Is Life a Dialogue or a Monologue?

[sideshowbob]

Because it is impermanent.

Why does something have to be permanent to "matter"?

How many of your ancestors do you remember?

I remember my parents and three of my grandparents. I know things about the grandfather who died before I was born, so he "matters" to me too.

Death is the natural conclusion to life.

What does that have to do with perfection?

In other words, God exists regardless of humanity. We are simply an expression.

I thought you said that God is our collective consciousness. Doesn't that imply that He is an expression of us, not vice versa?

 

[Write4U]

If a god created all and is everything as some believe...Then wouldn't it be this god that is having the ''monologue''. Believing in itself and not believing in itself at the same time?

Is that not what cosmology actually proposes?
But rather than using the word dialogue, we use the phrase self-referential information processing, i.e monologue.

The same holds true for persons. Even if we are engaged in a dialogue, ultimately it is a self-referential monologue. The act of processing any information is a self-referential process.

A best guess of what's out there. My brain tells me I see a horse. After checking my memory function it appears that my brain's guess is correct and what I see is in fact a horse.

When my neighbor tells me he sees a horse also, I am having a dialogue with my neighbor, but what he tells me is subject to the same self-referential processes as all sensory input.
But from the several confirmations I "know" that I am seeing a horse.

 

[Bowser]

Why does something have to be permanent to "matter"?

If it has importance to you, that is fine. However, nothing in this world is permanent. In fact, it all comes to an end when you die.

I remember my parents and three of my grandparents. I know things about the grandfather who died before I was born, so he "matters" to me too.

Okay Bob.

What does that have to do with perfection?

Absolutely nothing.

I thought you said that God is our collective consciousness. Doesn't that imply that He is an expression of us, not vice versa?

We would then conclude that we are the only expression of God. That's a bit arrogant.

 

[Write4U]

We would then conclude that we are the only expression of God. That's a bit arrogant.

Aren't we expressions of ourselves? All my implicate potentials point to my continued existence, at least for a little while.

 

[sideshowbob]

If it has importance to you, that is fine. However, nothing in this world is permanent. In fact, it all comes to an end when you die.

You don't seem to have thought it through. You're just skating around the implications.

We would then conclude that we are the only expression of God. That's a bit arrogant.

What's arrogant is thinking that we are part of God or that God is a collective us. What's humble - and realistic - is that we're piles of chemicals in a chemical universe that has no God.

 

[Bowser]

Aren't we expressions of ourselves? All my implicate potentials point to my continued existence, at least for a little while.

My understanding from what I've read and listened to is that we are more like a flashlight that illuminates the world. A flashlight can't illuminate itself. The problem is that we filter that light through concepts and ideas.

 

[akoreamerican]

We would then conclude that we are the only expression of God. That's a bit arrogant.

I wonder if any dinosaurs thought this back when they were the dominant lifeforms on earth

 

[Bowser]

You don't seem to have thought it through. You're just skating around the implications.

I'm not skating around the implications. Imperfection gives this world motion. It wouldn't exist without imperfection.

What's arrogant is thinking that we are part of God or that God is a collective us. What's humble - and realistic - is that we're piles of chemicals in a chemical universe that has no God.

So I'm having a conversation with a beaker tube of chemicals?

 

[Bowser]

I wonder if any dinosaurs thought this back when they were the dominant lifeforms on earth

My dog loves being a dog, chasing her ball and snacking on my leftovers. She's just happy to be a dog.

 

[Write4U]

My understanding from what I've read and listened to is that we are more like a flashlight that illuminates the world. A flashlight can't illuminate itself. The problem is that we filter that light through concepts and ideas.

A flashlight certainly can illuminate itself, but it depends on a limited internal power source.

People are also self illuminating , however our power source lies outside our body

I'm not skating around the implications. Imperfection gives this world motion. It wouldn't exist without imperfection.

So I'm having a conversation with a beaker tube of chemicals?

According to the Standard Model, you and everything else in the universe is made up of 17 particles.
i.e. You too are a beaker of particles.

The Standard Model of elementary particles (more schematic depiction), with the three generations of matter, gauge bosons in the fourth column, and the Higgs boson in the fifth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Maybe it might be more accurate to say everything is a pattern of 17 elementary particles.
Thus it is "patterns" communicating with "patterns". That is beginning to sound logical.

 

[sweetpea]

I think that is the idea. A God at play with itself, experiencing itself as other.

So, you give thanks via your bowl of porridge, to an experimenting god? But, you say you are god ''experiencing itself as other''.
So, that's a god thanking itself.
Why does a god thank itself?

 

[Write4U]

So, you give thanks via your bowl of porridge, to an experimenting god? But, you say you are god ''experiencing itself as other''.
So, that's a god thanking itself.
Why does a god thank itself?

Reassurance......

 

[sweetpea]

So I'm having a conversation with a beaker tube of chemicals?

Well, no, according to you, your a god talking to itself. God is you and god is everything.

 

[Bowser]

So, you give thanks via your bowl of porridge, to an experimenting god? But, you say you are god ''experiencing itself as other''.
So, that's a god thanking itself.
Why does a god thank itself?

I don't know. If I put my hands together and bowed to you as a matter of respect, would you be offended?

 

[Bowser]

According to the Standard Model, you and everything else in the universe is made up of 17 particles.
i.e. You too are a beaker of particles.

And which of those 17 particles account for our awareness of each other?

 

[sweetpea]

I don't know. If I put my hands together and bowed to you as a matter of respect, would you be offended?

But, you are me , I'm you, god is everything remember. A god thanking itself. A god bowing to itself??

 

[Bowser]

But, you are me , I'm you, god is everything remember. A god thanking itself.

Yes. So...? I'm failing to see your point. If we are the same, should I club you over the head or bow in appreciation?

 

[sweetpea]

Yes. So...? I'm failing to see your point. If we are the same, should I club you over the head or bow in appreciation?

No, just explain why a god (being everything) should thank itself? Or bow to itself?

 

[Write4U]

And which of those 17 particles account for our awareness of each other?

The particles interact. Undifferentiated awareness is a result of interaction (treshold event) and already begins at quantum. (Penrose)

The Universe is a collection of "bings" (quantum change).

We may find proof of this from the study of micro-tubules, which may turn out to be tiny quantum processors, but which are present by the billions throughout the bodies of living organisms. We know the micro-tubules react and transmit external and internal information at quantum level.

 

[Bowser]

No, just explain why a god (being everything) should thank itself? Or bow to itself?

Do you love or hate your self?