We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary

[John_Martin]

Sounds a bit like Jung’s Collective Unconscious (since there is no measure of it in individual physical consciousness) or like “Universal Consciousness” that I found on a couple of web searches, that looks a bit like new age mixed with eastern religions.

 

[Bahman]

God is three persons. In us he is the Holy Spirit. Consciousness is (consciousness of) God.
Consciousness belongs to God but its relation to a person is not measurable. You need Grace to measure that. The only real way to know is the person who says “Jesus Christ is Lord.” No one can say that except in the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, unless the Holy Spirit is in you, i.e., you are not apart from Jesus, you can do nothing.
This is a profound thought. You can go about doing all sorts of things, but you will be doing nothing.

So you mean that we have no personality since what we call consciousness is not ours, hence we are philosophical zombies in another word. But why I should be responsible for my action if the consciousness that I make my decision through it is not mine?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman’s assertion is that consciousness is a basic property of the universe, that is only aided by memory and other functions of the brain. The universe is conscious but it is only through a brain that memories can be formed to establish the distinction of individuals. Memory, reason, and emotion are tools that can be utilized by consciousness. That is my understanding of what is being said.

That can’t be proved anymore than the existence of God though.

You almost got me but you didn’t say that why consciousness is equal to God?

 

[jimmy]

You almost got me but you didn’t say that why consciousness is equal to God?

Are you asking me a question? I am not sure what the question is.

I have made similar statements on here. Either God exists or consciousness is a natural property of the universe. Materialism makes no sense. To assert that consciousness is the product of the evolution of the brain makes no sense. It makes more sense to say I always existed, atleast in the sense that consciousness is a natural property of the universe, or God exists and he created me. The one sounds like the approach of eastern religions as far as I know (I don’t know much about eastern religions), and the second is the western approach. They both explain consciousness.

The difference between my view and yours is that You are trying to prove one side over the other. Neither side can be proved.

 

[jimmy]

Here is what I said on another thread about reincarnation.

I have thought about this before, in connection with my own existence. I have always thought that the fact that I exist (I not we, and not life in general. My own life and existence.) is both the most amazing and absurd idea there is. For 15 billion years the universe existed and nothing made any sense. Rocks collided and stars exploded. All of a sudden 31 years ago, I was born, and everything slowly began to make sense. It wasn’t just rocks colliding and stars exploding anymore.

It also struck me that there are billions of other people in this world who are not me. That is strange that they all exist and have their own experiences, yet none of them are shared. I don’t share their experience and they don’t share mine. They force me to consider my own life in relation to theirs. I am forced to question why or how it is that I exist as opposed to some other possible person. And what is it that distinguishes me from every other person. What is it that makes me me, and makes them them? Why do I know these experiences and not those? Why don’t i experience and know what they feel, and why don’t they know what i experience? All I can say is, “I” exist. That is at once the most personal, rational, and emotional idea.

There has to be some way to explain on the one hand the fact that I didn’t live and experience life at one time, and in a short period of time, presumably, I won’t live and exist any longer. There is a certain discontinuity that needs explained. On the other hand there is the multiplicity of existences that need explained. There are two possibilities that I see of explaining this. The first one is according to the western religious perspective. There is a God who exists independently of time and space, who created the world and all life. Each person has a soul that is the source of the knowing “I”.

The other possibility is that consciousness is simply a natural property of the univers and human life is the product of the universe’s yearning toward self consciousness. So I am just an expression of the universe, and it is all my memories and experiences that combine to form my self. It is my brain anatomy and chemistry that distinguishes me from every other person. My anatomy is the source of my experiences and thoughts, so that is the source of me. On the other hand, our sense of self as opposed to others is just an illusion. We are all just expressions of the universe. All my life is just a momentary instance of the universe. So since consciousness is simply a property of the universe, reincarnation is possible, and even likely. We are all just an expression of a property of the universe, so it is possible that sometime after I die, I will live, experience, and know again. But since my anatomy and brain are the source of my memories, I wouldn’t remember this life. It would appear to be completely independent.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10588322&postcount=51

 

[Michael19682]

So you mean that we have no personality since what we call consciousness is not ours, hence we are philosophical zombies in another word. But why I should be responsible for my action if the consciousness that I make my decision through it is not mine?

I might suggest that you think about the life (what we have called consciousness) that we have and what it means to be responsible (for this given resource). Jesus is a gentle and kind Lord and in my opinion gives us much to think and pray over with an example of a simple plant, a Fig Tree. Would you say that a fig tree can be responsible? Why or why not?

The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree.

6 And he told them this parable: “There once was a person who had a fig tree planted in his orchard, and when he came in search of fruit on it but found none,
7 he said to the gardener, ‘For three years now I have come in search of fruit on this fig tree but have found none. [So] cut it down. Why should it exhaust the soil?’
8 He said to him in reply, ‘Sir, leave it for this year also, and I shall cultivate the ground around it and fertilize it;
9 it may bear fruit in the future. If not you can cut it down.’”

The Cursing of the Fig Tree.

18 When he was going back to the city in the morning, he was hungry.
19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went over to it, but found nothing on it except leaves.
And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again.” And immediately the fig tree withered.
20 When the disciples saw this, they were amazed and said, “How was it that the fig tree withered immediately?”
21 Jesus said to them in reply, “Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done.
22 Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.”

 

[Tomdstone]

The Cursing of the Fig Tree.

18 When he was going back to the city in the morning, he was hungry.
19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went over to it, but found nothing on it except leaves.
And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again.” And immediately the fig tree withered.

It doesn’t seem right to curse a fig tree. I don’t see where it was the fault of the fig tree that it did not have fruit at that particular time. Perhaps there was a problem with the local bees and this led to a lack of proper pollination which was not the fault of the fig tree. Rather than cursing a fig tree, wouldn’t it be better to nurse it and attend to its care so that it would be healthier in the future?

 

[GEddie]

Why are y’all talking about fig trees?

Is anybody arguing that they are conscious, which implies that our LORD could not control things that are not conscious?

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

Here is what I said on another thread about reincarnation.

I have thought about this before, in connection with my own existence. I have always thought that the fact that I exist (I not we, and not life in general. My own life and existence.) is both the most amazing and absurd idea there is. For 15 billion years the universe existed and nothing made any sense. Rocks collided and stars exploded. All of a sudden 31 years ago, I was born, and everything slowly began to make sense. It wasn’t just rocks colliding and stars exploding anymore.

It also struck me that there are billions of other people in this world who are not me. That is strange that they all exist and have their own experiences, yet none of them are shared. I don’t share their experience and they don’t share mine. They force me to consider my own life in relation to theirs. I am forced to question why or how it is that I exist as opposed to some other possible person. And what is it that distinguishes me from every other person. What is it that makes me me, and makes them them? Why do I know these experiences and not those? Why don’t i experience and know what they feel, and why don’t they know what i experience? All I can say is, “I” exist. That is at once the most personal, rational, and emotional idea.

There has to be some way to explain on the one hand the fact that I didn’t live and experience life at one time, and in a short period of time, presumably, I won’t live and exist any longer. There is a certain discontinuity that needs explained. On the other hand there is the multiplicity of existences that need explained. There are two possibilities that I see of explaining this. The first one is according to the western religious perspective. There is a God who exists independently of time and space, who created the world and all life. Each person has a soul that is the source of the knowing “I”.

The other possibility is that consciousness is simply a natural property of the univers and human life is the product of the universe’s yearning toward self consciousness. So I am just an expression of the universe, and it is all my memories and experiences that combine to form my self. It is my brain anatomy and chemistry that distinguishes me from every other person. My anatomy is the source of my experiences and thoughts, so that is the source of me. On the other hand, our sense of self as opposed to others is just an illusion. We are all just expressions of the universe. All my life is just a momentary instance of the universe. So since consciousness is simply a property of the universe, reincarnation is possible, and even likely. We are all just an expression of a property of the universe, so it is possible that sometime after I die, I will live, experience, and know again. But since my anatomy and brain are the source of my memories, I wouldn’t remember this life. It would appear to be completely independent.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10588322&postcount=51

So lets see what we have got in our hands as the most important question and if whether we can conclude something from them:

1. Consciousness is either primary or it is not?
2. What is knowledge and information?
3. Knowledge and information are constant or not?
4. What is the whole?
5. The whole either has a beginning or not?

The answers:

1. The answer to the fist question is that consciousness is primary since the ability for experience is necessary for any change.
2. Knowledge is structured awareness ( what we learn and memorize through the process of information) and information is what is experienced by consciousness.
3. This we don’t know and the situation depends very much on this.
4. This we don’t know yet but we have a few pictures: a) there does exist a God, b) there does not exist a God universe only, c) etc by which I mean that we can’t know because we are cognitively closed to it

(a) is false because the whole is the sum of God and creation now and this means that there must exist a state of being in which there only God exists since God is the creator. Two state of existences, God only, and, God plus creation could not exist together and the first should follow the second. This subjects the existence of God to before creation and after which is fallacy since this questions eternality of God hence (a) is invalid unless we accept that there exists a God which is not eternal. Lets call this (d). This also means that an eternal being (it has no before and after) for example God is an static being hence nothing can comes out of it.

(b) if (a) is false then we have only (b), (c) and (d) so lets focus on (b) and (d)

1. We saw that (a) is false then the whole is what we can call it universe which we can simply imagine it as the set of all current forms. There exist a set of all possible forms and lets call this Self, simply the whole knowledge. This set is either finite (A) or infinite (B). (A) is false unless universe has a birth and death or it is cyclic. This is correct since something which has no beginning should eventually reach to a point to become conscious of the Self, true self awareness (all possible form) unless there is no progress and things becomes static at this point (death point) unless we have a cycle. Case (d) is equal to cycle. (B) is correct if universe is eternal and we are cognitively open to Self, meaning that there is a progress.

 

[Tomdstone]

1. Knowledge and information are constant or not?
   …
   The answers:
2. This we don’t know and the situation depends very much on this.

Not true since we do know that knowledge is not constant.

 

[BrassAnkles]

I am still waiting for Bahman to answer my question:

What happened to our conscience before we were born?

 

[John_Martin]

It doesn’t seem right to curse a fig tree. I don’t see where it was the fault of the fig tree that it did not have fruit at that particular time. Perhaps there was a problem with the local bees and this led to a lack of proper pollination which was not the fault of the fig tree. Rather than cursing a fig tree, wouldn’t it be better to nurse it and attend to its care so that it would be healthier in the future?

I was wondering if anyone would take this up? It is interesting that Jesus changes the whole meaning of a discussion in this way. The talk of whether there is a God, whether consciousness is primary, etc. Here is God answering you (Jesus). The answer is in the fig tree. The farmer does nurse it in his first discourse, to see if it will come around, and it is certain that the owner of the cursed fig tree did that.
In the cursing of the tree, Jesus is the owner returning for his fruit, and there is none, so he is done with the tree; it will no longer take nutrients away from the other trees.
Is the tree responsible? The fig tree is not rational, no. But it does have a reason of being, a “natural intelligible nature” of producing figs, dependably. If it is living contrary to its nature (living with no figs) it is in a way, “unnatural” and not wanted by the owner who only wants fully naturally behaving fig trees in his garden. So, he curses it because something (vital) is absent from the tree’s nature. And the tree is now dead, every bit of it. It is no longer a tree (a living being) but a corpse (a set of decaying elements in the shape of what would be a tree if it were alive). No part of it remains “Tree”.

It is the same with us, if we do not bear our “natural fruit” (which is in our rational, intellectual, soul and the actions of our soul as it animates our bodies). There is God, the owner of the garden in which we are rational and conscious trees. He creates us out of nothing by his word, looks, nurtures, teaches, but also removes what does not bear fruit. We were not (consciousness or any other way) prior to this. And he removes us from his presence if there is the absence of the reason he planted us (absence of fruit, absence of goodness in us). We were not always, and we will be discarded if we are found lacking. No consciousness will go back to a universal consciousness when we die only to experience again repeatedly. We know living and we know dying, and we know Him. Bahman I do not know as a teacher from God. He is teaching something of a mental construct based on a somewhat questionable logic that he finds intriguing. But it does not match reality nor revelation (which revelation fits experience and fits reasoning about it).

 

[Nixbits]

jimmy:

The other possibility is that consciousness is simply a natural property of the universe and human life is the product of the universe’s yearning toward self consciousness.

How can the universe itself ‘yearn’ for anything? Could it not be the case that the universe is just a collection of material with no intelligence of its own?

jimmy:

our sense of self as opposed to others is just an illusion. We are all just expressions of the universe.

What if my ‘sense of self’ is entirely real, based on whatever definition I use to define it? And what do you mean by ‘expressions’ of the universe? If this just means ‘we are things in the universe’, then I would agree.

jimmy:

So since consciousness is simply a property of the universe

I don’t know if you are saying this is a property of the universe itself, or a property of some things in the universe, or that the two are somehow the same, or that the universe by its very nature will inevitably somehow cause consciousness to exist.

 

[Nixbits]

John, the allegory of the fig tree is an interesting one. But the fig tree had no intelligence and no free will. It could do nothing but react biochemically to the nutrients and weather and actions of the farmer.

If this is an allegory for humankind, is it saying that at least some humans have no free will and insufficient intelligence to meet God’s requirements and so are cursed to wither and die? Is there a moral lesson here? If so, it eludes me.

 

[Michael19682]

I was wondering if anyone would take this up? It is interesting that Jesus changes the whole meaning of a discussion in this way. The talk of whether there is a God, whether consciousness is primary, etc. Here is God answering you (Jesus). The answer is in the fig tree. The farmer does nurse it in his first discourse, to see if it will come around, and it is certain that the owner of the cursed fig tree did that.
In the cursing of the tree, Jesus is the owner returning for his fruit, and there is none, so he is done with the tree; it will no longer take nutrients away from the other trees.
Is the tree responsible? The fig tree is not rational, no. But it does have a reason of being, a “natural intelligible nature” of producing figs, dependably. If it is living contrary to its nature (living with no figs) it is in a way, “unnatural” and not wanted by the owner who only wants fully naturally behaving fig trees in his garden. So, he curses it because something (vital) is absent from the tree’s nature. And the tree is now dead, every bit of it. It is no longer a tree (a living being) but a corpse (a set of decaying elements in the shape of what would be a tree if it were alive). No part of it remains “Tree”.

It is the same with us, if we do not bear our “natural fruit” (which is in our rational, intellectual, soul and the actions of our soul as it animates our bodies). There is God, the owner of the garden in which we are rational and conscious trees. He creates us out of nothing by his word, looks, nurtures, teaches, but also removes what does not bear fruit. We were not (consciousness or any other way) prior to this. And he removes us from his presence if there is the absence of the reason he planted us (absence of fruit, absence of goodness in us). We were not always, and we will be discarded if we are found lacking. No consciousness will go back to a universal consciousness when we die only to experience again repeatedly. We know living and we know dying, and we know Him. Bahman I do not know as a teacher from God. He is teaching something of a mental construct based on a somewhat questionable logic that he finds intriguing. But it does not match reality nor revelation (which revelation fits experience and fits reasoning about it).

Is exactly along the logical lines of why I brought out the parable and the actual cursing of the tree.
Since I cannot state it better or more originally than the above quote, I’ll note gratefully that it stands as my opinion also.

But I would like to respectfully reiterate that the gardener is a key player in the first parable and works invisibly in the second: I’ve always seen him as the holy spirit, or as Jesus himself pleading with God the Father for an allowance of more time: which answers Bahman in regards also to responsibility for sin because I think a tree might very well be unthinking, but God’s way is a kind of universal process that works inexorably in and through all things. If consciousness truly is primary and cannot be created then it cannot be destroyed either and the entire thread and all of its opinion(ed) content is moot. I chose the Fig Tree parable because there isn’t too much emotion goin’ ta’ be generated over the loss of a literal tree, especially when we are saving a lot of them by discussing this topic electronically. Its a harmless and gentle way to see the principle of dependency on God in all life forms.

 

[Michael19682]

John, the allegory of the fig tree is an interesting one. But the fig tree had no intelligence and no free will. It could do nothing but react biochemically to the nutrients and weather and actions of the farmer.

If this is an allegory for humankind, is it saying that at least some humans have no free will and insufficient intelligence to meet God’s requirements and so are cursed to wither and die? Is there a moral lesson here? If so, it eludes me.

I see part of your comment’s complaint, but bear in mind that John noted the tree’s failure to produce fruit for God. Therefore it does represent people. To say because it does represent people means some people are unthinking and not of freewill is a conclusion that is meted out from the analogy by possibly inordinate magnification of the tree’s similarity to an ideal human. (See Luke 19:1-3). It also presumes I think a pandemic lack of faith in people – faith is mentioned in the later passage along with not wavering. Everyone has freewill, but some are mysteriously not fit for the kingdom of God:

Luke 9:62
61 And another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say farewell to my family at home.”
6 [To him] Jesus said, “No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.”

“Hand to the plow” means more generally makes preparations for producing fruits. As a figure in the previous analogy, the cursed tree represents a person who fails to produce fruit anywhere (it was all leaves and no fruit). We don’t know why some people fail to act fruitfully at all, but its doctrine that all have freewill.

 

[John_Martin]

How can the universe itself ‘yearn’ for anything? Could it not be the case that the universe is just a collection of material with no intelligence of its own?

This sounds like the god of Alfred North Whitehead in his attempt at metaphysics in “Process and Reality”, but not really metaphysics - empirical reality only.

 

[John_Martin]

John, the allegory of the fig tree is an interesting one. But the fig tree had no intelligence and no free will. It could do nothing but react biochemically to the nutrients and weather and actions of the farmer.

If this is an allegory for humankind, is it saying that at least some humans have no free will and insufficient intelligence to meet God’s requirements and so are cursed to wither and die? Is there a moral lesson here? If so, it eludes me.

The fig tree’s fruit is literal fruit, and farmers do destroy unproductive trees.
Our fruit is “intelligently chosen actuality” yet our creator is looking for just that from us and nothing less. We have free will AND intellect and he is looking for “goodness” from us. And we are thrown into the fire, like the tree, if it is not there in this 80 year lifespan. There is no pre Me consciousness that he considers, no post 80 year continuation for new experiences.
If there is fruit, it is a tree that will continue with the gardener in his presence (eternal life as Me with Him). The fig tree is perfectly appropriate.

 

[Bahman]

I am still waiting for Bahman to answer my question:

What happened to our conscience before we were born?

We normally practice conscience after the birth, in another word our mind is blank before the birth.

 

[BrassAnkles]

We normally practice conscience after the birth, in another word our mind is blank before the birth.

Actually, children in the womb are conscious. What about before conception? Or is conception when our conscience is created?