Whether it was God delight or not is subject of another thread. The main question is whether matter was initially conscious or not. To me matter is conscious since you cannot expect from something which is has no consciousness to reach to something which is conscious by changing the form of matter. Moreover I think we are fully conscious. We however have limited awareness of what exist unless you explain to me what you mean with consciousness and full consciousness.
I think that you need to explain to me the model in which soul is causally related to body considering the fact that soul has no location and we could have more than one soul.
Lets me ask you another question: How our experiences could be local if soul has no location considering the fact that soul is the experiencer?
Some believe consciousness is an emergent property. An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have.
Also, some people not only say “I have a body”, but with the same simplicity they say “I have a soul”, or like you, who even pretend to “have” more than one “soul”.
Now you are talking about something real (our experiences) in combination to your strange homuncular “soul”. I will drop this part: I am an experiencer, some of my experiences refer to situations defined in a spatial frame, and my intellectual processes, among other ones, are qualitatively different from any of those that characterize matter.
The response of system changes when we have a complex system yet the system react to a external stimuli as its constitutes does. Complexity just change the form of response making the response more complex. The very fact that any entity respond to external stimuli shows that it is conscious. In another word, consciousness is basic but the response of a system depends on what entity the system is made of and how the entities are configured.
Sodium and chlorine are not neutral to an external stimuli. They react to an external stimuli as salt react yet they responses are different. What is the same for each atom and molecule is that they are responsive to an external stimuli, conscious.
Of course there is not much to say here since you don’t have a coherent model which explain how a non-local entity, soul, could be causally related to a local entity, body.
I don’t understand how this could be an answer to my question. You experience is local, where your body is. All content of your experiences whether it is thought or vision or etc are local. Soul as we agreed is a non-local entity therefore you have a problem to explain how our experiences could be local if the experiencer is non-local.
The difference between sodium, chlorine and salt is the type of response to give to an external stimuli. Other than that they all responsive, conscious.
That is not a good way to stop a discussion.
In your view all but inert gases are conscious, anything that reacts to gravity. But reacting does not require consciousness. That just isn’t the standard definition of consciousness.
I question if non-local only means having no location at all or if it can also mean being present everywhere (omnipresent). The former sense would mean transcending space while the latter does not. If matter is everywhere, and that matter is conscious, then we can say that consciousness is everywhere. I think this would fit in more with the Eastern religions/philosophy than it would Christianity.
This is an important point to consider. I view the term consciousness as being more of an umbrella term for different types of mental phenomena instead of referring to one type of phenomena. While STT’s definition captures one way consciousness can be viewed, but it also leaves out key factors like sentience and subjective experience. Keeping in mind these factors, it would be hard to apply consciousness to anything impersonal.
Here we mean the former.
What do you mean with transcending?
Yes.
Truth is what it is whether you like it or not.
“Nonlocality describes the apparent ability of objects to instantaneously know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances (potentially even billions of light years), almost as if the universe at large instantaneously arranges its particles in anticipation of future events.”
Not bound by space, as in having no location. I have no position (no pun intended) on that but I wanted to distinguish it from quantum nonlocality and omnipresence.
I agree that matter is not everywhere but I believe that because of consciousness and our limitations in knowledge to justify materialism in any absolute sense. If you meant to use ‘void’ to refer to physical nothingness in some region of space (devoid of even particles and energy), then that is disputed in physics.
I really do not know much about physics nor space/time but find it interesting.
That I know but there is an argument against that: A thought and experience of the thought cannot emerge at exactly the same time considering the fact that these two emergent phenomena are independent.
I listen to Deepak Chopra lectures every now and then to stay up-to-date.
Not mainstream of course, but interesting nonetheless.Thanks again!
If you dare, have a look at “Creation by subtraction”.I listen to Deepak Chopra lectures every now and then to stay up-to-date.
Thanks again!