Fruit is definately a category. For it to be, merely say it so.

Pi seems more like monkey than God.

Hmm... then perhaps your appreciation of pi isn't nearly esoteric enough for my taste. :p

Again, I can run out and look at a lot of monkeys.

Yes but you can't run out and look at pi. It doesn't physically exist except as a symbol.

If I am really crass I can swab their gums and check their DNA. Yet nowhere is 'THE MONKEY'.

Certainly, but pi doesn't represent a physical object either. It's at minimum 'once removed'. It's a logical consequence of optimized round things and mathematics. God is a logical consequence of 'wtf is with everything' (and usually no math), Pi - 'wtf with round things'.

Difference. I do not need physical tools. I claim a point.

For some reason I just envisioned a flag being jammed into my skull. You really don't need physical tools to calculate pi do you? Tesla could surely have done it in his head eh? Hehe.

You think of belief in God as an outsider and try to imagine what it would be to place it within the network already present in your mind.

No I really don't, that's not the way I'm looking at it. I can't really imagine me having a belief in god explicitely, so I don't intentionally entertain it. I just try to examine its function in the species, making no judgement as to its accuracy - but trying to judge its subject and collective utility (both intellectual and emotional).

The notion of God stills something. It puts it to rest. Not emotions.

The very notion of being stilled - to me - seems rather explicitely emotional, regardless of how one might depict it. I see it as stilling a yearning perhaps. I'm somewhat flexible on it, so I'll see what else you've got...

You are thinking too much of worst case believers filing out of North Carolina Baptist churches looking for a homosexual to drag behind their pick ups.

No really, I'm quite positive I was not. I was framing it in terms well, like what I think of as an anthropological approach. I don't need to judge it in terms of dipshits. I used to think poorly of it, but have since come to what I hope is a much more 'enlightened' understanding.

You might consider that I don't look on emotional utility in the way you might think. I see it as a function of being a human, in all humans. It plays a large role in my view of mind.

It rests (as in stills, becalms) the agitation of mystery that is quivering (and hard to place in ONLY subject or object) in a wide variety of places GIVEN how we are individually impacted. (I am an empath, you will have to believe me on this one.) And it is conceptual ALSO and has little to do with fear.

I do believe you that you're an empath. I fancy myself similarly to some extent at least. I don't see how what you offered isn't a big emotional explanation though. I don't mean as in "weakness", I mean as "gratification" or "necessary internal balance" or something along those lines.

1) How does the big metal boat float? (it clearly does. quivering mysterious agitation......)

2) The teacher emerges from a bush. "Average densities, displaced water weight, blah, blah".

3) A mind becalmed. (stress on mind)

Again, that's all emotional stuff. Stress to me, is at root an emotional function and whatnot. It's an emotional reaction to perception of one's circumstance. I'm just sayin. Not saying it's bad, saying that's how I classify it.

Let me give you a hint: the scientist becalms himself by saying 'one day' or 'some things cannot be known'. Generally at the same time. Right hemisphere not knowing what the left one is doing.

Sure. Way ahead of you there.

Presumption: no God. By what tools come I to this presumption. I cannot evaluate use without knowing more about this presumption.

Hmm. Before one knows of the idea "god" in childhood, have they presumed "no god"? Once the idea is introduced, if it is not accepted, is that presuming no god?

Could be pattern recognition rather than simply a tool.

We fashion tools (mental and physical) based on apparent fact that we can recognize patterns. So now I stick a flag in YOUR skull. (proverbially of course) God is an idea that answers puzzles posed by patterns. So is pi.

AS PI WAS.......! When is it pattern recognition. When is it heuristic device. No question marks. And then question marks. Nothing is more important.

Well I think I covered it above... You don't utilize hueristic devices until you've recognized enough patterns to contrast with one another, creating (or discovering) puzzles to solve.

For some, perhaps most individuals God seems to have nothing to do with anything in particular. There is no linking point. Faith is mentioned here a lot. I think we can translate for them 'God' into 'I am too ________ to (decide, know, explain, find, justify........) and this word allows me to move to cite a book or my local expert.

I don't understand that. The translating part confused the snot out of me.

An 'out of my depth' detour sign.

Lol, yeah no doubt. Oh lol, I see what you mean pardon. Sure. There's a decent amount of utility just in that I suppose. Most smart dudes I've spoken with on the subject use the word sort of that way sometimes, but there's more too it, the faith thing like you said. I think the utility is like you said above, to calm the potential mental strain of falling past one's comfortable depth. As a natural phenomenon - like that, regardless of the "realness" of god, the idea itself is very powerful in that, if embraces - offers a potentially powerful emotional tool that well, there's a huge amount of potential upside, but some potential downers too, thinking in terms of 'cost in mental energy and efficiency'.

but for others....?

We must not treat God, the word, as a single tool, process or something that refers to any one.............

I calling it a "variable tool" doesn't do that you sanctimonious bastard. Lol. Teasing you. To me, everything every human ever thinks, tells themselves or others is really pretty much bullshit we either made up or discovered, a grand rationalization from a grand biological machine that's function is to rationalize, basically. Not that it isn't meaningful and incredibly fascinating, gratifying, etc. etc. etc. bullshit.

I mean physically, there is no other time than the present eh? So that's the reality. Yet in that reality exist creatures that ponder other times, allowing them the capacity to recognize patterns in that time. It's magical bullshit, and I like it.

No, this is too easy. Now I am going to challenge you. Imagine the best example - in your value system - of a God believer and answer three questions from his or her perspective:

1) Where is the contact point between this God and the world?

Well I mean if pressed on the issue I'd think omnipresence is hard to skirt.

2) How is this not merely an emotional tool?

I think you took off on this point a bit far, but I like your questions so ...

Well the only answers I can think of are protected in faith. Really though it depends on how you classify emotions. I could say people arguing it to be "a sprititual reality" rather than a tool of any sort. Within a certain model, that's the correct answer. Emotions and spiritual stuff isn't the same, so there. The way I see it, spirituality is a function of emotion. Please understand, that's not to belittle it, it's just the way it fits into the model that intersts me most. Spirituality to me a "mode" more common to some than others of "emotional function".

3) What can you do with this tool?

God's will? Hehe. Uhm... but seriously folks. That's not really that bad of an answer I think, but like you said - you can find 'calm' you can justify smiting your enemies, you can yada yada yada. It depends on the conception and its function in the individual mind. If you're the manipulative type, it would seem you can have a lot fun with it. If you're the earnest type, you might do a lot of really great things with it.

You have a bias, yourself, towards seeing more utility and contact in the idea 'pi' than in the word God.

Personal utility, yes. General utility (under question in the thread) no. In fact the opposite. God, as I believe I implied earlier - has perhaps more potential utility than any other concept.

And I am your mirror showing your bias. You wish to provoke. Good.

Honestly it seems you've exposed your own more than mine - but perhaps I'm biased. Yikes! Thee mind. SO triksy.

But you must trust your provocation more. You must find the most utilizable God. An emotional tool!? could be replaced with Zoloft.

Does zoloft give some sort of god high? You don't think that zoloft is generally used to whatever you said above 'sooth' something? I think you perhaps unwittingly exposed more similarity than difference - not that it's necessarily so, just that it's what you seemed expose. Perhaps in the context I've provided since you can see how your equivocation is unjustified. Perhaps I'm misreading all this.

Think best case - it may be uncomfortable - the farthest from straw man. What does the God tool do?

Dude, I've done entire threads on this. More than one I thikn, but the only one that comes to mind was titled "good god". I really don't need to rehash the whole thing, but I accept what you've offered here as valid points as to its utility. I think it bonds tribes in purpose. I think it crashes through mental barriers. I think it offers a point of reflection in the abstract space of the individual mind. Lots of stuff. In fact, I think it actually largley responsible for the survivability of the species. God gets your ass out of bed or onto the battlefield when you just don't fucking feel like it or rather perhaps - make you feel like it and in fact, keeps you from not feeling like doing. A friend of mine recently anagrammed god for me but for the life of me he told me twice and it just will not stick in my head. Something like "get on direction", the gist was that he saw no sky daddy whatsoever, but is a faithful christian - and looks at god as "what motivates", basically but his thing was so much better, it was perfect. It was really cool how he said it. I really dug what little I got of his perspective on it.

I mean remember we've got people who are God believers who know their science, literature and they've meditated (to translate the term) as much as some Zen masters. I mean monotheists, even, even Christians. You know, like they look at you and they can see your problems, tendencies, habits of mind, self-hatred, relationship dynamics. Some heavy mystics - like a Rumi - some more banal in focus. And these guys are tossing around the word God. What the hell do they need another Zoloft for. Tool must be more a Swiss Army Knife, nudge nudge. What are they doing with it?

Well you'd have to be more specific for me to venture a guess.

Prayer, for example, in the mouth of Notre Dames (jeez where do you put the apostrophe with that one, seems like it needs two, but I doubt us americans are even aware of that) football coach before a big game is not the extent of prayer. How about contemplation?

I'm almost out of it for now.

What is the use of God for those who have dialogues with God?

Imaginary friend? Consolation? Being put at ease? Split personality? Inspiration? Lots of potential.

What is the use of God for those who have mystical experiences? (choose one kind)

I'll go with focal point for now.

Could 'God' mediate the conscious and unconcscious minds?

Well shit I dunno, but to me god is unknowable. I can't imagine an idea meditating, but that's not to say it can't. Just that I don't think there's a logical way to make the claim except along the lines of what my friend said.

Could it connect the hemispheres? (not in the bicameral mind foo foo way.)

Hard to say, I'd guess yes on the condition that nuerons can connect across hemispheres as part of continued brain development. I'd think "how you think" could play a large part in the connecting.

Why do religions often have techniques to quiet the mind?

To engage with a focal point perhaps?

Careful here. From nothing comes nothing.

Virtual particles, ha! lol..

To address things we decided we needed to know about.
Can you really decide whether you need to know about the origin of the Universe?

Well sure you could if you want to. *shrug* Generally the reason to do so is reflective of one's changing state of mind. In the more general case "could humans decide they need to know about the origins of the universe" I'd say no. They need to figure out because the patterns we observe comprise in this case perhaps "the biggest mystery". In the case of early man, I'd guess once ego started to develop (a sense of self), EVERYTHING was 'the biggest mystery'. So many patterns, so few resolutions in making those patterns mesh into useful information for surviving.

Can you really decide whether you need to know about what happens after death?

I think the answer above works for this too.

Can you really decide whether you need to know about the meaning of life?

Well I've come to a conclusion on that, and it's that it's a bogus question. Life means different things to different things capable of hosting meaning.

I think not. Because those questions are so big and so complex that in the process of trying to answer them, we rephrase them, turn them into some other questions which are perhaps easier to address.

While we persue the other questions, the originals go ignored? Seriously I think a lot of people basically ignore the question most of the time, so in effect they decide not to pursue them - generally because it's an opportunity cost they don't accept.

And moreover, we are subject to various cognitive and memory biases. We will tend to interpet our past in a way that makes sense to us and empowers us in the present.

Certainly.

This means that it is quite likely that we will look back at our past and claim about some event or decision that we back then decided we needed to know about, when this might not be what was actually happening at the time.

True enough, but I don't see it as clearly relevant. If you decide to pursue it now, and then do... then you've clearly decided and done - regardless of potential bias in the future regarding the issue.


Perhaps. But there is an important difference:
People do not tend to beat themselves up and consider themselves worthless if they don't immediately understand math, they tend to understand it takes a lot of time and practice to do well at math.

Hmm. Well I disagree actually. I think it's perhaps nearly the same thing. Calculus was to me for a long period of my youth, some mystical thing I was sure I could never comprehend no matter what I did. I must be beyond me. I've seen ton of people who ignore huge potential in their lives because it involved math and they were basically intimidated by it.

On the other hand, people seem to tend to think that God is something they can understand soon or even right away sufficiently enough to employ in everyday life and to rely on for now and forever.

Hmmm. I don't think so. Most people grow up with some conception of god, and it's with them for a long time before they even necessarily understand what's happened. It's not something people just find about one day and decide "works for me!" and go on relying on it from that point forward. It's a process they learn at church, from family, or whatever.

I do think it's arguable that all motivation for action is emotional. I see that car gonna hit me. I'd better move out of the way. It could be said that's an intellectual decision, but the motivation is "don't die", which is emotional as I see it. Actions can come after the tool use. We calculate the line of approach of an asteroid and realize there is a collision likely. Then emotions happen. I think ideas can affect the way we see and what we notice. Sometimes only in the aftermath do emotions play a part.

Yes but you can't run out and look at pi. It doesn't physically exist except as a symbol.

You can't run out and look at 'monkey'. You can look at a monkey. The original use of the idea monkey was simpler, but now, with the taxonomic complexity behind it, it is pretty esoteric. As are many words.

The very notion of being stilled - to me - seems rather explicitely emotional, regardless of how one might depict it. I see it as stilling a yearning perhaps. I'm somewhat flexible on it, so I'll see what else you've got... My example's focus was poor. The intellectual insight - right or wrong - stills. Pattern recognition. 'There is a difference between the way men and women clean," said the detective, "I think it is likely this room has been cleaned by a woman. See if he has a service. We need to talk to her." He could be calmed or excited by his - let's say for the sake of argument, accurate, but intuitive read of cleaning styles - use of his idea. But the idea is first intellectual. Explanatory. It helps him see.

Let me compress the rest of the interchange:

If I meet a problem as an non-believer or even as a believer who does not use the God tool in this way, I can wrestle with it mentally. Try to imagine and weigh various solutions, all the while staying very much in the conscious mind, which is directing much of the choices of focus, heuristic tool choices, evaluation responsibility.

If I bring God into the picture and request help in a solution, I shift the way my brain is working. I shift from consciously active, to consciously receptive. I await a response. In prayer, meditation, contemplation the brain actually acts differently. It begins to function more as in a brainstorming session. It does not use the consciously remembered past as a template to evaluate the present and possible futures. Certainly unconsciously remembered past events affect what it is capable of, but the range is necessarily greater. The potential connections made between realms is greater - metaphor choice, the types of things that will pop into the mind. People who believe in God actually hear advice, receive images, gain perspective, and find solutions to impasses that their conscious minds would have been less likely to come up with. There are many secular creativity tool that have been developed in the last century that mirror religious practices in many ways. The God tool, and the myriad ways religious people use this tool in problem solving, helps people get past intellectual impasses.
'What to do about Mary, shit. Nursing home, or my home."
"Why does this person keep picking on me."
"Where can I live so that I get both nature and city life."
"Why do I keep attracting these sorts of guys."

are a few possible questions that can be asked, contemplated in the presence of God, meditated on, let alone all the kinds of shamanic pyrotechnics that could be utilized to explore the issues.

We are creatures of habit. We have mental ruts. The conscious mind or what we tend to do in everyday thinking is very, very rut covered.

The God device allows us to slip out of our own ruts.

From here one can go into the issues of whether it is God or merely an 'as if' tool. But that is a side issue to this discussion.

I think many believers are not simply
feeling anxiety in the face of death
and imagining a God and feeling better.

They have an ongoing relationship. To soothe rationalists we can say that 'really' this relationship is with their own unconscious mind. They have learned to be open to what comes from their unconscious minds, rather than editing and preemptive striking at ideas that do not fit with who they think they are, or should be, or what they have done in the past or what must be the options available. Most non-religious have probably been around other people who are very good at this kind of creativity or have even attended workshops and gotten some training. Perhaps done it once outside the workshop and then never again, while appreciating the door it opened.


What I notice is that religious people utilizing this idea of a present, accessible, infinitely wise creative support 'person' are able to navigate a wide range of impasses, problems, internal and external conflicts, due to the creative ideas they can generate from this 'relationship to God' idea (or reality).

Certainly the loving, all knowing helper has a large emotional component. One is vastly more likely to be successful at intellectual tasks (and emotional ones) if one feels supported and loved and that someone has confidence in some root way in us. But the entire process much more that emotional and the aims of a 'session' are often practical or intellectual - what can be done, what is really going on here, how am I contributing to the problem, what role does this person have, what are they doing....

and so on.

Some people use these in less psychological areas also. In generating practical solutions where inventions even organizational changes are needed. To give a couple of examples.

Since it came up here recently and relates I'll link to this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78973

In a sense I am arguing that God can function like a set of heuristic devices. I am also saying that it is a device that is anti-heuristic. In other words it combats a lot of habitual and limited heuristic devices that, without our noticing it, cut off possibilities.

Hmm. Well I disagree actually. I think it's perhaps nearly the same thing. Calculus was to me for a long period of my youth, some mystical thing I was sure I could never comprehend no matter what I did. I must be beyond me. I've seen ton of people who ignore huge potential in their lives because it involved math and they were basically intimidated by it.

Then this is your specific bias, and it also might bias the way you think about God - since you speak of both math and God in this thread.

I love math. Not that I'm very good at it, other interests took over. But math was one of the few things I didn't feel shitty about at school.
So that's my bias ...


On the other hand, people seem to tend to think that God is something they can understand soon or even right away sufficiently enough to employ in everyday life and to rely on for now and forever.

Hmmm. I don't think so. Most people grow up with some conception of god, and it's with them for a long time before they even necessarily understand what's happened. It's not something people just find about one day and decide "works for me!" and go on relying on it from that point forward. It's a process they learn at church, from family, or whatever.

True, of course.

But look at people who first get involved with theism in their teenage years or as adults. They practically suppose that theistic doctrines should be possible to understand right away, or at least within a foreseeable time.

And look at the Religion forum - atheists and theists deriding eachother on the assumption that arguments for and against God can be understood properly just like that, from one post to another.

Moreover, look at the poor job many theists do in explaining themselves and theistic doctrines. Full of illogic, logical and factual fallacies, and manipulation.

All in all, many people (both theist and atheist) do seem to think that God is basically easy to know.

Sowhat,

Yah I like what you have to say, but I don't think it makes the point that pi is more or less real than god.

I have however realized my own setup isn't quite fair, but I don't know how else to go about it yet. The thing is, I envision "abstract space" as part of reality, yet immaterial - though not disconnected from the material. It's what's through the looking glass, the reflections of 'what is' as seen from what we are. I think this space to be inherently part of the functionality of the universe or we couldn't have this conversation. To me, observing my own experience leads me to think that abstract space has inherent features. I used to use 'beauty' as an example. I'd think any intelligent species would discover the concept... and similarly with pi and god. The actuality, or "realness" of any of the three is ultimately irrelevant to me, as their place in the abstract landscape is what I find fascinating.

I have though, assumed such a space to exist in setting up the thread. Now I'm arguing for it when I've already assumed it. That's redundant and perhaps circular.

Regardless, I've seen little to sway me from the equality of "reality" between pi and god. I think both are intellectual inevitabilities on a species kind of scale, and I ponder the implications.

I'll check out your thread about the hueristics. Sounds rather interesting.

Yah I like what you have to say, but I don't think it makes the point that pi is more or less real than god. Well, I've jumped teams I don't know what I'm advocating anymore. I just don't think the God thing is emotional or even primarily emotional.

I suspect the two of you are operating on different definitions of "emotion(-al)".

probably, but if you noticed I specified that wasn't a point I was trying to make. if pressed I'd argue every major belief is primarily emotional, in terms of providing a stabalizing force to hold the structure of mind as firmly in place as it is in the mind of whomever. I think everything has an emotional component, as emotions are basically the thread on which thoughts are weaved, sort of. Hard to explain. Stresses and strains in thought either are, or directly manifest emotion, methinks.

To me, intellect and emotion both comprise the bulk of all thought, as each thought could be described as having a dash of each. Emotions are always present, however squelched. Same with intellect. God is a concept that often has a strong emotional impact and/or association. To me that's a key characteristic. I think your hueristic idea is of course, also true and have argued that in the past to the negative for the most part. My point having been that:

god is purported to be about "the ultimate truth" but it often employed as the most powerful hueristic possible: It slims the solution set to one repeated answer.

Looking back, I find my argument a little unfair in that I've said it's supposed to be about the ultimate truth and interpreted it as often abused to be the one repeated answer, whereas many believers wouldn't offer that argument, it's unfair to characterize all believers as I did.

The brain is a hueristic machine in my opinion, with like - feedback and stuff. Pretty sweet.

For the shit of it, I now will argue that even when following and algorithm the brain is excercising hueristics, creating as it goes, shortcuts to perform the algorithm more automatically, or in a way that, if the brain has the energy to expend towards the task, creates stronger inter-relationships between the related muscular control junk and concepts associated with whatever context with which the mind is engaged at a given time.

god is purported to be about "the ultimate truth" but it often employed as the most powerful hueristic possible: It slims the solution set to one repeated answer.

Take a look at this sentence and tell me what you think:

When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done, one is bewildered and unprotected.



The brain is a hueristic machine in my opinion, with like - feedback and stuff. Pretty sweet.

Sure. But there are limits (depending on the individual person, of course) to how appealing and how satisfying such a pragmatist/utilitarian outlook is.
See above sentence in italics.

Take a look at this sentence and tell me what you think:
When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done, one is bewildered and unprotected.


Well I think it often true, but not necessarily. It depends on the subjectively apparent gravity of the quandry at hand. Some people can let the apparently gravest of things wash