Self-awareness in Macrocosm

[Etritonakin]

It is believed individual self-awareness is the result of "natural" processes.

Could the nature of "everything" have naturally resulted in an overall self-awareness?

 

[Tabu]

It is believed individual self-awareness is the result of "natural" processes.

Could the nature of "everything" have naturally resulted in an overall self-awareness?

From our perspective ( Brahmakumaris) , the nature of the external changes along with the nature of the self.
In the stage of complete self awareness ,i.e. awareness of being a soul and its powers , nature becomes subservient.

 

[1137]

It is believed individual self-awareness is the result of "natural" processes.

Could the nature of "everything" have naturally resulted in an overall self-awareness?

Perhaps, but nature does not seem to be aware itself. In fact it seems quite the opposite: mindless, deterministic, unquestioning, generally unaware, etc.

 

[Etritonakin]

Perhaps, but nature does not seem to be aware itself. In fact it seems quite the opposite: mindless, deterministic, unquestioning, generally unaware, etc.

Might that be because we are unable to see "nature" as a whole -and do not know the full nature of nature?

Nature is basically deterministic, but it's course and arrangement can be altered by conscious decision.

A human might be considered to be self-aware, but the components which make up a human would not be considered to be self-aware. Perhaps we only see portions of the body of everything -the mind which exists or has developed being far removed.

Low battery -will edit later

 

[1137]

Might that be because we are unable to see "nature" as a whole -and do not know the full nature of nature?

Nature is basically deterministic, but it's course and arrangement can be altered by conscious decision.

A human might be considered to be self-aware, but the components which make up a human would not be considered to be self-aware. Perhaps we only see portions of the body of everything -the mind which exists or has developed being far removed.

Low battery -will edit later

We can alter nature because of our emergent consciousness and free will. I agree with your point here, but I don't think it implies that nature itself is somehow conscious or aware.

 

[Etritonakin]

We can alter nature because of our emergent consciousness and free will. I agree with your point here, but I don't think it implies that nature itself is somehow conscious or aware.

If "nature" is deterministic, then we could say nature determined self-awareness, etc.
Nature would have determined that complex arrangement would have increasing control of the arrangement of nature -such as humans becoming able to create, maintain and destroy.
The difference between saying we have self-awareness, etc., and nature has self-awareness, etc., is that we make up -are aware of -and can affect -only a portion of nature, whereas nature includes everything -and would be aware of everything and able to affect everything.

For any change to happen, one thing must be aware of -must sense -must be affected by -another.
Our complex self-awareness and awareness of the environment are built upon the most simple of changes/interaction -and are complex arrangements of such.
By further arrangement, we become more aware -and more capable of affecting and determining greater portions of nature.
It is conceivable that something like a human consciousness/self-awareness could become aware of all, and able to affect all by eventually being able to interface with all (if not overwhelmed by greater forces before achieving that position).

However, I do believe that everything is already aware of itself -and that there is an overall mind able to interface with and determine (create/arrange, maintain, destroy) everything.

If nature were not basically deterministic, decision would not be possible.
A system like a mind could not develop and be stable (one stable arrangement makes others possible) -and could not determine anything with any certainty. It could not cause arrangements which could otherwise not exist.

That is actually the heart of the matter -the absolute necessity of a complex mind able to cause arrangements of nature which otherwise could not exist -but which itself could not exist and act except by prior arrangement of nature.
When we think of nature, we tend to think of that which is already determined -and will not be altered except by decision. Conscious decision -modeling, execution, etc., is necessary for some arrangements -and some arrangements are indicative of conscious decision, modeling, execution, self-awareness, etc.

It seems to me that "nature" could not have determined the universe and all therein without first being able to say "I AM", "I will...", "I will not...", etc.
I'll attempt to explain why more clearly later.

 

[1137]

If "nature" is deterministic, then we could say nature determined self-awareness, etc.
Nature would have determined that complex arrangement would have increasing control of the arrangement of nature -such as humans becoming able to create, maintain and destroy.
The difference between saying we have self-awareness, etc., and nature has self-awareness, etc., is that we make up -are aware of -and can affect -only a portion of nature, whereas nature includes everything -and would be aware of everything and able to affect everything.

For any change to happen, one thing must be aware of -must sense -must be affected by -another.
Our complex self-awareness and awareness of the environment are built upon the most simple of changes/interaction -and are complex arrangements of such.
By further arrangement, we become more aware -and more capable of affecting and determining greater portions of nature.
It is conceivable that a human consciousness/self-awareness could become aware of all, and able to affect all by eventually being able to interface with all (if not overwhelmed by greater forces before achieving that position).

However, I do believe that everything is already aware of itself -and that there is an overall mind able to interface with and determine (create/arrange, maintain, destroy) everything.

If nature were not basically deterministic, decision would not be possible.
A system like a mind could not develop and be stable (one stable arrangement makes others possible) -and could not determine anything with any certainty. It could not cause arrangements which could otherwise not exist.

That is actually the heart of the matter -the absolute necessity of a complex mind able to cause arrangements of nature which otherwise could not exist -but which itself could not exist and act except by prior arrangement of nature.
When we think of nature, we tend to think of that which is already determined -and will not be altered except by decision. Conscious decision -modeling, execution, etc., is necessary for some arrangements -and some arrangements are indicative of conscious decision, modeling, execution, self-awareness, etc.

It seems to me that "nature" could not have determined the universe and all therein without first being able to say "I AM", "I will...", "I will not...", etc.
I'll attempt to explain why more clearly later.

You seem to recognize nature as more simple and deterministic than the complexity of the human mind with it's albeit limited free will. So I'm not seeing how you're then going to say that nature itself is aware. The universe is determined because of the underlying order, an order that without no universe could even exist.

 

[Etritonakin]

You seem to recognize nature as more simple and deterministic than the complexity of the human mind with it's albeit limited free will. So I'm not seeing how you're then going to say that nature itself is aware. The universe is determined because of the underlying order, an order that without no universe could even exist.

A human mind is not separate from nature -it is an arrangement of nature. More correctly, it is an arrangement of a portion of nature.

If considered separately, it may be the most complex arrangement of nature which is presently apparent -but as nature includes all humans, nature is more complex overall -and that still does not mean a similar -yet even more complex -mind does not exist beyond our perception.

Nature -everything -overall -if self-aware and now having a mind -would be similar, but all-inclusive.

Nature is dynamic/interactive -therefore it has a most basic awareness of itself.
That basic sort of awareness -affecting and being affected -can be arranged into complex self-awareness.

The singularity/Big Bang produced/is producing the universe by arranging it from that which was previously. It is of a specific complex order/arrangement of the most basic order.
The question is whether it is of an inevitably-specific order or a consciously-specified order.

The most basic order of nature cannot be changed -but it's configurations can be changed by conscious decision -and without conscious decision, certain configurations are not possible.
Conscious decision is not possible without nature first being arranged to allow it.

It is necessary that the universe was preceded by that which was already capable of producing it specifically. We call that the singularity/Big Bang -but the singularity would also need to be preceded by that which was capable of producing it -and its complexity and results are not indicative of the most basic order possible.
They are, however, indicative of intelligent pre-determination of the future order built of the most basic order -modeling, forethought, etc. -but I'm still working on how to explain that.

 

[1137]

A human mind is not separate from nature -it is an arrangement of nature. More correctly, it is an arrangement of a portion of nature.

If considered separately, it may be the most complex arrangement of nature which is presently apparent -but as nature includes all humans, nature is more complex overall -and that still does not mean a similar -yet even more complex -mind does not exist beyond our perception.

Nature -everything -overall -if self-aware and now having a mind -would be similar, but all-inclusive.

Nature is dynamic/interactive -therefore it has a most basic awareness of itself.
That basic sort of awareness -affecting and being affected -can be arranged into complex self-awareness.

The singularity/Big Bang produced/is producing the universe by arranging it from that which was previously. It is of a specific complex order/arrangement of the most basic order.
The question is whether it is of an inevitably-specific order or a consciously-specified order.

The most basic order of nature cannot be changed -but it's configurations can be changed by conscious decision -and without conscious decision, certain configurations are not possible.
Conscious decision is not possible without nature first being arranged to allow it.

It is necessary that the universe was preceded by that which was already capable of producing it specifically. We call that the singularity/Big Bang -but the singularity would also need to be preceded by that which was capable of producing it -and its complexity and results are not indicative of the most basic order possible.
They are, however, indicative of intelligent pre-determination of the future order built of the most basic order -modeling, forethought, etc. -but I'm still working on how to explain that.

Our mind emerge from nature, like a fetus in a mother's womb. This does not mean that a child is not a separate entity and force from it's mother at a certain point. Complexity, which seems to peak at consciousness, is built upon simplicity. Things tend towards complexity. So it makes perfect sense that our minds may arise without conscious intent. Before order there was simply possibility, infinite possibility with infinite time, of course order eventually arose, it was inevitable. But I don't see why this would require intelligence in the first place, it's simply chance.

 

[Etritonakin]

Our mind emerge from nature, like a fetus in a mother's womb. This does not mean that a child is not a separate entity and force from it's mother at a certain point. Complexity, which seems to peak at consciousness, is built upon simplicity. Things tend towards complexity. So it makes perfect sense that our minds may arise without conscious intent. Before order there was simply possibility, infinite possibility with infinite time, of course order eventually arose, it was inevitable. But I don't see why this would require intelligence in the first place, it's simply chance.

I don't necessarily believe that there was intelligence in the first place.
I believe an overall intelligence necessarily preceded ours -but am not saying it could not have developed/inevitably emerged.

I don't believe it is correct that our minds simply emerged from nature.
Our minds are essentially mass-produced -though our environment was first produced.
I believe that the original overall mind could possibly have emerged and increasingly self-developed.
Whereas we are a ready-made self-awareness and essentially awaken into an already-complex form, I don't think that could have been possible unless an original first existed/developed to be reproduced to some degree.
Our individual bodies and minds have developed/been developed over time, but "we" have not.
"We" didn't do any of the work along the way. "We" were not involved in any way -and do not become involved until already extremely developed and capable (though there is a learning process involved in how to use our ready-made self).
It seems to me that the first self-awareness would necessarily have become increasingly able to self-design -becoming more aware as it became more of which to be aware -a self-made person, as it were -though composed of that which has "always" existed.

As long as there was something, it was in some sort of order.
I don't think you can say that order was inevitable, but intelligence was by chance -especially if you are also saying that nature is deterministic.
Intelligence itself would also be inevitable -but once an overall intelligence existed, it could determine and decide upon that which was not inevitable.

 

[1137]

I don't necessarily believe that there was intelligence in the first place.
I believe an overall intelligence necessarily preceded ours -but am not saying it could not have developed/inevitably emerged.

I don't believe it is correct that our minds simply emerged from nature.
Our minds are essentially mass-produced -though our environment was first produced.
I believe that the original overall mind could possibly have emerged and increasingly self-developed.
Whereas we are a ready-made self-awareness and essentially awaken into an already-complex form, I don't think that could have been possible unless an original first existed/developed to be reproduced to some degree.
Our individual bodies and minds have developed/been developed over time, but "we" have not.
"We" didn't do any of the work along the way. "We" were not involved in any way -and do not become involved until already extremely developed and capable (though there is a learning process involved in how to use our ready-made self).
It seems to me that the first self-awareness would necessarily have become increasingly able to self-design -becoming more aware as it became more of which to be aware -a self-made person, as it were -though composed of that which has "always" existed.

As long as there was something, it was in some sort of order.
I don't think you can say that order was inevitable, but intelligence was by chance -especially if you are also saying that nature is deterministic.
Intelligence itself would also be inevitable -but once an overall intelligence existed, it could determine and decide upon that which was not inevitable.

I actually agree with this, it would be the platonic form of consciousness.

 

[Etritonakin]

I actually agree with this, it would be the platonic form of consciousness.

It seems logical to me that in order for "God" (I speak of the biblical God) to be all-knowing and all-powerful, "God" must have once been the most simple possible arrangement of "everything".
(I do not claim to know anything -but try to consider everything)
Many "believers" -when considering "God" as eternal -assume a complex state which has always existed -the oft-scoffed-at "man in the sky".
However -that is not actually stated (to my knowledge) in scripture.
I have not seen where God has declared that God has always been as he now is -only that he has always been.
When God says he is the Alpha and Omega -what was, is and will be -he acknowledges changes in configuration.
How could God be the most high if he did not replicate/reproduce?

Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Before Abraham was, I Am

 

[1137]

It seems logical to me that in order for "God" (I speak of the biblical God) to be all-knowing and all-powerful, "God" must have once been the most simple possible arrangement of "everything".
(I do not claim to know anything -but try to consider everything)
Many "believers" -when considering "God" as eternal -assume a complex state which has always existed -the oft-scoffed-at "man in the sky".
However -that is not actually stated (to my knowledge) in scripture.
I have not seen where God has declared that God has always been as he now is -only that he has always been.
When God says he is the Alpha and Omega -what was, is and will be -he acknowledges changes in configuration.
How could God be the most high if he did not replicate/reproduce?

Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Before Abraham was, I Am

Is there any evidence or reason to believe in such a god?

 

[Thief]

It is believed individual self-awareness is the result of "natural" processes.

Could the nature of "everything" have naturally resulted in an overall self-awareness?

and so.....your mind is one with the mind and heart of the Almighty?

 

[Etritonakin]

and so.....your mind is one with the mind and heart of the Almighty?

Yes -in composition, but no -in agreement. The carnal mind is not yet aligned with the mind of God.
As God is the one by whom all things consist, then we are essentially made of "God" -though logically separated into individuals with independent decision-making power.

 

[Etritonakin]

Is there any evidence or reason to believe in such a god?

Yes -there is much evidence and reason to believe that the God written of in the bible exists.
Biblical scripture contains evidence of an intelligence able to declare our history before we live it, but few are of a mind to research it in great depth and with an open mind.
Exactly why the God of the bible has done what he has done/is doing what he is doing/finds it necessary to have us experience all of this, etc., is also not easily understood (and certainly not always pleasant to experience) -but it is also explained in scripture (here a little, there a little), and makes perfect sense.

However, while it is important that God cause such a record to exist, it is not important that all understand it immediately. Things will become apparent to all later, but only some things are made apparent to some as necessary to accomplish his purpose.

 

[Thief]

Yes -there is much evidence and reason to believe that the God written of in the bible exists.
Biblical scripture contains evidence of an intelligence able to declare our history before we live it, but few are of a mind to research it in great depth and with an open mind.
Exactly why the God of the bible has done what he has done/is doing what he is doing/finds it necessary to have us experience all of this, etc., is also not easily understood (and certainly not always pleasant to experience) -but it is also explained in scripture (here a little, there a little), and makes perfect sense.

However, while it is important that God cause such a record to exist, it is not important that all understand it immediately. Things will become apparent to all later, but only some things are made apparent to some as necessary to accomplish his purpose.

so you include disappointment and regret?.....in your scenario

 

[Etritonakin]

so you include disappointment and regret?.....in your scenario

Some think a perfect God could not be disappointed or regret any decision -such as God regretting making man on the Earth -but that was more due to their decisions than his. He is ultimately responsible, but once he gave independent decision-making power to individuals, he also relinquished total control of the outcome of events based on those decisions -though he still maintains control of the ultimate outcome of events.

His ultimate goal is to make more like himself. He knows both good and evil, but chooses only good. He is creative, but invents only that which is good.
What we are now experiencing is the period between our being created and our being made perfect. Meanwhile... There is a big ol' mess. The question is.... How do you make someone independent -then make them independently choose correctly?
The answer is.... Experience. We have to never want to experience the effects of bad decisions ever again.
With man, there is not always an immediate negative consequence.
It takes experience for individuals to think long-term and to consider the well-being of all as necessary for their own well-being.

I do not claim to know the nature of God, but only consider possibilities.
I have wondered why God is necessarily perfect.
It is a good thing that one who is perfect and has our best interest in mind is in control of the ultimate outcome of events, but could it have been otherwise?
It seems to me that perfection was a necessity.
A single decision-maker who was all -able to determine, know and affect all would necessarily proceed extremely cautiously -and consider all possibilities before acting -as there would be no buffer -no disconnect.
Every thought and action would necessarily be perfect -or that one would immediately be in an undesirable state.

The state of the Earth and man's situation have been allowed to become undesirable, but only temporarily -and only after being certain the situation could be completely corrected.
Anything that man is able to destroy can be repaired.
All who have died will be resurrected -and the Earth will be renewed.

 

[Thief]

Some think a perfect God could not be disappointed or regret any decision -such as God regretting making man on the Earth -but that was more due to their decisions than his. He is ultimately responsible, but once he gave independent decision-making power to individuals, he also relinquished total control of the outcome of events based on those decisions -though he still maintains control of the ultimate outcome of events.

His ultimate goal is to make more like himself. He knows both good and evil, but chooses only good. He is creative, but invents only that which is good.
What we are now experiencing is the period between our being created and our being made perfect. Meanwhile... There is a big ol' mess. The question is.... How do you make someone independent -then make them independently choose correctly?
The answer is.... Experience. We have to never want to experience the effects of bad decisions ever again.
With man, there is not always an immediate negative consequence.
It takes experience for individuals to think long-term and to consider the well-being of all as necessary for their own well-being.

I do not claim to know the nature of God, but only consider possibilities.
I have wondered why God is necessarily perfect.
It is a good thing that one who is perfect and has our best interest in mind is in control of the ultimate outcome of events, but could it have been otherwise?
It seems to me that perfection was a necessity.
A single decision-maker who was all -able to determine, know and affect all would necessarily proceed extremely cautiously -and consider all possibilities before acting -as there would be no buffer -no disconnect.
Every thought and action would necessarily be perfect -or that one would immediately be in an undesirable state.

my line of thinking is a bit different

prior to the first creation.....light...
the universe was perfect, uniform, quiet, ........peace

the big bang didn't make a sound.....but it is correctly named

light is an aberration
gravity the unseen pull...relentless and unforgiving

conflict becomes the necessity
can't have light without darkness
can't have heat without cold
can't have .......so many things

and after realizing His singularity
God had to have...someone else

but an exact copy is just that
His own reflection.....His own Echo

we have to be less
we have to be imperfect

We are given instruction to BE perfect
but you can't have life......unless you struggle

 

[Etritonakin]

my line of thinking is a bit different

prior to the first creation.....light...
the universe was perfect, uniform, quiet, ........peace

the big bang didn't make a sound.....but it is correctly named

light is an aberration
gravity the unseen pull...relentless and unforgiving

conflict becomes the necessity
can't have light without darkness
can't have heat without cold
can't have .......so many things

and after realizing His singularity
God had to have...someone else

but an exact copy is just that
His own reflection.....His own Echo

we have to be less
we have to be imperfect

We are given instruction to BE perfect
but you can't have life......unless you struggle

Hmmmm... We definitely see things differently.