Non-sentient pantheism?

[George-ananda]

Which side of the coin existed first?

Your answer depends on your response to my question: Was there any consciousness then before the first brain formed?

My answer would be that Consciousness/God/Brahman existed first.

 

[Ouroboros]

Your answer depends on your response to my question: Was there any consciousness then before the first brain formed?

Can't say. What is consciousness to you?

My answer would be that Consciousness/God/Brahman existed first.

If consciousness is related to awareness, then being aware is something that requires an environment to be aware in, which means the environment would have to exist first. If with consciousness you only mean the potential of being aware, but not yet aware, then it had to exist first.

My answer is that consciousness and the material are integrated and give rise to each other and affects each other in a constant, eternal existence, neither one begin before in existence but both always being and becoming.

 

[George-ananda]

If consciousness is related to awareness, then being aware is something that requires an environment to be aware in, which means the environment would have to exist first.

In Vedic (Hindu) thought there is pure consciousness with no physical environment; called God/Brahman. He created the environment through His creative aspect to experience temporary finiteness.

If with consciousness you only mean the potential of being aware, but not yet aware, then it had to exist first.

What is this 'potential to be aware' other than emergent materialist thinking? Is it not all reducible to the movement of matter?

My answer is that consciousness and the material are integrated and give rise to each other and affects each other in a constant, eternal existence, neither one begin before in existence but both always being and becoming.

You say they give rise to each other. How does consciousness give rise to matter in your thinking. It seems only that matter gives rise to consciousness.

 

[Ouroboros]

In Vedic (Hindu) thought there is pure consciousness with no physical environment; called God/Brahman. He created the environment through His creative aspect to experience temporary finiteness.

Right.

What is this 'potential to be aware' other than emergent materialist thinking? Is it not all reducible to the movement of matter?

The word conscious describes different states of awareness. You have words like subconscious, conscious, unconscious, all pointing to different aspects of awareness.

Now, perhaps the "pure consciousness" that you're thinking of is something different and the word is used in a different way in Vedic literature, then this would explain why we have a hard time finding a common point. I think of consciousness more like the modern and, yes, materialistic way, and not in a religious way. I don't know what the Vedic pure consciousness is or what it would look like, but it wouldn't be the same as a human consciousness. It would be far from what we consider a consciousness in a human mind.

You say they give rise to each other. How does consciousness give rise to matter in your thinking. It seems only that matter gives rise to consciousness.

When we think, we alter things around us. The motions and actions from our decisions is influencing and changing the world we live in, so we already know it goes both ways. When it comes to quantum mechanics and things like observer vs observed mysteries, I tend to think that perhaps our observation of the universe is somehow also altering the way it exists.

Honestly, I'm not sure I can really describe my thoughts in this area. It's more of a feeling or intuition of how I believe things are working together. If you want me to make it into some kind of scientific description or even put it in words in general, I believe the essence of it won't come through. By putting it into words, it's reduced to linear thoughts, but what I feel and think about this subject is non-linear. Putting into words is like drawing a flower on a paper. You can only see certain aspects of it and not the whole picture. And that's not your fault, but my fault. I don't have the capacity to explain it.

---edit

Just to make it a little bit clearer, when I think of "consciousness", I'm thinking of things like what these definitions suggests:

• the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
  "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

• the awareness or perception of something by a person.
  plural noun: consciousnesses
  "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
  
  
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
  "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

With that view of consciousness, the mysterious thing with it, I don't think it just emerges as an effect of the processes, but it also can change and affect the outcome of things. For instance, a person with muscle memory to react to a situation, if he/she doesn't think of reacting, his/her reaction time is very fast, but if they think of what they're doing, the reaction time is slowed down drastically, meaning that being aware of one's actions can alter the action. In other words, the emergent property of the conscious mind exists in a synergy or symbiotic relationship with that thing that it emerges from.

Now, is it possible that there are more advanced forms of consciousness? Could consciousness perhaps even affect not just future events but also past events? Maybe. Perhaps there's a God-mind at the end of time that is just dreaming up our experiences...

 

[George-ananda]

The word conscious describes different states of awareness. You have words like subconscious, conscious, unconscious, all pointing to different aspects of awareness.

Now, perhaps the "pure consciousness" that you're thinking of is something different and the word is used in a different way in Vedic literature, then this would explain why we have a hard time finding a common point. I think of consciousness more like the modern and, yes, materialistic way, and not in a religious way. I don't know what the Vedic pure consciousness is or what it would look like, but it wouldn't be the same as a human consciousness. It would be far from what we consider a consciousness in a human mind.

In non-dual Hinduism (God and creation are not-two), the CENTRAL point is that there is only ONE consciousness that appears as many depending on the limitations of the form that consciousness is incarnating.

When we think, we alter things around us. The motions and actions from our decisions is influencing and changing the world we live in, so we already know it goes both ways. When it comes to quantum mechanics and things like observer vs observed mysteries, I tend to think that perhaps our observation of the universe is somehow also altering the way it exists.

Honestly, I'm not sure I can really describe my thoughts in this area. It's more of a feeling or intuition of how I believe things are working together. If you want me to make it into some kind of scientific description or even put it in words in general, I believe the essence of it won't come through. By putting it into words, it's reduced to linear thoughts, but what I feel and think about this subject is non-linear. Putting into words is like drawing a flower on a paper. You can only see certain aspects of it and not the whole picture. And that's not your fault, but my fault. I don't have the capacity to explain it.

---edit

Just to make it a little bit clearer, when I think of "consciousness", I'm thinking of things like what these definitions suggests:

• the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
  "she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

• the awareness or perception of something by a person.
  plural noun: consciousnesses
  "her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
  
  
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
  "consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"

With that view of consciousness, the mysterious thing with it, I don't think it just emerges as an effect of the processes, but it also can change and affect the outcome of things. For instance, a person with muscle memory to react to a situation, if he/she doesn't think of reacting, his/her reaction time is very fast, but if they think of what they're doing, the reaction time is slowed down drastically, meaning that being aware of one's actions can alter the action. In other words, the emergent property of the conscious mind exists in a synergy or symbiotic relationship with that thing that it emerges from.

Now, is it possible that there are more advanced forms of consciousness? Could consciousness perhaps even affect not just future events but also past events? Maybe

Let me ask this then, Is there anything in your thinking that is not accepted in atheist-materialism? If not, then to me it is as Dawkins, says really just 'sexed-up atheism'. I think I might be hearing you say there might be something more than materialism but you are unclear?

.

Perhaps there's a God-mind at the end of time that is just dreaming up our experiences...

It is all God's mind. Brahman Alone is Real.

 

[Ouroboros]

In non-dual Hinduism (God and creation are not-two), the CENTRAL point is that there is only ONE consciousness that appears as many depending on the limitations of the form that consciousness is incarnating.

I understand the concept you're going for, but I think of this eternal not-two thing to be something else than consciousness or matter. Something beyond even those things.

Let me ask this then, Is there anything in your thinking that is not accepted in atheist-materialism? If not, then to me it is as Dawkins, says really just 'sexed-up atheism'. I think I might be hearing you say there might be something more than materialism but you are unclear?

You mean, why naturalistic pantheism instead of atheism? Well, I tried to explain my views on that in the past, but it didn't turn out so great. I was called names and such and grew uninterested in giving reasons to it.

It is all God's mind. Brahman Alone is Real.

And I think that's a cool belief or view, and somewhat (not 100%) in line with it. I think the new concepts in science where they're talking about information as the ultimate reality, that could be it, or be the same as Brahman.

 

[George-ananda]

You mean, why naturalistic pantheism instead of atheism? Well, I tried to explain my views on that in the past, but it didn't turn out so great. I was called names and such and grew uninterested in giving reasons to it.

Well I won't call you any bad names at least. I think many people recoil from the term atheist-materialism because it sounds so harsh. But when I press the issue with people, I really don't hear them believing anything that contradicts atheist-materialism.

And I think that's a cool belief or view, and somewhat (not 100%) in line with it. I think the new concepts in science where they're talking about information as the ultimate reality, that could be it, or be the same as Brahman.

They might be on to something but I don't claim to understand all that.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well I won't call you any bad names at least. I think many people recoil from the term atheist-materialism because it sounds so harsh. But when I press the issue with people, I really don't hear them believing anything that contradicts atheist-materialism.

True.

They might be on to something but I don't claim to understand all that.

Another thought I have is that perhaps consciousness has some roots in a primary force or particle of nature. Just like gravity and other forces today are explained by subatomic particles of different kinds. Who knows... But if it was, then consciousness is just as fundamental as anything else quantum.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is just as contradictory as naturalistic pantheism. How can nature transcend nature? The term that has to be used for those who has this belief will be contradictory in nature. It can't be avoided.

It's not that nature transcends nature, it's that there is something transcendent about nature. It does at least avoid the contradiction in conflating naturalism with a form of theism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But it's not clear what this is saying. How is this different than the emergent consciousness view. Was there any consciousness then before the first brain formed?

It's saying they are mutually dependent. You can't have consciousness without a brain, but neither can you have a brain without consciousness.

 

[George-ananda]

It's saying they are mutually dependent. You can't have consciousness without a brain, but neither can you have a brain without consciousness.

The point I was commenting on was: 4. Conscious and matter co-exist co-dependently.

Can't matter exist just fine without consciousness around? How are they co-dependent then?

It sounds like he has the materialist view that matter creates consciousness.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's not that nature transcends nature, it's that there is something transcendent about nature. It does at least avoid the contradiction in conflating naturalism with a form of theism.

Transcend means to go beyond, doesn't it? So transcendent naturalism doesn't say anything about the unity but about things beyond nature. It would mean something more or above or beyond nature just like the words supernatural or metphysical. So it doesn't fit at all.

And why can't theism be combined with nature? I don't see a problem with that at all.

Besides, the term "naturalistic pantheism" has been around since the 19th century, in both religious and philosophical writings. It's over 150 years old or more, and no one had an issue with it until now. I don't understand why.

 

[Ouroboros]

I just learned about another category of pantheism, neutral monistic pantheism. It might be even closer to my views than just naturalistic pantheism. There's also the dialectic monistic pantheism and dual-aspect or double aspect theory that resonates with my views to some degree.

 

[Baladas]

I think of this eternal not-two thing to be something else than consciousness or matter. Something beyond even those things.

This resonates with me deeply.

You mean, why naturalistic pantheism instead of atheism? Well, I tried to explain my views on that in the past, but it didn't turn out so great. I was called names and such and grew uninterested in giving reasons to it.

I've had similar experiences.
It reminds me of something that @Orbit used to say. Something to the effect of: "I am an atheist to theists, and a theist to atheists."

Honestly, I'm not sure I can really describe my thoughts in this area. It's more of a feeling or intuition of how I believe things are working together. If you want me to make it into some kind of scientific description or even put it in words in general, I believe the essence of it won't come through.

I relate pretty strongly with what you have been saying about mutual arising and dialectical monism.
I share views that seem to be very similar and are (as you mentioned) highly intuitive

This made me think of:

"TAO can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.
Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name."

The idea that this is a topic that literally cannot be fully intellectually grasped, much less conveyed clearly, seems similar to me.

 

[Kapalika]

It is strange because that would mean I am Atheistic, Agnostic, Monistic, and Pantheistic at the same time.

What is so weird about that?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I consider the universe to be divine and worthy of reverence, but do not think it is sentient by any means.

So could this be considered pantheism?

I think it would be hard to be a traditional theist and a pantheist, but anyone with a non-theistic view of God, or not, could be a pantheist.

 

[IsaiahX]

Sentience being such an intregal part of the universe, any pantheistic deity must have at least some form of sentience, at least in my opinion. He/She would be the essence of sentience.

 

[Polymath257]

Sentience being such an intregal part of the universe, any pantheistic deity must have at least some form of sentience, at least in my opinion. He/She would be the essence of sentience.

Why do you say it is an integral part of the universe? it seems rather rare from what I can see. Rather limited to Earth. Or am I missing something?

 

[IsaiahX]

Why do you say it is an integral part of the universe? it seems rather rare from what I can see. Rather limited to Earth. Or am I missing something?

Seeing as the possibility of alien life almost certaintly exist, due to the size of the universe, it is likely in many different places and in many different forms than on Earth. Even if consciousness is limited to earth, it still must be part of anything that is literally everything.

 

[Polymath257]

Seeing as the possibility of alien life almost certaintly exist, due to the size of the universe, it is likely in many different places and in many different forms than on Earth. Even if consciousness is limited to earth, it still must be part of anything that is literally everything.

Oh, I agree the universe is conscious, at least to some extent. I'm just not clear on why consciousness is an *integral* part, as opposed to a side issue in one small location (or even a few scattered locations).