But whose mind? Which group? I believe minds do communicate in
unconventional ways, but this is a natural aspect of how nature
works. Minds of birds and fish clearly communicate directly. This
behavior can be seen in other animals as well. Even certain humans
have this ability to a small extent. However, this ability is a
natural part of how the universe is designed and is nothing special.
The big question is, In whose mind is the universe itself? What size
is the collective mind that communicates information between all
intelligent lif-forms throughout the universe?
Ed
On Feb 15, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
A middle ground - based on expanding Sheldrake's thinking is that
"group
mind" (collective consciousness, or even a collective intelligence
combined
with a directed unconsciousness evolved from morphic fields) fits the
definition of divinity in a defensible, scientific way.
Of course, this kind of sensibility and rationality please no one -
the
evangelicals hate it more so than the atheists... which probably
means it is
as correct as human mentality can imagine.
From: Edmund Storms
I have always been interested in how people describe a
"Creator". Are you claiming that the universe resulted from some super
intelligent life-form getting the idea that a new universe would be an
interesting project and then set about creating it? Or is the idea
of a
creator an abstract simplification of a process that would have
occurred
regardless of any intent? Too often the idea is applied to mankind
as a
reason why we are so special. Or at a more childish level, that God
is here
to answer our requests for personal protection or to help win sporting
events. At which level are you describing the "Creator" and what
use is the
concept to anyone?
Chris Zell wrote:
Dawkins is an example of 'atheist theology' (oxymoron). He
seems to desire a neat, ordered, understandable world without any
Creator
behind it. He extends traditional moral concerns to general
society, as if
they still had a Divine authority behind them. Why is objective truth
important? Why aren't some lies better?
I prefer to think that the lack of a Creator suggests that
we should expect a sort of patchwork universe, full of paradoxes and
anomalies - such as Feyerabend suggested. It would make a lot more
sense -
and might lead us into unexpected discoveries.
<winmail.dat>
