An atheist's best guess at a logical entity we might call "god".

Havenfall
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
An atheist's best guess at a logical entity we might call "god".

 Right off the bat, just to clarify, I am definately a militant atheist. There isn't a shred of evidence of anything I'm about to say, I have completely made it up, and I in know way think it's likey . . . because I made it up lol.

If we can suppose that we, as the human species, survive to evolve further; Then we can also suppose that a possible chain of mutations (Inspired by the nature of the internet itself) transmit information in a language that could be understood as a language between people. We send information through the air with technology, so it's at leaste worth pondering that our brains could do the same. So you have this globally connected species.

Now we know our bodies are made up of cells, and we co-exist with countless microorganisms and are essentially a single awareness supported by billions of micro organisms. Awareness sparked by the allowance of our brain size possibly, or I've read interesting (not sure of its validity) of psilocybin mushrooms affecting mutation with human evolution. If so, what if some reaction, in a world where humans can transmit data with their mind connecting all human beings, develop a total consciousness.

Still having individual "awarenesses" yes, but also this global awareness that seems ominipresent in knowledge because it could be capable of knowing the thoughts anyone at any time. Maybe think of it like the google search engine of all human thought, with a consciousness. Potentially, with enough understanding, sending the right information back into the consciosness of any individual to make them see angels.

Obviously, there's no supernatural (just highly creative imagination based on a decent understanding of evolution) forces, nor does it have anything to do with the beginnings of the universe.

As stated, I completely made all of this up, simply for idle speculation, and I knew this would be a place where I could get a rational response. No pun intended.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:psilocybin mushrooms

Quote:

psilocybin mushrooms affecting mutation with human evolution

I've heard that too but of course it is nonsense. Evolutionary processes can only by definition act on hereditary traits. Therefore, for sexually reproducing multicellar organisms like us, the processes by which alterations in gene sequences are made from generation to generation must act on the gametes, the haploids which contain the copy of a genome to be passed on. These processes occur during replication and are the result of duplicative processes that can give rise to homologous families. Additionally, much of the processes of forming novel sequences in sexually reproducing organisms occurs during the multistep recombination pathways occuring between maternal and paternal chromosomes, or site specific recombination which occurs due to the presence of mobile and transposable genetic elements. I fail to see how the ingestion of mushrooms could result in any of these effects.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Havenfall
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
I appreciated sharing your

I appreciated sharing your understanding. Smiling I put the (not sure of its validity) in there, because with the very shallow thought I gave it, it seemed kinda sketchy.

 


Anonymous112 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
They can have a direct

They can have a direct effect on the recombinent DNA easily, and DNA has very little to do with the social/physiological outcomes, which I think may have been the correct point. The fact that there is no impact on DNA(which is unlikely) really has no relevance.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Here's a logical entity to

Here's a logical entity to follow as a god, should you desire to do so. Of course, it doesn't give a rats ass either way, and isn't going to be responding to any prayers anytime soon, but it can be traced as the most significant object pertaining to our existance.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Havenfall, I have a name for

Havenfall, I have a name for what you are describing. I call it God the Machine. By calling it 'god' I only mean that many people who talk about 'god' are really talking about this Machine. By calling it a 'machine', I don't mean it was intentionally constructed for a particular purpose, I only mean that it IS constructed by humans, using culture and technology, and that it DOES actually exist.

Let me start with an analogy that I think is very accurate. In your skull there is a brain. That brain is made of billions of neurons. Each neuron is a single cell. That cell has a membrane, which encapsulates the entire cell, and which has little ports (think of them as doors or windows) which exchange chemicals with the cell's environment. Now, some cells can 'see', such as the light receptors (cones and rods) in your eye's retina, but *most* of a neuron's awareness has to do with chemical signals across this membrane. When certain chemicals, called neurotransmitters, attach themselves to certain ports on the membrane, the neuron detects this, and it either gets excited or inhibited. A neuron that gets excited will release its own neurotransmitters, and some nearby neurons will detect these and themselves either be excited or inhibited.

Now, a single neuron does not really *directly* know about its neighbouring neurons. It only knows about these chemical signals on its membrane. But it uses these chemical signals to modify its behaviour and send out its own chemical signals. In this way, a single neuron can *indirectly* know about its neighbouring neurons. This is how neurons talk (communicate) with each other.

So, we have this vast network of neurons, all talking with their neighbours. Now, an individual neuron is not that smart. It is the *cooperation* of interconnected neurons that brains really get their overall intelligence from. Two neurons are better than one, to paraphrase an old saying.

But out of this vast network, in whatever extremely complex way, *you* arise. *You* exist. *You* are intelligent. *You* are a person. But *you* are the product of many billions of *non-you* neurons. Non-person, not-so-intelligent neurons. And these neurons are only aware of their little chemical signals on their individual membranes. They are, at best, aware of their immediate neighbours.

Now, here's a couple questions to stir your thoughts. Are *you* actually aware of what any individual neuron is doing in your brain? No. The only way you know that neurons even exist is because we use our scientific instruments to look into people's brains and see that there are little interconnected, intercommunicating little cells there. Hmm.

Were you always aware of yourself? No. It takes several years for a child to develop mentally enough to realize that they are individual people. It takes a lifetime to develop an even deeper level of consciousness that you can understand how your own mind works, etc. Before we develop our consciousness, we tend to act automatically, 'unconsciously' or 'subconsciously'.

So, here is where the analogy makes sense out of your idea of god. This 'god' already exists. In fact, there are many such 'gods'. But they are not really 'gods' they are social constructions made of groups of interconnected, intercommunicating human minds. Yahweh/Jesus exists, as a shared idea in the minds (and books/literature) of billions of humans on this planet. But there are other 'gods' that are not so tied to religion. There are corporations, for example, and governments. There are communities of various kinds. With our advancing technology, we are improving the consciousness of such 'gods', but I would argue that there are, as yet, no fully self-aware 'gods' of this nature. They are all acting sub-consciously, as little children do.

The point I'm making is simply that God exists, and It is a Machine. Not supernatural. Also, in many cases it has strange and dangerous ideas about itself. It is not fully conscious, and not aware of the consequences of its actions. For example, Yahweh/Jesus believes it created the universe. Clearly this is the kind of narcissistic belief that a little child might have about itself. This 'god' needs to grow up and realize that it is not the centre and the creator of the universe. It's just one among many other 'gods'. If it continues with this belief, if we *let* it continue, then there could be disastrous consequences. For example, one other belief of Yahweh/Jesus is that the end of the world is coming, and that will be a *good* thing! This 'god' has even taken some actions to try and bring about its own prophecies.

When technology gets to the point that such 'gods' can survive and live on without the need of human minds, such as if we develop artificial intelligence to such a point that a mechanical device (likely a computer of some sort) can attain self-awareness, then I think we had better make sure that those 'gods' we allow to become self-aware are the benign and responsible ones, rather than the crazy and suicidal ones like Yahweh/Jesus.

In other words, God the Machine is living in its own sub-conscious dreamworld, and when it wakes up, we had better make sure it's well-educated and responsible. Very much like how a parent hopes to raise its children to be well-educated and responsible. But we know from experience that many parents don't know how to raise well-educated and responsible children, and those children tend to do a lot of damage to the world.

So, while you see your best guess at 'god' as more of a wild speculation, I think there's actually some real truth to it. We are not directly aware of this 'god', and this 'god' is not directly aware of us, just as your neurons are not directly aware of you, and you are not directly aware of your neurons. But your neurons do give rise to you; you exist. Likewise, our human culture does give rise to 'gods'; these 'gods' do exist. They are just not supernatural in any way, and they tend to be narcissitic and claim they are more powerful than they really are. On the other hand, they *are* powerful and potentially dangerous, just as you are more powerful than an individual neuron, and more potentially dangerous as well.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!