If self-awareness occurs naturally...

[Etritonakin]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness, creativity, etc., what would prevent it from occurring first on an overall scale?

"God" developing from that which has always existed FIRST would be perfectly natural -and would explain such things as fine-tuning, etc. (and is actually not contrary to biblical scripture)

Why should all that exists not know that it does?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness, creativity, etc., what would prevent it from occurring first on an overall scale?

"God" developing from that which has always existed FIRST would be perfectly natural -and would explain such things as fine-tuning, etc. (and is actually not contrary to biblical scripture)

Why should all that exists not know that it does?

If you are speaking in the temporal sense, because "all that exists" doesn't necessarily have sentience

Is a rock aware of itself? A grain of sand?

 

[PureX]

If you are speaking in the temporal sense, because "all that exists" doesn't necessarily have sentience?

Is a rock aware of itself? A grain of sand?

"Existence" is all-inclusive. The universe is one phenomena, taking place. And it is aware of itself through us, and probably through a billion other sentient variations within it. The energy that is causing existence to exist, and the "logos" that governs how that is happening, IS self-aware.

This is a fact that materialists/atheists try to avoid, but cannot. As they are, themselves, evidence of that existential self-awareness.

 

[Etritonakin]

If you are speaking in the temporal sense, because "all that exists" doesn't necessarily have sentience?

Is a rock aware of itself? A grain of sand?

A rock is part of the whole.
No one part of our selves is aware of itself in that sense -yet a self may be aware of its parts.
A rock might be the equivalent of a piece of fingernail.
Sentience, intelligence, self-awareness are by the development of increasingly complex systems, feedback, etc.

Furthermore, such systems are based on more simple interactions such as do occur even in a rock.
It may not look like it is moving, but it is -and its components may later become otherwise arranged into systems.
Parts of us were parts of rocks, etc., at one time.

Where there is interaction (the basis of awareness, self-awareness, etc.), the development of increasingly complex systems would be possible -no?

I think, perhaps, that all that exists does not "necessarily" have sentience in the sense that it may not have had it at one point, but that it inevitably did develop sentience.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"Existence" is all-inclusive. The universe is one phenomena, taking place. And it is aware of itself through us, and probably through a billion other sentient variations within it. The energy that is causing existence to exist, and the "logos" that governs how that is happening, IS self-aware.

This is a fact that materialists/atheists try to avoid, but cannot. As they are, themselves, evidence of that existential self-awareness.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with what I wrote and expanding on it, or if you're refuting what I said. If you post was intended to do the latter, perhaps you missed my "temporal" qualification.

 

[ChristineM]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness, creativity, etc., what would prevent it from occurring first on an overall scale?

"God" developing from that which has always existed FIRST would be perfectly natural -and would explain such things as fine-tuning, etc. (and is actually not contrary to biblical scripture)

Why should all that exists not know that it does?

Several animals besides humans are self aware,
Orangutans
Chimpanzees
Gorillas
Bottlenose Dolphins
Elephants
Orcas
Bonobos
Rhesus Macaques
European Magpies

Most are not.

 

[Looncall]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness, creativity, etc., what would prevent it from occurring first on an overall scale?

"God" developing from that which has always existed FIRST would be perfectly natural -and would explain such things as fine-tuning, etc. (and is actually not contrary to biblical scripture)

Why should all that exists not know that it does?

That parts of the universe are self-aware does not mean that the whole is. The vast majority of the universe lacks the means (brains) to be so.

 

[james blunt]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness,

Then nature realises oneself is connected to the nature of the Universe .

 

[Etritonakin]

That parts of the universe are self-aware does not mean that the whole is. The vast majority of the universe lacks the means (brains) to be so.

That fact alone (from our perspective) is not is not enough to conclude that all that exists (not assuming that the universe is all that exists) is self-aware -but may be part of the information necessary to make a conclusion.

The vast majority of our body does not have the means to be so -but an overall mind would likely be similarly connected in some way.
Reverse-engineering the universe is essentially tracing connections and states backward -which allows us to understand the present state better. If a self-aware intelligence planned and executed our universe (or made a universe of some portion of itself), an extreme amount of information would likely be necessary to prove it "scientifically" -but enough understanding of self-aware, intelligent creativity and what is possible in its presence or absence would reveal its necessity -similar to how we might determine something was created by man without meeting the creator.

The universe is an interactive "body" in the broadest sense -and the pathway to its mind (should it exist) would likely be toward the "Big Bang" (or whatever happened) both physically (toward whatever preceded and exists beyond present physics) and in a developmental sense over time.

Arguably (of course), there is much about the universe and its origin which indicates complex purpose and forethought (as even the Big Bang would have specifically become the universe -which is not the simplicity one might expect in the very beginning) -but an overall mind actively showing its personality and capability to alter that which cannot be altered from our position to many would be the sort of evidence necessary for some to consider the possibility of a creator more seriously.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness, creativity, etc., what would prevent it from occurring first on an overall scale?

"God" developing from that which has always existed FIRST would be perfectly natural -and would explain such things as fine-tuning, etc. (and is actually not contrary to biblical scripture)

Why should all that exists not know that it does?

I would think such a God would be completely natural to begin with, and it's not out of the realm of impossibility that our genetic disposition could have been intelligently 'altered' at some point through organisms that were conceivably introduced to the early Earth. Sometimes I think life and self-awareness is born from a type of biological "virus" that brought about the phenomenon of life and self-awareness.

It's a good thought for which I would entertain that type of "theism" more so than the cafe' version we're so accustomed to hearing about.

 

[Axe Elf]

I deny the premise; I do not believe self-awareness occurs naturally (at least not universally).

 

[Etritonakin]

Several animals besides humans are self aware,
Orangutans
Chimpanzees
Gorillas
Bottlenose Dolphins
Elephants
Orcas
Bonobos
Rhesus Macaques
European Magpies

Most are not.

Interesting that something can be somewhat intelligent and aware, but not aware that it is -able to look into a mirror and see itself, but lacking the internal "mirrors" necessary to see that it is itself.

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting that something can be somewhat intelligent and aware, but not aware that it is -able to look into a mirror and see itself, but lacking the internal "mirrors" necessary to see that it is itself.

How do you know this?

 

[ratiocinator]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness, creativity, etc., what would prevent it from occurring first on an overall scale?

"God" developing from that which has always existed FIRST would be perfectly natural -and would explain such things as fine-tuning, etc. (and is actually not contrary to biblical scripture)

The only way in which know self-awareness can arise naturally is by evolution, so either you're proposing some totally different means or you're suggesting that this god evolved. If the former, then what reason do you have to think there is another way? If the latter, then it doesn't really explain much at all and, again, why take the idea seriously?

Why should all that exists not know that it does?

Why should it?

 

[HonestJoe]

If nature naturally results in self-awareness, creativity, etc., what would prevent it from occurring first on an overall scale?

I wouldn’t go as far to say those things “naturally result”, only that they’re perfectly possible. Regardless, self-awareness in an individual sentient being is an entirely different concept to some form of universal self-awareness. The latter isn’t impossible (nothing is impossible) but the former doesn’t automatically lead to the latter (or vice-versa).

"God" developing from that which has always existed FIRST would be perfectly natural -and would explain such things as fine-tuning, etc. (and is actually not contrary to biblical scripture)

Why are you rushing to leap to references to “God” or the Bible? The generic concepts you open with are still many steps away from any specific theological concepts. I don’t think they can rationally be brought up at this stage.

Why should all that exists not know that it does?

We currently have no reason why it should or should not. We’ve no reason to believe it does and no proposal for how it could.

 

[Etritonakin]

That parts of the universe are self-aware does not mean that the whole is. The vast majority of

I wouldn’t go as far to say those things “naturally result”, only that they’re perfectly possible. Regardless, self-awareness in an individual sentient being is an entirely different concept to some form of universal self-awareness. The latter isn’t impossible (nothing is impossible) but the former doesn’t automatically lead to the latter (or vice-versa).

Why are you rushing to leap to references to “God” or the Bible? The generic concepts you open with are still many steps away from any specific theological concepts. I don’t think they can rationally be brought up at this stage.

We currently have no reason why it should or should not. We’ve no reason to believe it does and no proposal for how it could.

Was not rushing -just stating that the idea was not against biblical scripture.

That which occurs in the absence of creativity/true decision-making is inevitable. Things may seem uncertain when only a portion of all is considered, but on an all-inclusive scale, nothing could have been different (including the development of true decision-making) until true decision-making could thereby allow for true variables. Even then, most decisions are "no brainers" -even though they may require a brain to make them.

 

[Etritonakin]

The only way in which know self-awareness can arise naturally is by evolution, so either you're proposing some totally different means or you're suggesting that this god evolved. If the former, then what reason do you have to think there is another way? If the latter, then it doesn't really explain much at all and, again, why take the idea seriously?



Why should it?

I don't have any problem with an evolving God.

The idea should be taken seriously as it is an explanation for how things moved beyond initial simplicity to extremely purposeful complexity -for which we have many examples on a smaller scale.

It should because certain things are impossible until such happens.
If we reference present nature, we see that certain things are impossible without our selves to make them possible. We have the ability to allow things to take their "natural" and otherwise-inevitable course -or alter that course.
Understanding the "nature" which preceded the Big Bang, elements which once did not exist, etc. would reveal whether they required such creative activity -and, as that which now exists is a different arrangement of that which once existed, we likely have all the evidence we need all around us.

"Science" may not have what it requires to know with certainty how the overall simplicity in the beginning became everything which now exists -or an accepted explanation for its extremely purposeful specificity, but it does have examples all around which show that the development of a "brain" is a necessary step between such things.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't have any problem with an evolving God.

The idea should be taken seriously as it is an explanation for how things moved beyond initial simplicity to extremely purposeful complexity -for which we have many examples on a smaller scale.

You seemed to have missed my point. I was referring to evolution in the specific, scientific sense of evolution by natural selection. In other words, you need a universe in which the conditions are suitable for that before you can get awareness. It cannot be an explanation for how such a universe exists in the first place.

 

[Etritonakin]

I would think such a God would be completely natural to begin with, and it's not out of the realm of impossibility that our genetic disposition could have been intelligently 'altered' at some point through organisms that were conceivably introduced to the early Earth. Sometimes I think life and self-awareness is born from a type of biological "virus" that brought about the phenomenon of life and self-awareness.

It's a good thought for which I would entertain that type of "theism" more so than the cafe' version we're so accustomed to hearing about.

I'm thinking more of a "God" that IS nature itself -but perhaps developing from pre-universe nature.
I would not consider anything but "everything" "God", as it would logically be necessary for attributes associated with "God" -omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. -otherwise it would be just another schmo like us -but only somewhat bigger and better.
Also, the development of a pre-universe "brain" would be an explanation for how the universe essentially became packaged and initiated -which seems to be the case due to the purposeful complexity and specificity of the universe.
It does not seem that the singularity was at all simple -as it specifically became the universe, interactive elements, worlds upon which self-assembling life forms could develop and adapt, etc. -which causes me to question what was between all of this and the extreme simplicity one might expect in the very beginning.

All things must be preceded by that which both generally and specifically allows for them.

 

[Etritonakin]

You seemed to have missed my point. I was referring to evolution in the specific, scientific sense of evolution by natural selection. In other words, you need a universe in which the conditions are suitable for that before you can get awareness. It cannot be an explanation for how such a universe exists in the first place.

Will get back to this -but I was speaking of the broadest sense of the word evolution -and disagree that our physical universe (specifically) necessarily preceded any sort of awareness.