Comprehensive Argument for Set

[1137]

My friend is a Doctor of Philosophy and teaches some philosophy and religion classes, which I guest speak for each semester. He asked me to type this up to share with his students before I come in this semester. I figured I would share it on the forums I frequent since it exists, though I know full well the reaction to expect here.

Over the years I have composed several separate arguments attempting to logically show that god exists, rooted in actual evidence. I have shared this with more people than I can count, from strangers on Reddit to close friends who are Doctors of Philosophy. Despite what some may believe, I have taken much from these discussions and critiques, most commonly the need to elaborate and connect my points better. This is an attempt to do just that. Make no mistake, I am a skeptic and do not take my beliefs as absolute certainty. I’ve done the best to keep my beliefs logical and grounded in known science, while all the time realizing the very reliance on logic is rooted in faith. Those who know me can attest to the fact that over the years I have taken from what I learn in philosophy and science, and my belief have evolved greatly. This is simply a current form of my ideology that will surely evolve further. While it will unavoidably be a bit lengthy, I will try to be concise.

The Axiomatic Self

We must begin with what we can know with absolute certainty, if there is anything at all. In our case, the one thing we seem capable of knowing is that we, ourselves, exist. We cannot even be certain that OTHERS exist, but when a human being makes the statement “I exist,” they are stating an axiomatic fact. An axiom is “an irreducible primary. It doesn't rest upon anything in order to be valid, and it cannot be proven by any "more basic" premises. A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise. An attempt to contradict an axiom can only end in a contradiction.”(Axiom). These characteristics are all true of one’s self, or more specifically the conscious self. We know it directly, and know all else through it. Even the subconscious aspects of our own mind can only be known, by definition, through the conscious mind. This makes the existence of the conscious self a fundamental fact, like that A is A (Law of Identity). This means that throughout the rest of our metaphysical discussion here, we cannot reject the existence of the conscious self, just as we cannot reject that A is A.

The Material, External Universe

While it cannot be known directly, it seems quite likely that the objective world of matter exists as well. Even if positions like solipsism or brain-in-a-vat were true, these positions, while possibly true, are useless to us, and there is no reason to not act as if our experience is real anyways. One reason to believe this is that science itself implies the existence of the objective universe and matter. If it did not exist, we would expect everybody to act unpredictably in all situations. In other words, when people are all looking at the same image, they tend to see the same thing. When people on the other side of the world recreate a successful experiment, they should expect to get the same results. Further, while we know the mind directly, it is also quite likely that matter impacts the mind just as the mind impacts matter. Brain damage (Cognitive Problems After Traumatic Brain Injury), drug use (Cognitive enhancement by drugs in health and disease), prescription medication (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - Mayo Clinic), even gut bacteria can have an impact (http://neuroscienceresearch.wustl.e...influences anxiety and depression_Tran .pdf) on one’s cognition. So not only is there no reason to act as if the universe of matter does not exist, but there are many reasons to believe it does, in fact, exist.

Property Dualism

Property Dualism comes into play because the mind and brain seem to have different characteristics, in other words the two have different properties (Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)). Dualism is this case does not necessarily mean the dualism of Decartes, but simply that the properties suggest the mind and brain are two separate things. This is a problem for monistic positions, as they require all things to be reducible into one substance, from matter to some sort of spiritual mind of god depending on the individual belief. If property dualism exists, monism is not possible because two non-identical things, by definition and the Law of Identity, cannot be identical, and therefore are not reducible into each other. Again, this does not imply the dualism of Decartes. Rather, it implies a type of emergent pluralism, the position that substances can rise out of other substances, but become something separate. In other words, just because the mind may have arisen from matter does not imply that they are identical and reducible, but one emerges from the other. This can be compared to a mother and her child. In the beginning the latter is entirely reliant on the former, but over time they become completely separate, distinct, non-identical and non-reducible beings.

So what are the characteristics of a brain and how do they differ from a mind? For one, a brain is physical but a mind is not physical. To illustrate the difference, realize that we can see a brain and its contents, but not a mind and its contents. While an fMRI (What Is FMRI? - Center for Functional MRI - UC San Diego) can show the physical activity occurring in the brain, it is not the same as seeing what is occurring in the mind (http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf), and especially not even close to shared experience. The brain, along with all of the material world, is bound to physical determinism. It follows specific laws at all times. This is well illustrated by things like the cycles of depression and of abuse, as well as things like the trip induced by taking a drug. Like a storm rolling in, the brain does not have any method of fighting off a cloud of depression, or magically overcoming trauma from the past, and one with limited self-control can be seriously carried away in a psychedelic trip. Yet the conscious mind is able to become aware of (Self-Regulation | Education.com) and overcome such deterministic cycles (Center for Cognitive Therapy - What is Cognitive Therapy?). We can even use placebos effectively without deception (Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome). The mind is also capable of imagining things that could never occur in nature, things from the fantasy Dreamlands of Lovecraft to the computer or phone we have actually brought into being – things that cannot grow in a garden no matter how hard you try. This is further illustrated by the fact that that one can even control their own dreams with lucid dreaming, in which one can engage in all sorts of things that contradict the objective, external world. As these few examples show, the mind and brain have very different properties, and based in the logic above, cannot be identical or reducible. While the mind may emerge from the brain, it is still something separate and different from the brain, like a child to its mother. But as we have seen, not only does the mind differ from the brain, it seems to differ from natural law. How is this possible?

 

[1137]

Introduction to the Theory of Forms

This question is answered by the Theory of Forms. A Form is the essence of a thing, the immaterial, unchanging characteristics that all things are rooted in. It should not be thought the this essence precedes substance, nor the reverse, but that the two rely on each other. When X comes to exist, the Form of X comes to exist. One way to illustrate this is with geometry. If we draw 10 different, unique triangles, we can still recognize them all as triangles because of what characteristics they share, in other words their Form. An equilateral, isosceles, or scalene triangle are all recognized as similar because of the Form of the triangle, the three sides and three points that make the shape. This Form of triangles is not something that can be directly, physically accessed – it is something abstract and immaterial. Another example to illustrate this are ideas like beauty or justice. Certainly beauty exists, most people experience beauty, and yet what we find beautiful can differ greatly. So how do we recognize the concept of beauty when no interpretation of beauty is likely objective? By the Form of beauty. It is a certain objective experience individuals can gain access too, despite us being unable to objectively define what makes something “beautiful.” It is empathetic, not material in nature. This all makes Forms more objective than material manifestations. For example, a specific chair or specific experience of love my fade with time. Even in the body cells are constantly dying and being replaced, the entire universe is forever in a state of entropy and decay. Yet we recognize what a chair is at all times, what love is, who an individual looks like, and what the universe as a whole entails. This is because, unlike the world of matter, Forms do not change or deteriorate. The Form of a chair endures no matter what chairs exist, what they look like, what they made of, etc and so on.

Forms, Consciousness, and Set

As discussed above, if X comes to exist it has a Form. As shown above, individual consciousness is something we know for certain came to exist. This forces us to logically conclude (if we accept Forms, which seems highly logical) that there is a Form of individual, higher cognitive consciousness. Like the Forms of triangles or beauty, we can know this Form by the characteristics share by beings with individual consciousness like that of high-cognition humans. It would be independent, bound to nature and the material world, yet distinct and separate from is as discussed above. It would be self-aware and introspective, as well as abstract and containing desires. Yet unlike conscious human beings, it would be fully immaterial, and it would not live and die as physical beings do, but exist so long as consciousness exists. What does an immaterial, mostly-immortal being with self-awareness, desires, and so on resemble? It is very close to the ancient, common conception of “Gods.” One could technically debate if this Form of consciousness is worth calling a God, but this would be hopeless as the characteristics match exactly what gods are defined as. No it is not an omni-god, but it is identical with most polytheistic conceptions of gods throughout history.

To myself, the Ancient Egyptians, and many on the Left Hand Path, this God of consciousness is known as Set. Set is one of, if not the oldest gods of humanity (even if not in his Egyptian form). The Egyptian form is simply the most complete, accurate picture of this Form in human mythology, the closest god it matches. Set’s name literally means “Separator” or “Isolator,” like the separation or isolation of the individual consciousness from the material world. The symbol of Set was used to cut the umbilical cord, quite metaphorical for my mother/child illustration of emergence. He was portrayed as a fantastical animal unlike all the other gods, as like the conscious mind he was something separate from the physical, natural world (which was comprised of most other gods). Set was known for having been unnatural, forcibly tearing himself from the womb in an act of separation. It should not be thought, however, that Set is “just a symbol.” He is one interpretation, the most accurate interpretation in history, of the objectively existent Form of isolate consciousness, and nearly every culture has a similar interpretation: Prometheus, Lucifer, Satan, Tiamat, Ahriman, and many, many more. Being associated with the northern circumpolar stars, Set was also greatly associated with the serpent, an attribute that has lasted all the way down into Christianity as an evil force.

What about other Gods? On one hand, all conscious things are rooted in Set, so any other conscious Form, such as that of knowledge, experience, emotion, etc. are rooted in and an aspect of Set, though still very existent. An example of this is the god Thoth, Form of knowledge and intelligence. On the other hand, a Form may be defined as a god for its sheer power, like the Form of order which underlies all nature (Horus the Elder). These Forms have been interpreted differently by all cultures, as with most things, which is why there is such a large amount of gods – one interpretation for each group, that’s crazy! It’s not that Set is the “one true god” or some dictator, I am simply a henotheist, and have a greater respect for individual consciousness than other Forms, though certainly one’s like knowledge are up there.


So yeah, that’s my progression right there. To summarize:

1. The conscious Self axiomatically exists, it cannot be denied.

2. The objective, material world also exists, and even if it does not we should act as though it does.

3. The brain/nature and the mind have different properties, and are therefore not identical or reducible to one another. Even if the mind emerges from the brain it is something separate.

4. The Theory of Forms is the best way to gain objective knowledge, and seems to be a logically sound, and therefore objectively true argument.

5. A Form of consciousness must exist, the attributes of which match with polytheistic gods (immaterial, non-temporal, perfect, self-aware, desirous, etc.)

6. The best god to represent this Form of consciousness is the Egyptian god Set.

 

[Liu]

Huh, nice - Setianism at the university.


There is one issue I have, though, with the theory of forms. How to determine what exactly is a form?

In linguistics, there is something similar called the prototype theory: Let's say there is one mental prototype of "chair". This prototype is a cluster of attributes that are associated with it (e.g. object to sit on, has 4 legs, for one person,...). And all actual instances of things one would refer to as a chair are things that have some or all of these attributes of the prototype. Those can even include things that share no attributes with each other.
Depending how many (and sometimes which) of the attributes a thing shares with the prototype, the more prototypical it is, i.e. the more likely it is that people think of it when asked for an example of a chair (or whatever prototype it is). For example, a chair can also have 3 legs, but most people would first think of a chair with 4 legs.

However, I'm not convinced that such prototypes/forms are independent of culture. The attributes themselves, of which they are clusters, might be universal, but in a culture that doesn't use the same kinds of chair we do, not all of the same attributes are associated with this prototype. Therefore, this prototype would be no form, as it would be not completely objective.

I'm not saying there are no forms - and consciousness/Set would be a good candidate for an actually existing form as it consists of only very few attributes. Geometrical figures may as well, for similar reasons. But the rest?

So, this point in your argumentation is a bit unclear to me, could you elaborate on it further?

 

[Liu]

Another thing that came to my mind: You may want to include Shiva in your list of related deities, after all he's the god of consciousness in at least some kinds of Hinduism. That's much more directly related to the concept than the other ones you listed.