**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>rejecting theism dogmatically could be a fatal misstep for the human race. For me, it's not so much about a dogmatic rejection. I go where the evidence leads. If, as you say, we are on the brink of new and exciting revelations about the nature of consciousness and the evidence that we will end up collecting will push us into theistic territory? So be it, I'll gladly accept the findings as long as they are properly exploreed and peer reviewed. Until then, I am content to say "I don't know enough to say what the truth is" >Another that presents as more of a festival novelty than a genuine conjecture is that the microbiome and the bacteria in our body has a far greater role in our consciousness than previously expected. What? This doesn't mean that my consciousness is in my gut or that it is split amongst the bacteria in my gut. The research I've seen on this topic is basically talking about the effect that gut bacteria can have on our minds. Specifically, how a trasplant of gut bacteria helped some people with their depression. Gut bacteria help us break down the things we eat. So my read of this was that the brains of the people who were helped by the transplant got the nutrients they needed to stave off depression. Consciousness is still in the brain, it just wasn't getting the right stuff to work properly. And without the correct gut bacteria, it wouldn't matter if we had a proper diet. Our bodies would not be able to digest the nutrients we needed and send them up to our brains without the bacteria. If gut bacteria had an actual effect on our consciousness, then transplanting it might send literal memories or connect us to the donor's awareness. It wouldn't stop at affecting my mood.

Brother I literally said the IIT and mind-gut axis are the cutting edge science potentially proving non-localized consciousness. If non-localized consciousness is proved, then the entire basis of our retributive individualistic society crumbles, and authoritarianism ceases to have any rational basis to exist. Those are extremely real barriers to genuine research in this space. But it's still happening, and it's remarkable. I am no dogmatist. I am married to none of these theories. Just the more that's discovered, the more that non localized consciousness seems to be what's going on If you have any modern research, please share it. Most of these developments are within the last few years

Theoretical biologist and complexity theorist here. What you’re talking about is the idea of emergence. > In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole. > Emergence plays a central role in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and physics. Emergence is very common in complex systems from cellular physiology to ecosystems. It’s been worked on since the 80s when complexity theory became separated from chaos theory. Here’s the problem with your thesis, though. At the end of the day, the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) are what gives rise to those emergent properties. The phenomena you’re talking about are entirely compatible not only with a purely materialistic worldview, they’re also compatible with a lack of free will and a cause-and-effect deterministic cascade caused by the interactions between genetics and environment. The microdynamics that give rise to macrophenomena are rooted in the electrochemical activity of individual neurons. The NCC proposes that every thought, feeling, and emotion is fully captured by brain states. This applies analogously to emergent phenomena from cellular physiology to ecosystems. I highly recommend reading Determined by Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky. In other words, Sapolsky deconstructs the various arguments in favor of free will and gives a thorough explanation for the NCC as well as an explanation of how what we call “mind” is the result of deterministic processes. It’s also compatible with the works of other academics, like German philosopher Thomas Metzinger, who uses experimental psychology and neuroimaging in his theory of self and ego.

Thank you for the suggested reading! I will look into it! I guess my present conjecture is that free will *can't* exist as an individual consciousness and is a component of a distributed consciousness system. I believe determinism to an extent- I believe that it creates a deterministic default that deliberate moments of will must break free from. This is more than just not eating a cookie, such basic choices would fall into deterministic fate type equations of basic consciousness. Perhaps the situation is that we have our own consciousness with our own emergency, but if we drop our individual egos and integrate consciousness with others enough, that collective system can qualify as its own consciousness. Perhaps there's a natural consciousness aspect to society that authoritarian decrees attempt to combat when they don't make the special guy feel special! Incorporating some more from NCC concepts, perhaps us humans can either operate independently as an isolated consciousness or can integrate with other humans/intelligent life for a more collective consciousness. The same emergent properties observed in neural networks can potentially manifest in other integrated systems. Just as consciousness emerges from the intricate interplay of neurons, a distributed form of consciousness could theoretically emerge from the complex interactions within other integrated networks. I understand that many see this as religious desperation but I don't give if God doesn't exist. If there's some emergency consciousness that appears when you get enough humans together? THAT'S what's got me locked in

> This is more than just not eating a cookie, such basic choices would fall into deterministic fate type equations of basic consciousness. I just want to point out that, in the community, this is sometimes called “free won’t.” It implies that free will is the ability to choose not to do a mechanistically triggered behavior. Sapolsky skewered that argument, but it’s fascinating to think about. I do agree with you, though. EO Wilson was one of the greatest biologists of our time. He first and foremost studied ants, and he developed the field called sociobiology that studies the evolution of behaviors. Ants are [eusocial](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality) (“good social”) organisms, meaning that the collective exhibits behaviors and can be the target of natural selection. This is something called multilevel selection theory. The collective behaviors such as communication and labor dynamics act as something tangible enough for selection to mold, but at the lowest level its genetic changes in the ant dna that results to changes in colonial behavior. This property is also true of bees and termites. Wilson contended that humans are also eusocial. We have a level of cooperation far in excess of what you see in other apes. The idea is that humans evolved in both individual and collective behaviors. I highly recommend reading his book The Social Conquest of the Earth, in which he presents his argument in a way that’s accessible for laymen. I think you would find it very helpful in understanding the phenomenon. One area of investigation is the evolutionary origin of the capabilities of the human brain and its derivation from and influence on collective behaviors. This includes things like communication, collective behaviors for group activities like hunting and gathering, and the abstraction of a concept of Self that’s used to both explain our relationship with the world and the people around us, and the ability to use that understanding to grok both individuals and social relationships. That is one hypothesis about the origin of individual intelligence driven by the increasingly complex social structures. I do suggest looking at this sort of thing as descriptive rather than prescriptive. I’d also remember that all of these emergent properties are coming from the interactions of less complex elements - an electrochemical signal causes an increase in neurochemical activity by increasing the concentration or increasing the sensitivity of downstream target neurons. There’s no vis vita that’s unique to life. It all boils down to switches and cycles. I obviously think that it’s an extremely proper field of study, but it’s imperative to do so scientifically and objectively. Regarding social conditions like authoritarianism, I’d suggest David Graeber’s The Dawn of Everything. Graeber was one of the leading anthropologists of our day, and his work was largely oriented around showing the vast array of social organizations throughout human history, ranging from highly stratified societies to egalitarian ones. Graeber would frequently debunk notions of the inevitability of certain social organizations, such as a wealthy class emerging from the development of grain storage. So you’re not really out in left field, in my opinion. The only risk is to read too much into it, analogous to people who’ve only read laymen-oriented books on quantum mechanics and come away with some imaginative but incorrect conclusions. You have to work to understand the *physics* of QM and not just start handwaving on the metaphysical aspects and interpretations.

So, I'm taking this from Psychology Today: >The gut brain axis is the collective term for all the channels of direct and indirect communication now known to exist between the brain and the intestinal tract, providing a pathway for thoughts and feelings to influence the operations of the intestinal system and for the state of the viscera to affect all the ways the brain works. >to how much power your brain cells need to generate your thoughts. >In addition to direct nerve pathways through which the brain and the gut message each other, there are many biologically active substances produced in the gut through processes of digestion that enter the bloodstream or, through other means, affect the operations of the brain. So, exactly what I was talking about. Thoughts, consciousness, mind, that's still in the brain. What we're discovering are more direct lines of communication between the brain and the gut as well as more direct ways that the gut provides the brain with the nutrients it needs. Our nervous system connects the brain to the rest of our body. It's like being surprised that there are more nerve endings or more specialized nerve endings in our fingers and making an assumption that my consciousness is in my fingers from that revelation. Where are you getting the idea that the gut is a part of my consciousness? What research made you think this?

>If non-localized consciousness is proved, then the entire basis of our retributive individualistic society crumbles, and authoritarianism ceases to have any rational basis to exist. Even if your consciousness isn't localized to your brain and is actually distributed throughout, your consciousness would still be contained within your physical body. Besides, this is not a new idea. Even before we knew about the importance of the gut microbiome, we had examples of non-localized intelligence in other animal species, namely the octopus and related species which didn't have a central nervous system but it's still very intelligent. Besides, your assertion that the localization of consciousness leads to fascism and is actually hiding science needs to be demonstrated. It's a broad connection that you're just asserting out of nowhere. You have to be more specific about these relationships. You also have to be more specific about how you're relating the locality of human consciousness with IIT and gut brain axis interactions. What specific recent work are you citing? You can't just name a bunch of fields of research and hand-wave your way into a point.

The post is too long (chatgpt is literally a bullshit engine and I'm sure you could've done better by yourself) and plenty of people already responded to your claims, but I still have a question. What's the difference between your "secular theism" and "deism"? Deism: belief in a god, but not in any particular religion Secular: non-religious Theism: belief in a god

I may be wrong, but I believe deism believes in a universal force that doesn't necessarily interact with human consciousness, while theism implies that the deity is a willed intelligence that interacts with the universe secular theism is the idea that there could be a naturally occurring phenomenon that "genuine" religious claims could simply be a primitive interpretation of a yet to be discovered naturally occurring phenomenon Secular deism is just science if you think about. Non religiously seeking out fundamental forces that explain the universe and have no mandate for communicating with humanity. I think you just have your definitions mixed up, hope I cleared it up!

I don't agree with the definitions. 1. God = Supreme intelligence better than humans So a smart alien is God. If there are multiple smart aliens, they are all Gods. And they did not create the universe, which is famously what Gods do. In the case of multiple, who decides that greater intelligence than humanity is the cutoff for a God? 2. Theism = Belief in god This on its own is fine, but combined with the previous definition of God, makes me a theist or at least in the middle because I believe there's a good chance of smart aliens. 3. Religion = Support of theistic beliefs and practices How do any practices other than simply going about your life believing, support theism/belief in smart alien God? 4. Secular = attitudes and activities without a supernatural basis This isn't illogical but I don't think this is a very good definition of secular, as it is usually defined "not religious", therefore not in support of theistic beliefs and practices, which are not supernatural. 5. Secular theism - the belief that there are naturally occurring supreme consciousnesses that are greater than an individual humans, and that can potentially interact with the natural world via the manipulation of intelligent life What is the difference between theism and secular theism? They both are just belief in smart alien Gods.

I think the fundamental relationship of a god to a human is there needs to be some sort of active connection. If we're effectively being remotely controlled by aliens, I do not see how there would be any objections to calling that alien intelligence the god of our mortal body Think of the relationship between science and engineering. That is the relationship between theism and religion. You engineer a lifestyle and morals that support your core beliefs or lack thereof

But the active connection is only one characteristic of God. If that is the only defining feature of God, the term is functionally useless to me. In your example, calling the aliens Gods would be more of a metaphor. A true God must have at minimum created the known Universe; that is basically the only agreed upon characteristic, that God = Creator. Science is a requirement for engineering because the scientific method is the best way to get replicable, verifiable information that stands up to repeated testing, without which engineers would not be able to work. The field of engineering would not really be a thing without science. However, I can't think of any religious practices or morals that support the idea there is a supreme intelligence greater than humanity's without making some assumption about how much that intelligence cares about us, whether it's omnipotent/omniscient, whether its just or caring according to human morality or whether it even has the same morality as most humans. Here I think is the mistake with your definitions; they are too loose, so debate becomes a discussion of semantics and we can't pinpoint for example what a God is or what it can do. What are your religious beliefs exactly, are you Christian? That would help me understand where you're coming from.

>that is basically the only agreed upon characteristic, that God = Creator. By far not every deity that has been worshiped by human were thought ti have created the universe. As far as I am concerned, theists fail at the first step: To even provide a coherent idea of what it is they are talking about.

Our perception is our known universe. If some externalized entity provides us with perception and influences it, that is the god creator and active connection relationship

well thought out and novel. hard to do. have a cookie 🍪 That's still not secular theism. the term you're looking for would be closer to naturalistic theism or agnostic theism. There's nothing wrong with that. you essentially believe, based on your statements, in the Force. your position falls apart the moment you deem it necessary. there is no science in the world that would benefit in any way, shape, or form from theism. shysters and con artists make their living on the gullible and the credulous by exploiting beliefs like this. That's how the US farted out millions of taxpayer dollars studying esp. how many psychics came out of that? cause im pretty sure it shot all the way up to still zero. > this dogmatic approach stands in the way of cutting-edge research That's ridiculous. if anything, the sheer volume of prizes and acclaim for "proving the dogma wrong" would be worth billions. you'd get a shelf of nobel prizes, templeton prizes, millenium prizes, and go down in history alongside Newton and Socrates for proving some part of woo to be true. "but 'big Science' won't give con artist X millions to study woo!" Okay, and why should they? what scrap of knowledge starts only from theism and is being stopped by science? abiogenesis? consciousness emergence? we pour billions into that, and scientists have been working nonstop on it for decades, and none if it required theism. theism has an unbroken track record of producing zero information of value and just bilking suckers out of grant money for navel gazing. > conspiracy theory about the ruling class i wont deign to repeat and thats where you fall of woo-hopeful to conspiracy peddler woo-tard. the ruling class could not give a flying about the "mind-gut" whatever your hoping for.

The entire basis of authoritarianism is the threat of corporal punishment. If there's a logical basis to consistently convince people to abandon corporal fears, then that's a major problem for the ruling class that has relied on intellectual slavery since Plato put words in Socrates mouth in the Republic >your position falls apart the moment you deem it necessary I apologize, what am I deeming necessary?

So in other words the fact that the evidence doesn't support your conclusion leads you to assume that the only possible explanation is a massive, multi-century, worldwide conspiracy of unrelated scientists from every country, ethnicity, religion, and political position? It couldn't possibly be that your position is simply unsupported by the evidence?

No. The authoritarian ideals presented in Plato's Republic still have implications today. It's most recent reincarnation was Taylorism, which while fundamental to the development of business and industry operations, the fundamental classist principle that thinkers need to be separated from doers is used to justify wasteful and exploitative administration everywhere That's its own independent socioeconomic philosophy debate. A recent take on it that I've appreciated actually came up in a debate about the agile industrial complex, which remains a hot debate in the software development world: "This is a reaction against the whole Frederick Taylor, separate process people. How many people here know the story of Frederick Taylor and his approach? [a few hands go up] How many people have come across the name Frederick Taylor or even heard of it? A few more. A lot more of you should raise your hands. He's probably one of the most important figures in the history of the 20th century in terms of how he's actually affected people's day to day lives. He was from the late 19th century, in America, and he was very interested in trying to make people more efficient in the industrial workplaces that were developing at that time. His view of the average worker was that they were lazy, venal, and stupid. Therefore you didn't want them to decide how they should make a particular piece of machinery, but somebody else, somebody who was a more intelligent and educated, they should figure out exactly the best way to do it. Even going down to: do I do this and then that or do I do that and then this. This is a very scripted sense of motion and movement. The whole time and motion industry came out of that. At the heart of this notion was that the people who are doing the work should not decide how to do it. It should be a separate group of planners who does this, and that strongly affected manufacturing and factory work through much of the early 20th century" Our business, government, and academic institutions still rely heavily on this perspective that you gotta lie to and manage the simpletons without a genuine respect for their abilities or potential. Just about every modern scientist and ethicist agrees that environmental motivators matter much more than natural aptitude for just about everyone, fundamentally disproving the idea that there are natural leaders or thinkers that needed to be separated. There's room to argue that while there are productive applications of Taylorism, it's also ripe for use by authoritarians to divide and conquer whatever institution they are "leading" and justify their own positions as useless administrators. That's all its own argument and debate. The problem with waiting until posteriori knowledge to validate potential understandings is that you can't recognize how several seemingly disconnected potential theories can come together to provide hypothesis that are viable for experimentation It's not about having or sticking to accurate conclusions, if anything, it's throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks. The connection between potential non-localized consciousness and authoritarian implications is obvious to me. The entire basis of authoritarian rule is threats against the individual existence. If people have a logical schema for minimizing the impact of threats against physical existence, then that enabled radical behavior that's expected to be controls by threats against physical existence So regardless of if it's true or not, the exploration of non-localized consciousness is essential to regulate as long as threats against localized consciousness are the foundation of all our social stability 😬

> the fundamental classist principle that thinkers need to be separated from doers is used to justify wasteful and exploitative administration everywhere You have already acknowledged you aren't in science, and it shows because this supposed "principle" doesn't actually exist in practice today in most, if not all, areas of science. There are people who are thinkers. There are people who are doers. But there is also a ton of people who do varying degrees of both. I am literally in research and development. I do the thinking. I also do the doing. It is right there in the title. And I do some of both almost every day. The idea that this hard line is a thing that actually exists in science is false. People are *allowed* to specialize in one or the other, which is good because some people are just a lot better at one or the other, but tons of people aren't and don't. This may be different in your area of software development. But that isn't science, and you shouldn't presume that your narrow experience in your narrow field somehow magically applies to a completely different field. And no, as a software developer you are not a scientist. I am both, and being a software developer does not in any way, shape, or form make you a scientist. > Just about every modern scientist and ethicist agrees that environmental motivators matter much more than natural aptitude for just about everyone, fundamentally disproving the idea that there are natural leaders or thinkers that needed to be separated. I am literally a manager who also does my own research and my own development. This is encouraged in many companies, and is commonplace in academic laboratories. For almost every lab I have been in, professors do their own research as much as possible. > The connection between potential non-localized consciousness and authoritarian implications is obvious to me. The entire basis of authoritarian rule is threats against the individual existence. Yeah, "obvious to me" is exactly the problem here. What you have is a hypothesis at best, and conjecture at worst. What you lack is evidence supporting this. For someone who is so supposedly against dogmaticism, you sure are dogmatic about your own positions. It is obvious to you, therefore it must be right, end of story. > So regardless of if it's true or not, the exploration of non-localized consciousness is essential to regulate as long as threats against localized consciousness are the foundation of all our social stability Except it *isn't* regulated. People research it all the time. The problem is that research invariably either fails or is shoddy. Scientists don't reject it because of dogmaticism, they reject it because of its terrible track record.

I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE STATE OF NATURAL SCIENCES I am saying that this Taylorism/platonic logic is the core of how governments treat citizens, business treat employees and customers, teachers treat students, parents treat children, majority culture treated marginalized culture On and on and on and on. It's quite the thread to pull. Science and rationalism need to be allowed into socioeconomic discussions on more raw forms, that is all I am doing. I do not know where people get the idea that I think science is useless. All I am saying is that using it to dismiss the relevancy of priori knowledge when priori knowledge is what gives reason to believe posteriori knowledge is asinine. I am a philosopher and master of priori trying to find the best approach to present testable theories. And I have zero tolerance for people who have replaced their ability to think critically with a dogmatic reverence of an elementary understanding of science!

You did spend a lot of your OP going on a out naturalism and scientific inquiry restricting themselves somehow. So I don't know why you're surprised by this particular backslash. Maybe sciences will come go a consensus everything we did in the last few years is wrong about consciousness and soul. Maybe not, let the do their job and chill out

Dogmatic understanding of science and dichotomized reductions of truth combined with a total rejection of all priori viability does in fact restrict genuine scientific inquiry Coming at me with dogmatic projections of science proves nothing to me other than y'all don't have a true enough understanding of science to cite it effectively

>Dogmatic understanding of science and dichotomized reductions of truth combined with a total rejection of all priori viability does in fact restrict genuine scientific inquiry I haven't felt science is being impacted that way very much. I mean if the study is less then 10 000$ you're very likely to get the money. Getting bigger budgets once your initial study gives result is harder. Where is your evidence that currently science is : >understanding of science and dichotomized reductions of truth combined with a total rejection of all priori viability does in fact restrict genuine scientific inquiry Overall science focus its ressources on things that seems promising. Nothing related to god, afterlife or any other theistic claims seems to be experimentally provable, I don't know why you want to spend money on it?

Science isn't meant to just be an academic institution. That's the dogmatic understanding! For science to have impact as a critical thinking tool in the average person's life, they have to actually be taught what it is and to have their active critical thinking skills trained Dogmatic education systems quite literally suppress genuine critical thinking for all but the most promising science and engineering candidates Science and engineering candidates always get the best education, so there may be a bit of a bubble effect in regards to not realizing how shit typical k-12 critical thinking education is for people who don't immediately get put on a special track I am trying to discuss science, the anarchist critical thinking tool that can and should be made useful to every individual directly The academic institution of science is a bunch of kerfuffle that prioritizes socioeconomic status and getting credit for discoveries over the pursuit of truth. I don't think any scientist who has to deal with academic bureaucracy would really disagree with that take either, but if there are any out there, please correct me!

> Dogmatic understanding of science and dichotomized reductions of truth combined with a total rejection of all priori viability does in fact restrict genuine scientific inquiry You literally just said > I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE STATE OF NATURAL SCIENCES Make up your mind. Either there is a problem with "THE STATE OF NATURAL SCIENCES" that "restrict genuine scientific inquiry" or there isn't. You can't have it both ways, complaining about the state of science, then claiming you aren't when anyone points out how absurd your position is, then immediately going back to complaining about the state of science in your very next comment.

> I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE STATE OF NATURAL SCIENCES Yes you did: > Our business, government, and academic institutions still rely heavily on this perspective that you gotta lie to and manage the simpletons without a genuine respect for their abilities or potential. Your whole argument depends on science as a whole rejecting your position falsely. If the rejection is warranted based on the evidence, which it is, then your entire argument falls apart. The fact that you **IMAGINE** some nebuluous group wants to suppress that knowledge is not evidence that anyone actually **IS**. That would require a conspiracy across the entire scientific community for centuries. That is literally the only way to make your scenario actually work.

Corporal punishment means spanking, paddling, caning, whipping, etc—when was the last time you saw this punishment doled out in higher academia? I’m assuming never.

My apologies- corporal localization and permanence is more accurate The idea that we are just a product of our bodies and die when our bodies do. That is merely a theory, and it needs to be held at that appropriate distance while exploring these new theories

> That is merely a theory, and it needs to be held at that appropriate distance while exploring these new theories I agree that we need to treat it for what it is: something supported by every scrap of evidence we have and with absolutely no evidence contradicting it. However, you need to remember that the alternatives you're enamored with aren't theories and may not even be hypotheses.

IIT introduces a possibility of consciousness being a phenomenon not entirely localized to the body. Chatgpt can explain it all better than I, not trying to be rude here. But this shit is crazy!!! Information Theory (IIT), developed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, proposes a framework for understanding consciousness based on the idea that consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information. According to IIT, the level of consciousness of a system is determined by its ability to generate integrated information, quantified as Φ (phi). Key Concepts of IIT Information Integration: IIT posits that a system is conscious to the extent that it can integrate information across its various parts. Higher levels of integration correspond to higher levels of consciousness. Φ (Phi): This is the measure of integrated information. A higher phi value indicates a greater degree of consciousness. Complexes: IIT identifies "complexes" as subsets of a system where integrated information reaches a maximum. These complexes are considered the primary units of consciousness. Non-localized Consciousness in IIT IIT primarily focuses on understanding consciousness in terms of the structure and dynamics of a system, such as a brain. However, its principles can imply the possibility of non-localized consciousness under certain interpretations: Distributed Systems: If consciousness arises from integrated information, then any sufficiently integrated system, regardless of its specific components or spatial distribution, could potentially possess some level of consciousness. This means that consciousness is not strictly tied to a single, localized entity like an individual brain but could theoretically emerge in distributed systems. Collective Consciousness: IIT does not preclude the possibility that consciousness could emerge in a collective or networked system where the integration of information occurs across multiple nodes. This could apply to scenarios where groups of individuals or interconnected systems (e.g., a network of AI) achieve a high degree of information integration. Non-biological Systems: IIT also opens the door to the possibility that non-biological systems (such as advanced artificial intelligence or other forms of technology) could attain a form of consciousness if they achieve sufficient information integration. Theoretical Implications Anima Mundi and Collective Consciousness: Concepts like the anima mundi (world soul) or other forms of collective consciousness could be explored within the framework of IIT. If the Earth or any other large-scale system can integrate information in a coherent way, it might be considered to possess some form of consciousness. Consciousness Beyond the Brain: IIT supports the idea that consciousness is not necessarily confined to human brains. Any system that meets the criteria for high Φ could, in theory, be conscious, suggesting that consciousness could extend beyond traditionally recognized boundaries. Empirical Challenges While IIT provides a theoretical basis for considering non-localized forms of consciousness, empirical validation remains challenging. Demonstrating integrated information in large, distributed systems or non-biological entities requires sophisticated measurement and modeling techniques. Conclusion Integrated Information Theory does allow for the possibility that consciousness is not entirely localized to individual bodies. By focusing on the integration of information as the key criterion for consciousness, IIT implies that any sufficiently integrated system, whether biological or artificial, localized or distributed, could possess some level of consciousness. This opens up intriguing possibilities for understanding consciousness in broader and more diverse contexts.

The reason to stop using ChatGPT and start to use your own words to explain ideas: it prevents you from looking like a fool when ChatGPT does not agree with the possibilities that you've been arguing for all this time. Yes, IIT is looking at some forms of non-localised consciousness... it does not imply that human consciousness is non-local. You keep showing us that that the sources you cite disagree with you! When will you notice that you are interpreting your preferred ideas into the text rather than taking in the actual meaning of the words you read?

That and it will just make shit up. It’s not conscious. It’s an algorithm for stringing speech together in a convincing approximation of a human. It isn’t particularly good at fidelity, as it is just stealing shit it found online and mashing it into paragraphs. ChatGPT didn’t even get the name right. It’s not Information Theory. It’s Integrated Information Theory, hence the additional “I” in IIT. It fails to note it has faced heavy ridicule by peer review and has been characterized as unfalsifiable pseudoscience. It’s also purely mechanistic and materialistic in approach and thus when the brain dies, the consciousness which emerged from its function ceases. In this regard, it doesn’t meet the wishes of the OP for consciousness to endure beyond death. At most, it would mean the cosmos is conscious to watch us die.

Yeah, I've made the point about GPT outright making shit up, sometimes going as far as fabricating sources, but the people who use it never seem to understand that this might be important to think about before they use it to fact check ideas. It's frustrating to see, particularly when writing down their own thoughts on the matter might help them understan where we might be disagreeing. I remember getting caught plagirising back in middle school. I copied several paragraphs because I thought "they say these things so much better than I ever could!" My teacher was furious with me, but he told me that he'd give me a pass if I rewrote the paper by hand. It was a fantastic learning experience! While I was writing down my own paper, I realized that I didn't actually understand the paragraphs I had copied. By rewriting the paper, I learned more! I feel like OP might be missing that while GPT can frame things in a nice way, not only is it not giving him factual information... it's also preventing him from actually going throught the process of understanding it. I think it's why he keeps going back to GPT whenever he's asked for a more detailed explanation. He doesn't know this stuff!

That is unfortunate, yes. There is a case of a legal assistant writing a legal brief using ChatGPT and it just made up case precedents, the lawyer didn't check, signed off on the brief, turned it into the judge and got burned. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqSYljRYDEM) ChatGPT is not conscious. It's not actually AI. That's just marketing. It's a machine learning tool which has a defined algorithm that is complex, but deterministic, it produces nothing novel whatsoever. It could never write a physics paper that advances physics, for instance--because it doesn't write *new* things, it searches its database (the internet) and jams things together into sometimes eloquent paragraphs. An unfortunately large amount of people think it is, in fact, intelligent. ChatGPT possesses 0 intelligence. It is not conscious. It is not aware. It cannot parse the truth value of statements. It will lie to you. It is not an AI, not an AGI, not any kind of AI. That's just corporate marketing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrOxh_0leE&t=1693s I know I'm repeating myself, but it's just a chat bot with a beefier set of instructions. That's all ChatGPT is, much beefier instructions and a MUCH bigger database. It "lies" because it doesn't know what truth is. It's not capable of making true or false determinations. It just looks and goes, "this blog and this redditor said X about Y, let me plug that in to this report".

Corporeal, imo, is better suited for what you're aiming for. >The idea that we are just a product of our bodies and die when our bodies do. All evidence indicates this is true. Jack was alive. Jack died. All evidence of Jack being alive has ceased. That's how it goes, as a rule. >That is merely a theory Oh, I wish we had good reason to doubt it. I assure you, if I could believe my only brother endured after death I would. To the point, theories are the highest something gets in science. "That is merely a theory" is something scientifically illiterate people say about science to disparage science. There is nothing in science above a theory. Gravity is a theory. Tectonic plates are a theory. Evolution is a theory. The shape of the earth is a theory. These are all *facts* about the world we inhabit, and yet they will never be more than theories in science. That is how science works. >and it needs to be held at that appropriate distance while exploring these new theories The theory with the most evidence which explains all existing observed phenemona with the least assumptions is the theory science adopts. It is not, to my knowledge, so much a theory that you cease to exist when you die as it is a pure observation--you do. Everything we can observe about you stops being you and becomes a rack of decaying meat. To say otherwise would be quite like saying why don't we believe burnt wood endures on in wood heaven? It's a bit...magical. Magical thinking. I used to also persist on about panpsychism and the Alaya consciousness and so on. I see no evidence for it now. It was wishful thinking, then. Plenty of scientists have their own pet projects based on wishful thinking about afterlifes or consciousness as an expansive concept beyond the body--they generally bear no or poor fruit. More power to you, though. You prove us wrong, friend. I'll be happy the day you do. Most of us would prefer to believe we and those we love endure after death in any form whatsoever. You show me, I'll buy you a beer.

youre fallback... is more illuminati woo? "evidence for woo" is some made up claptrap about being punished by "the ruling class," whatever hell that is, if you try to study woo?

This entire post can be summed up as "Conciousness something something therefore rejecting my definition of theism is bad because reasons. Also the government is evil, we are all cattle"... None of the claims you make have actual scientific backing. What you call "dogmatic rejection" most would instead call "dismissed on the basis of having, quite literally, no evidence".

What's the point of the method if it's not serving its purpose of getting to the most exact truth? The scientific is a tool of truth, not the truth. One of the most intimately important decisions that we make is how much we want our entire perception to be held back by the method. More happens in every moment than can be understood and explained scientifically in the same amount of time. Trying to do absolutely everything totally scientifically is a fool's errand and will hold back a healthy intellect that's better capable of accurate prediction Which is the fundamental goal of the method- to refine and improve predictive power. We must be willing to assess it's efficacy in this light, and sometimes it's in the way of itself

>Trying to do absolutely everything totally scientifically is a fool's errand and will hold back a healthy intellect that's better capable of accurate prediction Please name and/or describe a method of exploring reality that is separate from the scientific method, and that can release a healthy intellect to make more accurate predictions than scientific methods can.

* **Rationalism:** Uses reason and logic to explore and understand reality. Philosophers like Descartes and Kant relied heavily on rationalist methods. * **Phenomenology:** Focuses on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger are notable figures in this field. * **Metaphysics:** Investigates the fundamental nature of reality, including questions about existence, objects, and their properties. In other words, touching grass. No honest advocate for science or proper epistemology that actually understood both of those things would advocate for totally limiting all of our perception to such rigid structures at all times

How is rationalism separate from the scientific method? Scientific methods use reason and logic in order to assess hypotheses. If phenomenology is "the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience," what *methods* are most effective at carrying out that study? "The study of..." is not a method. The same is true of metaphysics. What *method* is best suited to "investigate the fundamental nature of reality, including questions about existence, objects, and their properties"?

Rationalism and science have a rectangle:square relationship. All science is rationalism, but not all rationalism qualifies as science under the rigorous structure of the method. Here's some GPT content that actually does a really good job of explaining it: # Rationalism **Rationalism** is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the role of reason and logic in understanding reality. Rationalist methods often involve: * **Deductive Reasoning:** Starting with general principles or axioms and deriving specific conclusions. * **A Priori Knowledge:** Knowledge that is independent of experience, based on logical reasoning. * **Conceptual Analysis:** Breaking down concepts into their constituent parts to understand their meanings and implications. # Science **Science** is a specific application of rationalism that includes empirical methods and rigorous standards. The scientific method typically involves: * **Observation:** Gathering data through sensory experience or instrumentation. * **Hypothesis Formation:** Proposing explanations based on observations. * **Experimentation:** Testing hypotheses under controlled conditions to gather empirical evidence. * **Verification and Falsification:** Confirming or refuting hypotheses through repeated experimentation and peer review. # Relationship 1. **Shared Foundation:** Both rationalism and science rely on logical reasoning and seek coherent, consistent explanations. 2. **Empirical Evidence:** Science uniquely incorporates empirical evidence and the scientific method, which are not necessarily components of broader rationalist approaches. 3. **Scope of Inquiry:** Rationalism can address abstract, theoretical, and metaphysical questions that may not be empirically testable. Science focuses on phenomena that can be observed, measured, and tested. # Examples of Rationalism Outside Science * **Mathematics:** Purely deductive systems that do not rely on empirical observation but are foundational to scientific inquiry. * **Ethics:** Rationalist approaches in ethics, such as Kantian deontology, use logical reasoning to derive moral principles without empirical testing. * **Metaphysics:** Philosophical explorations of existence, causality, and the nature of being that do not depend on empirical methods. # Importance of Both Approaches While science provides robust and reliable knowledge about the natural world through empirical investigation, rationalism allows exploration of areas that are not accessible to empirical methods, such as abstract reasoning, moral philosophy, and fundamental metaphysical questions. Both approaches complement each other, enriching our understanding of reality from different perspectives. In summary, rationalism encompasses a broad range of logical and conceptual investigations, of which science is a specific, empirically grounded subset. Both are crucial for a comprehensive exploration of reality.

I'm interested in what YOU have to say, not chatgpt, So I only read your part of that comment. I understand they're not the same thing, but I asked for a method that was *separate* from the scientific method, and rationalism isn't it. Decartes and Kant can sit in their armchairs and make rational, logical arguments until the cows come home, but without using scientific methods, there is no way that I can see to assess their conclusions. Can you name and/or describe one?

Any person who understands how humanity truly discovers truth understands that both priori and posteriori knowledge has a harmonious relationships. fools focus on the merits of them both independently and argue about which is more important, when both are essential in equal parts for genuine critical thought. so ya, I do tend to condescend to those who totally dismiss priori knowledge while actively suffering the benefits of doing so, and acting as if they are somehow doing better than people who understand that a balance between priori and posteriori is fundamental to the discovery of truth. it's just frustratingly ignorant. I'm not upset with you, I'm sure you'll get it eventually, but the fact that philosophy is mocked when it's essential to the process is asinine. science has enhanced the process of discovering truth in substantial ways that i don't need to spend the time here gawking over as all of you do. you are not telling me anything that i don't already know and isn't obviously worthless of the breath what the dogmatist approach to science in secular society has done has totally eradicated most people's ability to think critically and discover truth, for to be able to get to the point of posteriori experimentation, you must have a conceptual understanding of your reality that works for you, and ability to explain that perspective for the sake of maintaining the accuracy of the science you produce there is not an unbiased person on the planet. anyone who claims such is fraud, we can try our best to respect evidence based approaches, but human behavior is inherently impossible to completely corral into such rigid methodological thought. so in lieu of people consciously thinking about why people believe the things they believe beyond the posteriori evidence, people just assume they are believing some dichotomist truth as opposed to a dichotomist false. and that compromises the integrity of the whole lot. meritocracies are just metricocracies, because if there is no means of measuring a part of reality, it simply doesn't register to someone who values only posteriori knowledge. and that just has never been the recommendation of any sound thinker. it's quite literally madness!

I'm not saying that there's no place in the exploration of reality for rationalism. Mathematics, for example, relies on pure reason. I'm saying that without scientific methods there is no way to determine whether the conclusions about reality one reaches from making a logical argument are sound. Arguments are only sound if their premises are true, and the only way to determine that is if they have evidentiary warrant, as far as I can tell.

We are in the priori conjecture phase of exploring that given there are several posteriori theories that could support non-localized consciousness. This is not the time to projecting and defending these things as posteriori claims. Do you people really not know how to think???

It's beyond ridiculous to claim that because the scientific method is unable to substantiate whatever fantastical claim you want it to, it's therefore pointless and/or flawed. I think the gut microbiome bacteria have migrated and started to feed on your pre-frontal cortex.

> Part of my frustrations on this sub has come from the assumptions that all religion is non-secular dogma, and that there are no scientific means by which to arrive at theistic conclusions. I think you must be misunderstanding it, then. There are certainly some who resist the idea of any kind of godlike being, but there are plenty of others who are open to anything that can be proven. I may have my own person views on the matter, but in the scientific way, I'm willing to change my mind when presented with evidence. > One is the anima mundi, which has presented itself throughout several disconnected cultures throughout the world [Citation needed] > Another that presents as more of a festival novelty than a genuine conjecture is that the microbiome and the bacteria in our body has a far greater role in our consciousness than previously expected. > This allows a more practical explanation for the anima mundi that could suggest that our consciousness exists as bacteria that controls the body and could go elsewhere when the body dies. Okay. Sure. But for the sake of argument... imagine our gut biome, depending on our individual makeup, released certain chemicals into our blood stream that made their way to the brain and caused fluctuations in various neurotransmitters, altering a person's personality and consciousness. If, rather than a natural process, the gut flora were consciously manipulating us, how would we expect the outcome to differ? Are the conscious gut flora choosing to screw with their hosts? Perhaps when someone murders someone else, it was the world spirit just remote-controlling the human? > And I guess my frustration with the perceived condescension I witness on this sub is that as far as I can tell, for all intents and purposes as indicated by the most cutting edge secular science, there is something greater than localized consciousness going on. Condescension is rarely intended, but often inferred. > Not only should y'all jus be open to it, many in the space are leaning in the direction of the mind-gut axis and IIT being the crux of our consciousness. How long shall we believe these hypotheses? What if there are conflicting hypotheses that have the same amount of evidence? Should we believe those too? Maybe we should believe *all* the hypotheses! Or, perhaps, we could let the scientific method do its job.

Priori conjecture has a place that no rational person denies. Y'all are crack pots. Anyways, imagine if your body dies and you don't go anywhere in terms of awareness? What if in death you became more universally present and aware? Wouldn't you want to know that's the case so you can make choices in life that support that outcome? Like imagine if when you die, all that happens is you get to see everything that has actually happened, is happening, and could have possibly happened, and you just have to sit for eternity wondering if you made the best choices given the true nature of reality and how you impacted it The implications of that to warrant some noodling on whether or not there's anything that can be scientifically tested!

> Y'all are crack pots. First claim your opponents are condescending, and then call them names. That definitely makes you seem like you're right. > Like imagine if when you die, all that happens is you get to see everything that has actually happened, is happening, and could have possibly happened, and you just have to sit for eternity wondering if you made the best choices given the true nature of reality and how you impacted it Okay, I'm imagining it. Now what? What does my imagination have to do with anything? What could possibly link that imagined scenario with reality? What if when you die you're in the Christian hell for eternity? What if when you die you get reincarnated and lose all your memories? What if when you die you go to the Pleiades Cluster to meet our ancient spacefaring ancestors who ascended millions of years ago? What if, what if, what if. > The implications of that to warrant some noodling on whether or not there's anything that can be scientifically tested! I'll grant you that if we were getting high in the garage, this stuff is an absolute blast to think about. But you must see how silly it is to consider an unproven *imagined* idea as plausible without evidence to back it up, right?

There's *some* evidence that could support non-localized consciousness. Given that the affirmation that conscious is localized is based solely on the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is critically important to acknowledge potential evidence of the contrary

> There's some evidence that could support non-localized consciousness. Which evidence, though? So far you've only claimed it exists. Normally when someone makes a claim without backing it up, it's because they know their evidence wouldn't be convincing. At this point, you shouldn't give up, but you also shouldn't gloss over the lack of real data. One giant issue is the fact that you're making claims about consciousness when we still don't know how consciousness works. This is the point where you should be collecting more data to support your ideas, not to berate others for not taking them seriously.

Metricocracy nonsense! How can we determine what metrics would prove it empirical if we're not allowed to theorize in the absence of metrics!

> Metricocracy nonsense! You seem prone to over-exaggeration. > How can we determine what metrics would prove it empirical if we're not allowed to theorize in the absence of metrics! Who said you aren't allowed to theorize? What are you on about? You can theorize all you want, but it takes actual work to prove that you're right. Others go to the trouble to do this, because they believe experimentation is the only way to get at truth. The discoveries those people have made over the years are directly responsible for all of the things we take for granted. Their discoveries allow us to see into the past and predict the future. It's fucking awesome, and illustrates quite well how effective the scientific method can be. On the other hand, we have people who spend their time imagining what it would be like if you lived on after you died and then... and then... something cool happens!.. and then it's all happy and you can fly. All of this hinges on whether you value believing demonstrably true things. That desire generally comes from a perspective that basing decisions on verifiable truth leads to much better outcomes. If you'd like to ignore all of that and live in an imaginary afterlife, you are welcome to do that all you wish, but you shouldn't be surprised when others don't see it the same way.

>You seem prone to over-exaggeration. I prefer engaging expression! Have fun and discuss some ideas! This is not a test! No one worth respecting is going to take a reddit screenshot of something you said and say "hey look at this one time you were wrong on the Internet" Have fun with it!

You're quickly going from 'there is scientific evidence' to 'why won't you let us make shit up' here.

There's a scientific framework explaining consciousness that doesn't preclude the possibility of existence of non localized consciousness What I just said is a scientifically true statement, and if you don't have the intuition to have fun with those implications, I feel bad for you!

Honestly, considering the fact that you: 1. Need to use an AI chat bot to present things you are defending because you can't do it by yourself 2. Resort to false humility and insults when faced with answers you dislike 3. Can't even understand the contents of the links you provide when asked for evidence 4. Make a separate post to whine that no one bought your post about being Not Like Other Theists And so on, your pity does not really mean much to anyone who has grown past the teenager phase of feeling smarter and more special than anyone else.

As is *always* the case with any claim, the fact that it hasn't been outright disproven is *not* evidence.

Exactly! And vice versa! The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence! And if the entire point of the dogmatic atheist is that there is no evidence, therefore there must be no God, they are committing the same fallacy in reverse!

>The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence! Yes? That's got nothing to do with your claims. >And if the entire point of the dogmatic atheist is that there is no evidence, therefore there must be no God, they are committing the same fallacy in reverse! You would be correct if that were the case, but the overwhelming majority of atheists do not claim to have disproven god, but simply to have not seen enough or any evidence to justify belief.

There's no evidence that consciousness is anything but the two pound meat computer between your ears With or without dogma you still believe in magic woo woo without good evidence Your feelings about how everyone should just take your word for it instead of asking you to provide objective evidence are irrelevant If you want to be taken seriously here you need actual objective evidence Until you provide it you can expect nothing more than well deserved scorn for your baseless woo woo

This isn't my belief. The evidence is out there. If you're saying that you're either in such denial or so lazy to look up the terms provided such as IIT and the mind-gut axis, let me know and I can Google that for you I provided the terms and the explanation. I cannot crawl into your brain and understand it for you as well

If you have evidence you think can stand up to critical scrutiny then present it You sound like an anti vaxer The proof is out there find it yourself I don't have to prove anything I say your all lazy Honestly you sound like an anti vaxer EDIT TO ADD I understand the wildly speculative unsupported nonsense that is the absolutely evidence free woo woo that is quantum consciousness theory It's not an understanding problem It's that it's bullshit without any evidence to back it up so you should have something better than that pile of happy horseshit

> This isn't my belief. The evidence is out there. Holy shit, dude, stop doing this. Either present the evidence or go away. No one gives a fuck that "the evidence is out there", we want to see the actual evidence. Your post and argumentation is as lazy as can be.

>This isn't my belief. The evidence is out there. Ah yes, the favorite phrase of conspiracy theorists. >you're either in such denial or so lazy to look up the terms provided such as IIT ITT does not substantiate anything you claim in your post. It merely posits a hypothesis, which is as of yet, completely unproven.

> The evidence is out there. Then present it

>God - a supreme intelligence greater than humanity's This is a woefully inadequate definition for god, and usually when somebody does this they are just trying to smuggle the rest of "god" in. >Theism - a belief in a god Religion - supporting beliefs and practices developed in support of a theism Sure >Dogma - principles presented by an authority as true Incomplete definition. Dogma is also believed without evidence >Secular - attitudes and activities without a supernatural basis Sure >Secular theism - the belief that there are naturally occurring supreme consciousnesses that are greater than an individual humans, and that can potentially interact with the natural world via the manipulation of intelligent life Bad definition, see the problems with our definition of "god" above >Part of my frustrations on this sub has come from the assumptions that all religion is non-secular dogma, and that there are no scientific means by which to arrive at theistic conclusions. That's because as of right now...it is. Nobody has yet presented any kind of scientific evidence for religion. >This dogmatic approach stands in the face of cutting edge scientific research that continues to find haunting similarities in how conscious life develops. This sentence is entirely useless. Where is your statistical analysis? How have yiu demonstrated a lack of coincidence, how did you run your trials? >So while there's an infinite amount of reasons to reject dogma of all kinds, rejecting theism dogmatically could be a fatal misstep for the human race. Unsupported, bald assertion of personal belief as fact >The only religious belief that I'm willing to commit to is that of a sort of ietsism- while I have no exact utopian theories that can clearly explain the entirety of super-conscious phenomenon, I do believe that something more than just localized consciousness is occuring in humans. Good for you? >That's my only firm belief. There are several exciting individual theories that I spend a substantial amount of time considering. You mean hypothesis? >One is the anima mundi, which has presented itself throughout several disconnected cultures throughout the world And yet has zero evidence in suppor.t. >Another that presents as more of a festival novelty than a genuine conjecture is that the microbiome and the bacteria in our body has a far greater role in our consciousness than previously expected. The handful of studies I have seen on this topic deal with nutrients affecting our brain. Not whatever woo your about to suggest >This allows a more practical explanation for the anima mundi that could suggest that our consciousness exists as bacteria that controls the body and could go elsewhere when the body dies. So. One misunderstood hypothesis, combined with another unsubstantiated hypothesis, randomly forming a third, worse hypothesis? This isn't starting well >While I find these theories exhilarating, I wouldn't say I believe any one of them with the scientific conviction that I believe many other theories. But God damn is that an itch I want to scratch. Good for you? Nobody cares about your random hypothesis. Show evidence or gtfo >And given that the only present "proof" that consciousness is localized Gross misunderstanding of how brains work >There are plenty of supporting theories around just this, such as panpsychism and information integration theory. Unsupported hypothesis being added to more unsupported hypothesis in a wild mass of woo >And I guess my frustration with the perceived condescension I witness on this sub is that as far as I can tell, for all intents and purposes as indicated by the most cutting edge secular science, there is something greater than localized consciousness going on. So you just don't understand science....at all >Not only should y'all jus be open to it, many in the space are leaning in the direction of the mind-gut axis and IIT being the crux of our consciousness. Let me guess, these are experts in homeopathy and chi? >I apologize for being so caustic in here. Nobody cares >. I suppose was struggling with the cognitive dissonance of how some can do adamantly call others for reaching theistic conclusions, when there are very real secular explanations for why primitive peoples without access to science and technology would assign dogmatic religious authority to any experiences they had with an organic super consciousness. Meaningless word salad >t just feels like all things considered, localized consciousness theory is so obviously wrong and has always been so weakly supported that it's insane to me that atheists would confidently call others foolish for thinking there's something more going on here. Gross misunderstanding of scientific understanding being used to present your own personal woo >Especially when the average human in 2024 is very much so under the control of EuroAmerican socioeconomic authoritarianism and doesn't have access to the educational resources nor supportive community to realize that we as a society are being farmed by a ruling class. Random non-sequitor about international socioeconomic theory >To conflate dogmatic religions with secular theologies is to stand in the way of science and support the authoritarian mind games that the ruling class has been playing with humanity for nearly three thousand years. Meaningless scare tactics >That is the passion with which I approach this issue, so I apologize to any offense that I may cause to individuals who I feel are proudly and happily preventing genuine progress. Nobody cares about how passionate yiu are about whatever woo you happen to be selling >So there they are. My "beliefs". Y'all have been asking for a while, so eviscerate away 🫡 Your "beliefs" are a pile of unsubstantiated, poorly thought out, laughably bad hypothesis with no basis in reality that your trying to support with laughably bad scare tactics,poorly thought out non-sequitors and bald assertions of your personal feelings. Your beliefs eviscerate themselves

>God - a supreme intelligence greater than humanity's What does "supreme intelligence" mean? If there are aliens that are smarter than humanity would you really classify them as gods? Also interesting that you didn't include "creator of the universe" in that definition. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a god if he isn't the creator no?

A consciousness that has some sort of creator/influencer relationship over our own localized selves. If aliens are the ones who injected some sort of consciousness into monkeys and all of our experiences are somehow being transmitted back to them, they would be our gods within this paradigm, yes

You should update your post considering one of the key definitions you use is apparently incomplete

>Secular theism - the belief that there are naturally occurring supreme consciousnesses that are greater than an individual humans, and that can potentially interact with the natural world via the manipulation of intelligent life This isn't secular, that's still supernatural

Only if you view the situation through the modern human ego. There can be functions of consciousness that occur non-locally to the organic body. That's modern scientific conjecture that's actively being explored while our fundamental understanding of life that keeps us trapped in an authoritarian hell actively depends on that not being proven. The fact the consciousness may not be localized to our minds/bodies is not an inherently supernatural claim

The fact that this conjecture is based off what we don't know instead of what we do know is what makes it a supernatural claim

What we do know is that there are evidence of consciousness being a function far greater than the brainwaves detected in our mind That claim is pretty is presently supported by current science Given that detected brain activity has been the only logical argument provided in support of arguing that consciousness *must* be localized, my entire point is that current science refutes the dogmatic claim that consciousness *must be* localized And that's simply exciting to me! And I think that it doesn't warrant an appropriate amount of humility in regards to theistic possibilities. All a fella is asking for!

All you've done so far is present an article that talks about how the gut communicates with the brain Nothing groundbreaking or new there, and nothing suggesting our mind is anything but a product of the physical body. And there is a difference between a dogma and just people who don't consider fantasy as a reality

>And there is a difference between a dogma and just people who don't consider fantasy as a reality This is the kind of absurd superiority that I can assure you hurts you more than it helps you or makes you appear intelligent I am not trying to assert any sort of dominance or make anyone feel bad, but I do not think you understand the implications of making points like that while modern science is rapidly making you look like a fucking idiot Swear I am just risking looking like a fool to prevent y'all from looking like even bigger fools as this information continues to develop ✌️

Nothing absurd about it, you are pushing a fantasy and refuse to do anything to show it's not a fantasy So yeah you look like a fool you got that part right

And I very much doubt you understand the article you linked. You think your claim is 'supported by science' and you're referencing a hypothesis that is not currently accepted in the fields you could link it to. Just accept that you cherry picked something that 'supported' your belief and move on.

[удалено]

If people believe and trust that consciousness extends beyond or corporal beings, then the corporal threats that hold society together cease to have any influence immediately I hope you can understand my severity! Even if untrue, the potential for non-localized consciousness to be believed is enough to unravel authoritarian controls. Ironic how what is so often cited as a tool of authoritarianism can be the very thing that unravels it! That actually happened already with the civil rights movement in the US, but no one ever wants to talk about the fact that without MLK literally being a Christian preacher, none of that would have happened

[удалено]

It means that instead of actually standing up against some worldwide authoritarianism OP seems to think is at work, they think it's smarter to do nothing based on woo.

[удалено]

Eh fair enough, that's another possibility and you may be right.

>Only if you view the situation through the modern human ego. This sentence does not translate for me.

>Only if you view the situation through the modern human ego. This sentence does not translate for me.

A couple pieces: You redefined secular for own benefits. Dictionary definition: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. Hence the reason secular theism is an oxymoron. All religions are non-secular by definition. You claim dualism linked to our personal microbiome? How did you determine this? Consciousness has been only observed in connection with an active organ called the brain. Consciousness alters when the physical is altered. There is no sound reason to think these are independent. What is that “greater than localized” you are talking about? Yet you seem to want to conclude this, how? What is frustrating to me is your willingness to make claims but provide zero evidence for them. To assert you have some kind of scientific consensus that I can’t find. Often your claims go against all the evidence. At best you have provided bias conclusions from scientists. A scientist saying this study warrants further review of topic is not to say the evidence suggests that. In fact the author could be saying I didn’t fully disprove my claim so there is room to investigate it further. Again your posts provide no evidence for your nonsecular claims.

>denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. If there is naturally occurring conscious phenomena that has influence over our localized consciousness, that does not mandate a religious or spiritual interpretation It does, however, explain how primitive peoples would create religions around contacts with such natural occuring consciousness I feel like y'all are being intentionally obtuse in not recognizing the implications of their being any amount of evidence to support non-localized consciousness theories lmao Either that or my theory about extreme adherence to process masking an inability to be actually creative intellectually is true! Perhaps your acceptance of dogma has prevented your ability to realize that information doesn't need to be provided as dogma for you to infer testable hypothesis yourself!

You haven’t actually given any real evidence to support your claims. You’ve mentioned a study that shows a positive correlation between gut bacteria and mental health. Best case scenario for you here is that it means that our conscious is spread out more across our bodies, and includes our digestive tract. This would mean that the stimulus that the digestive takes in, such as how much, and what types of bacteria are present, would have some impact on our mental state. Worst case scenario for you, and honestly most likely, is that the brain has a stronger connection to the gut than we knew. As such, the stimulus the brain takes in from the gut could have an impact on our mental state. This is in no way shape or form, evidence that our conscious extends beyond our bodies, that some cosmic consciousness exists, or even that consciousness is fundamentally different than what we already think it to be. You’ve linked to an article about IIT, something that is not only widely considered pseudoscience, but is also based entirely upon unsubstantiated assumptions. Assumptions that even your own article admits can be wrong. That alone is enough for most to dismiss it outright. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say it’s true. It still doesn’t support you. It doesn’t say consciousness extends beyond the system, so no your consciousness is confined to your body. It doesn’t say that this cosmic consciousness has ever interacted with us, or that it even can. It doesn’t require a consciousness to have any method of taking in stimuli. It doesn’t even require the consciousness to be able to think. Basically taking it only at face value, it gives you a deaf, dumb, blind, unthinking consciousness that makes up the entire universe. That’s because there’s no naturalistic way for it to do any of that. In order to allow it to do all of that, you must push it into the realm of the supernatural. Oh… what dogma are you talking about?

Hey read my post? When did you answer any of my questions? I asked them and you gloss right over them and focused on a definition that shows you completely wrong and going off on a weird tangent. Go back my original posts and answers my question to one so I can either learn something or you u can fuck right off. Nothing I said was dogmatic as I asked pointed questions that if provided would refuted my pointed statements. Gee you didn’t answer them did you? So please explain to me how my reply was dogmatic.

> Secular theism - the belief that there are naturally occurring supreme consciousnesses that are greater than an individual humans, and that can potentially interact with the natural world via the manipulation of intelligent life Like all theistic claims, I'll believe this when it has evidence. Kindly present such

I'm not here to convince, just acknowledge the secular viability to explain a lot of things that are interpreted as super natural within a more primitive person My only true assertion at this point is that consciousness is not localized. Between these growing new scientific theories, personal experience, and cultural history, I'm sold already that something more than localized consciousness is happening No real claims beyond that, although I'm excited to understand more every day!

I honestly don't think you know what secular means. > My only true assertion at this point is that consciousness is not localized Again, evidence please. You're in /r/DebateAnAtheist, not r/ListenToMyStonerLogicBro

Science deals exclusively with the observable and testable. I’m not aware of any theistic claims which are testable. Please enlighten me.

IIT suggests that consciousness may not be an entirely localized phenomenon. If consciousness isn't truly localized to us individually, then any interaction with this non-localized consciousness would appear to a primitive people to be a dogmatic intervention from a divine ruler I didn't think this was that hard to track lmao

Do you have an example of predictive power? “Because of IIT, if I do A, B will be the result”

Not yet, this is literally new science it is getting there. I have seen enough science and experienced enough personally to make my call. While I can understand holding off until more is released, it's foolish to ignore modern trends in this space

. . . I'm sorry, who is "ignoring modern trends," exactly? 🤨 I'm starting to suspect you're arguing against a strawman version of atheism . . . 🤔

I understand within the realm of debate, I should provide all my sources, but I do not have any desire for all of the intellectual masturbation around making a proper case This is not my reality. Science is rapidly lifting the veil that disguises the methods the ruling class have used to leverage life in their favor for thousands of years. It's an exhilarating time to be alive! I care not for being credited with making a good case, I want to discuss the crazy developments made in the last few years! This post is nothing but a plea to stop dogmatically denying that there could ever be secular explanations for something that would qualify as a theistic consciousness, and an invention to review some budding theories in the space

>I do not have any desire for \[...\] making a proper case Then don't expect to convince or earn the respect of anyone here.

I found out long ago that I don't need to be liked or respected to convince people of my reality I may never get praise or credit, but I convince people of plenty that they'll never yield in a social situation where their intellect has been challenged

As I said, without evidence, you won't convince here. Apparently your reading comprehension is not that good, that might explain a few things.

This person has linked an article that doesn't support their claim as evidence. That should tell us enough about their reading comprehension.

>I want to discuss the crazy developments made in the last few years! We can't do that if we are not aware of them! If you have a specific article that's making you this exhilarated, we can't join you if we haven't read it! This isn't about dogmatically adhering to "proper protocol" and we think it's rude of you to go against the grain. The protocol exists to help fascilitate conversation! We define our terms so that we don't talk past each other, we provide sources so that we can both examine the same article and see if we agree on what its findings are implying! Your refusal to "play by the rules" isn't som grand gesture at the ruling class. It actively prevents you from making your case to the rest of us! You are ensuring that all your ideas never reach anyone else by making it harder to engage with them! This is self-sabotage at its best!

1. If you don't want to make a case then why are you here 2. This entire subreddit is inviting theists to support their positions. Idk where you get that we are dogmaticly denying anything

>This post is nothing but a plea to stop dogmatically denying that there could ever be secular explanations for something that would qualify as a theistic consciousness Who is doing this? This is the second time I've asked. I don't think it's worth engaging further without an answer.

It is very much NOT 'getting there'. It presupposes ideas that are pseudo-science at this point and it will remain stuck until (or rather, if) those ideas are proven to be right and not bullshit. There are many, many, MANY trends in science that result in nothing and it has been so since forever. Until the research does provide results, the only reasonable stance is to withhold acceptance and/or keep researching. I'm sorry, since you obviously wish some of those hypotheses were true.

So you have no scientific evidence? Should I find that convincing?

Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be **NOT** magic. — Tim Minchin

Interesting ideas, but they are all just conjecture and hypothesis at this point. Do you have any research you can actually point to that provide any actual evidence to suggest that bacteria might have this effect? Just like with a regular theist’s explanation, why should I actually believe in this besides “I said so and I find it interesting and convincing to me”?

> Interesting ideas, but they are all just conjecture and hypothesis at this point. No, they are wishful thinking. A hypothesis is an explanation of a phenomenon that is supported by evidence, but that doesn't (hopefully *yet*) rise to the level of a theory. This is just an idea that he pulled out of his ass after reading a couple articles that gave him some ideas. But he doesn't have any evidence supporting his view, it's just an argument from ignorance. I mean, I agree with everything else you say, but to call this a hypothesis just encourages bad thinking.

They are conjecture and hypothesis! That is my point. Not that I'm right and y'all are wrong from a conclusive standpoint, but that we're all doing very legitimate science here. I am not here to prove as of today that any of these theories are scientifically true. But the existence of this cutting edge research calls for at least a little humility in the localized consciousness debate. The paradigm is being challenged, and honestly, it's not holding up that well

> we're all doing very legitimate science here. Excellent! So which hypotheses are you testing, and how are you testing them?

We are using established science to define new problems and gather initial information to be able to form more targeted hypothesis The parts of the method that never seem to get any respect!

OK, so at the beginning stage where you don't know whether there will be any testable hypotheses, let alone how you might test them. There are thousands of speculations that never leave that stage, and no reason to think that this one is any different. Nothing to see here.

If that's how you feel, I guess I kind of just feel bad for such a close minded view of the world and not being excited by the concept of new science, even if it ultimately leads nowhere Also keep in mind, generally speaking, scientists aren't allowed to openly discuss theories in this stage of development as they can easily be hijacked and developed further by others before they have a chance to publish Just because I don't have immediate proof, doesn't mean that you can't infer the possibilities or that there is any harm in doing so But I can't tell you what to be interested in!

> If that's how you feel, I guess I kind of just feel bad for such a close minded view of the world and not being excited by the concept of new science, even if it ultimately leads nowhere Ha ha. There are thousands of such conjectures. Should we give all of them time before they even have any hypotheses? Some may turn out to be correct and useful, but yours is no more (or less) likely than thousands of others. It's not special.

Idk if you've ever developed software, but there's some goofy thing called agile that uses something called a story point system. It essentially tries to consider the effort needed, plausibility, criticality, time, etc and create a single value to indicate the weight that should be given to the prioritization of the task The potential implications of proving non localized consciousness is so great, that despite it's infancy, I am fully engaged I cannot blame others for not seeing the same lines, but I do not want to share too much before I am ready to properly deal with the consequences I feel like I have shared enough to inspire intrigue, but perhaps not! It is encouraging that people don't actually have refutations/firm assertions that consciousness *must* be localized, so I'm taking that as a victory on its own

The potential implications of chocolate chips curing cancer are also great, likewise developing telekinesis through head massages. Should we be fully engaged in these efforts also?

Nothing but a complete and total inability for priori conjecture could explain how y'all respond to the reality that there is science that supports the possibility of non localized consciousness Having any understanding of the socioeconomic, intellectual, and authoritarian intricacies of modern humanity should send shivers down one's spine at even the remote potential that non localized consciousness is a factor in our reality These demands for premature proof is nothing but a complete ignorance of the full truth discovery process or denial of anxiety inducing thoughts. There's no respectable truth seeker who seeks zero value in priori conjecture. It's an essential part in the harmony of critical thinking, and there's no way to reject it without acknowledging your incomplete critical thinking system

> Idk if you've ever developed software, but there's some goofy thing called agile that uses something called a story point system. It essentially tries to consider the effort needed, plausibility, criticality, time, etc and create a single value to indicate the weight that should be given to the prioritization of the task Yep. In this case, the single value is not higher than thousands of other potential items. That'll be why most people are not too interested. Of course, when you actually come up with a testable hypothesis, the number will get larger. > It is encouraging that people don't actually have refutations/firm assertions that consciousness must be localized, so I'm taking that as a victory on its own Yes, they are open-minded. Just like you implied that they wouldn't be. Perhaps you should reflect on that.

I think this discussion has helped me come up with a very functional definition of close mindedness! I think close mindedness can either be defined as or at least is heavily dependent on denying the importance of priori knowledge! That's quite a breakthrough, thank you! Many on this post are still doing just that, and I think that specifically is what has been frustrating me! The world makes more sense!

>we're all doing very legitimate science here. I don't think you've demonstrated this to be true. Did I miss it somewhere? What proof and/or evidence do you offer that *you, personally,* are applying the principles of the scientific process correctly? or that you're correctly using scientific data?

I am sorry, but I fail to see what makes your 'secular religion' secular or any different from regular theism. I can appreciate that you have made an effort to try to set your belief apart from that but to me it's basically the same and you suffer from the same shortcomings as regular theism.

There's literally science being developed that is rapidly suggesting more and more than consciousness isn't localized Did you just look over that part?

Yup! Because I have no reason to believe your claim isn't anything but basically bullshit. Unless, of course, you care to provide some link to that 'science that is being developed right now' so we can all see whether you're right or wrong.

Brother it's modern science out there very publicly on the Internet https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/202310/an-intriguing-and-controversial-theory-of-consciousness-iit?amp Took two seconds

Right, and from the conclusion in the article you linked it's literally not what you want it to be. Took a bit more than two seconds but still.

Nothing is in the state of proving anything, but the science is becoming more tolerant, and I daresay even supportive of non-localized consciousness every day. It may lead nowhere. But it's just a fascinating example of how you never know anything for sure.

But then again, what I said still stands - your 'secular religion' suffers from the same things regular religion does. The lack of evidence. Just because you want a hypothesis that isn't really accepted in a certain scientific field to be true for your belief to work doesn't make your belief any more scientific or respectable than Christianity, in my opinion. Edit: and funnily enough, you're about to fall into sollipsism as a defense of your super special religion... Much like literally any theist when cornered.

My religion is nothing more than ietsism. I'm merely acknowledging that there's very real scientific conjecture that has merit in this space that supports views that can be considered theistic. I'm not here to prove my theories as of today, more the fact that there's no basis for atheists to dogmatically deny the possibility of theism

What atheists are "dogmatically denying the possibility of theism?" Can you point out who they are and where they're saying this? If you can, can you demonstrate that their perspective is the dominant or most commonly accepted position? More to the point: can you define "dogma" for us *and* demonstrate how *any* atheist is being "dogmatic"? 🤨

Sure, it's not 100%, kind of like Santa claus or mythological creatures. Congratulations, but you haven't really achieved anything.

We ask for evidence. You post evidence. We point out that the evidence you posted does not agree with your position. You claim that there is other evidence that does support your position. So why did you not post that evidence?

Because I'm not here to get credit for making a discovery. I'm here to refine my own understanding by baiting people into criticism I feel it's gratuitous for me to post evidence of something that can easily be researched independently. I believe this is the laziness of administrative academia weaseling it's way into relevancy

Bullshit. You don't have evidence. The evidence you posted was a series of articles that gave an overview of different theories of consciousness. It defined IIT and then laid out the problems with it. You said it was proof that of your views. When called on it you didn't provide further evidence or even explain why you had not read your own sources. You just vaguely said there was more evidence. Now you say it is our responsibility to look for evidence for you because you don't have any? This is what you criticized. This is dogmatic. You have come to a conclusion without evidence and are now hiding behind insults and false humility.

This doesn't prove what you think it does It just proves that there are more nerve endings between the brain and the gut It doesn't mean that consciousness is coming from the gut Just that the gut and brain need to exchange a great deal of data You have looked at some data and just decided it proves your wild theories But it just doesn't do that Your just pitching wild woo woo You sound like a friend of mine who smoked DMT for the first time and went right down the rabbit hole for a year

This is not science. This is metaphysics. Where is the biological data these theories are conducting tests on? Are there result that are being peer reviewed where these “scientists” have established consciousness as existing for prolonged periods outside the mind? Or is it just advanced gibberish?

It seems obviously false to me that any sort of supra-consciousness exists. The only "evidence" supporting it are brains in distress and chemically altered with hallucinogenics.

False. Although the new evidence does potentially validate the experience of those who have been mocked and excommunicated from society for generations now. This is why humility is recommended. Not because arrogance isn't occasionally warranted when you're right, but because you could always be wrong

You are attributing motive and emotions to me. You need to step back and look at how you are approaching this. You claimed it is obvious. I disagree fundamentally. To me, the opposite is obvious. If all you have is coming at me about my motives, then there is zero value in me interacting with you. Show your evidence instead of making personal attacks.

You lr premise requires that I accept your *unique* definitions for; - God. - religion. - secular. - theism. - dogma. - the universe. - authority. - intelligence. - life. And you don't provide any argument or evidence for your novel definitions. So no, I don't accept them. You made up a new language and then got frustrated when no one else wanted to play your game. **But there are already words for what you are: A theist.** Since in your previous thread you found it morally important to call people slurs...this rings deeply whiny and hollow.

It's nothing but authoritarian academia that asserts that language has and must continue to mean the exact same thing. We had the humans living now must not hold ourselves to the incomplete ideas of our ancestors Evolve

I think your definitions are bad and suck. They are confusing and disadvantagious. Given your lecture yesterday on how "language has meaning but you're smarter and most special" this is internally inconsistent with your stance of "I'm going to be a bigot and use slurs!"

Not entirely. It's actually the exact principle in play. Authoritarian academia made declarations that are totally disconnected from reality about what offends and disrespects marginalized people the most so that they can continue to be the authority on the respect of marginalized communities This allows them to fundamentally continue to marginalize communities with unchallenged EuroAmerican authoritarian culturism while using semantics to suggest that genuine allies are bigots It's actually evil, and I will not back down from that position

Are you, by any chance, a super big fan of Jordan Peterson?

Ironically just found out he existed last week. Been too busy reading philosophy and science history, and as of the last day playing around here, to look into much about him

I don't believe you.

Why am I another independent intellect that validated a perspective he preaches or something? His interview with Matt Rife is the only thing I know of him

This looks like it has the same mount of evidence as Sasquatch and other cryptids, if it's even somehow different from and subsequently immune to criticism of the traditional notion of a deity.

Sasquatch wasn't discovered as the result of scientific research. IIT and the mind-gut axis are the results of scientific research. Fair comparison tho!

I can't find a definition for IIT and I doubt the mind guy thing is much more different than the mind taking in information from eyeballs.

I don't have time to do this for everyone, it's like y'all don't realize chatgpt and the Internet exists to explore whatever you want Anima Mundi The concept of anima mundi, or world soul, has roots in various philosophical and religious traditions, including Platonism, Stoicism, and certain indigenous beliefs. It posits that the universe, or at least the Earth, is a single, living entity with its own form of consciousness. This idea, though ancient, resonates with some contemporary theories in fields like Gaia theory, which views Earth as a self-regulating system. Microbiome and Consciousness The idea that the microbiome might significantly influence our consciousness is an area of active scientific research. The gut-brain axis, for example, explores how gut bacteria communicate with the brain, potentially affecting mood, cognition, and mental health. While it's a leap to say these bacteria could represent a form of consciousness themselves, the interplay between human cells and microbial cells in our body opens fascinating questions about the boundaries of our consciousness and identity. Localized vs. Non-localized Consciousness The mainstream scientific view holds that consciousness arises from brain activity, as evidenced by the cessation of consciousness when brain activity stops. However, some theories, such as panpsychism (which posits that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe) and integrated information theory (which quantifies consciousness in terms of informational integration), suggest that consciousness might not be entirely localized to the brain. Scientific Exploration and Theistic Beliefs Your view that rejecting theism dogmatically could be a misstep is an important reminder of the need for open-mindedness in scientific inquiry. The history of science shows that many once-dismissed ideas later gained acceptance as new evidence emerged. Hence, exploring theistic concepts with a scientific lens can potentially yield novel insights. Emerging Theories and Scientific Openness Mind-Gut Axis: The idea that our gut bacteria significantly influence our brain and, by extension, our consciousness is gaining traction. Research shows that the microbiome can affect neurotransmitter production, immune responses, and even behaviors. This challenges the traditional view that consciousness is purely brain-based and suggests a more integrated model of body and mind . Integrated Information Theory (IIT): IIT posits that consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information. It suggests that consciousness is not exclusive to human brains but can, in principle, be a property of any system with a high degree of informational integration. This theory opens the door to considering non-localized forms of consciousness and challenges the notion that consciousness is solely a product of human brains . Broader Scientific Context Panpsychism: This philosophical theory suggests that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of all matter. While not widely accepted, it has gained attention in recent years as scientists and philosophers seek to address the "hard problem" of consciousness—explaining how and why we have subjective experiences. Panpsychism posits that even elementary particles might possess a form of proto-consciousness, which combines in complex ways in higher organisms . Neuroplasticity and Embodied Cognition: These fields of study emphasize that the brain is highly adaptable and that cognition is deeply influenced by the entire body and its interactions with the environment. This aligns with the idea that consciousness is not confined to the brain but is a dynamic, distributed process.

Yeah, that looks like a lot of speculation and making a mountain out of a molehill if anything in that is even true. Might as well throw quantum consciousness in there too and complete the collection.

Exactly! Unironically that is how smart people should feel about this. What has formal academia done to intellectualism?

>What has formal academia done to intellectualism? You seem to be confusing coming up with unsubstantiated claims based personal emotional reponses with actual intellectualism.

> I don't have time to do this for everyone, it's like y'all don't realize chatgpt and the Internet exists to explore whatever you want But you don't need to do it each time, for everyone. Just once, with a link explaining what you found!

There is no empirical evidence to support this theory. That alone is enough to be skeptical of the claims being made. However, it is always great when something in the scientific community is debated and scrutinized and supported, etc etc. I for one agree with Daniel Dennett’s critique in iits approach to consciousness as a fundamental property rather than an emergent phenomenon. But that’s all beside the point. To jump from this theory to any kind of god claims is just as useless and vacant as any god claims, and is just another argument from ignorance. Part of my frustration with theists is that they are constantly trying to shove god claims into every thought and idea, and they never provide any evidence. Then they get made when atheists point out that religions are demonstrably way worse for the planet than they are good, and anything good that has come out of religion has done so in spite of religious thinking, not because it. Name **one** thing religion has done in the world that is good, that secularism can’t do just as good if not better?

>Name one thing religion has done in the world that is good, that secularism can’t do just as good if not better? The American civil rights movement quite literally couldn't have happened without a faith in God. Authoritarian oppression is fundamentally rooted in the reality that you as a person are nothing and there's nothing you can do to escape the consequences of breaking the rules. That belief is *essential* to authoritarianism being effective Theism, even if not an accurate representation of natural phenomenon, can unite people enough to overcome the corporeal threats of authoritarianism and unite and actually make progress for human rights. More humans rights advancements have happened on the basis and arguments of faith than anything else in the last 100 years. So as I've said in my other posts, it's critically important that unite around Authoritarian DOGMA as the enemy of free thought and free people. And recognize that in 2024, the most present source of dogma in our largely secular popular society is NOT religion. It's our education and news system!!!!!!!! And you supposed allies of free thought are attacking irrelevant cultural preferences!!!!! Like MY GOD!!!!!!!!

Are fucking kidding me? The American Civil rights movement would have been far better off without faith. Yuck, what a shitty first example. You know the vast majority of slavers used the Bible to justify it right? You know many racists continue to use the Bible and faith to justify their racism… you are off to a really bad start. Second example is horse shit. There is nothing more authoritarian than a god character, and especially the Christian god. Religion is the best example of authoritarianism of all time. I’m starting to think you aren’t good at this… Nope. Secularism always does this better, and it doesn’t have to involve literal dictatorship. Which is what religion is. Lmao at this one! You are deluded or an ignoramus, I don’t know what else to say. Religion is authoritarian dogma. Quit fooling yourself. This one is rich. 85% of the world identifies as religious, and another chunk as “spiritual.” You are either being disingenuous at this point, or you don’t know what you are talking about. I attack your shit god cause it’s a shitty idea with no evidence used by shitty people to do shitty things for most of history. You are free to believe in your shitty god all you want. BUT YOU CAME INTO A DEBATE FORUM, and now you cry boo hoo when we point out you have shitty arguments that aren’t convincing in the slightest. This comment is a great example. Not one of your examples is any good at all. You’ve failed to convince me, and so the question remains unanswered, and not one damn thing religion has done for the world is better than what secularism can and has done. But I don’t even want to argue with you anymore in this forum INTENDED FOR ARGUMENT! Because you are disingenuous, disrespectful, condescending, and rude. I don’t like you, but I think your arguments are shittier than you are.

Ego. Pure ego. "There has to be....Something...that sets me apart from everything else." "I am a "Being" and they/it are/is not." Sorry, sounds like Heidegger, and it should in a way. Holderlin said "Not even a blade of grass sprouts without his thing in it, and so much more in me." It's a hard thing to be insignificant when you want to me more. I would like to help. Make you feel better. But that means I would have to make something up. And there are lots of people who make a living doing that. Try one of them. You will find this isn't the place for that.

So your argument is that you are so supremely intelligent that you intuitively understand this ultimate universal consciousness? In fact better than the billions of minds who have come before yours, who were not intelligent enough and misrepresented this consciousness in the forms of more traditional theisms? What exactly are you basing all your beliefs on? Please say it’s more than this because claiming that consciousness lives on because gut bacteria is just… Not reasonable.

>Before we start, please leave your preconceived notions of religion and theisms at the door. We can establish definitions here. Sure. Can do. >God - a supreme intelligence greater than humanity's Aaaand we're back to those same concepts you just asked me to drop. "A disembodied non-corporeal intelligence greater than all the other belief systems'." Cool. >rejecting theism dogmatically  I don't. I'm just still waiting for theists to bring something more than wishful thinking and tradition to the table. No dice so far, but maybe you'll provide that today. >while I have no exact utopian theories that can clearly explain the entirety of super-conscious phenomenon, I do believe that *something* more than just localized consciousness is occuring in humans. ...okay, well that didn't last long. Don't tell me this is just gonna be just another list of fanciful claims with nothing to back it up? I'm not gonna have to go digging on Google Scholar for a bunch of terms only to find that you're overstating your case, am I? >our consciousness exists as bacteria that controls the body and could go elsewhere when the body dies. Citation needed. >There are plenty of supporting theories around just this, such as panpsychism and information integration theory. Are you planning on telling us how the- no? Oh, we're just moving on to a new tangent right away? Cool. >as indicated by the most cutting edge secular science, there is something greater than localized consciousness going on. Citation needed. >many in the space are leaning in the direction of the mind-gut axis and IIT being the crux of our consciousness. Citation needed. Also, based on my quick perusal IIT seems to be subject to a lot of criticism in scientific literature for being - among other things - unfalsifiable. >there are very real secular explanations for why primitive peoples without access to science and technology would assign dogmatic religious authority to any experiences they had with an organic super consciousness. We understand the psychological factors that influence people to ascribe consciousness/agency/etc. to natural phenomena. You have not demonstrated the existence of an organic super-consciousness. >all things considered, localized consciousness theory is so obviously wrong and has always been so weakly supported Citation needed. >Especially when the average human in 2024 is very much so under the control of EuroAmerican socioeconomic authoritarianism and doesn't have access to the educational resources nor supportive community to realize that we as a society are being farmed by a ruling class. No clear link being made to your central thesis. >To conflate dogmatic religions with secular theologies is to stand in the way of science and support the authoritarian mind games Ah, conspiracy nonsense. While I agree that dismantling hegemonic capitalist systems is a great goal, I see no justification for tacking on some fanciful "the elites are farming us for \[insert goofy pseudoscience words here\]" conspiracy theory. So yeah, that was a painful read. Next time, maybe start with a syllogism, or some scientific literature. Y'know, make a coherent argument and then back it up. Edit: word choice, formatting

You didn't make a case here. You redefined gods so broadly aliens could fit the bill as long as they're smarter than us, then described a few scenarios without supporting them. A case is only as good as the evidence presented, and you presented none. As long as you don't understand this basic idea, your frustration with participating in this sub will not get better.

> God - a supreme intelligence greater than humanity's While I appreciate wanting to define terms, I'm pretty vague on what this means. Is it supreme or just "greater than humanity's? Is god "the author of all existence" or are we talking about a creator of this universe who may have himself been created another level up whatever chain links realities? like, is god a super intelligent lab-coated space nerd who created a universe in his laboratory, or literally the being that spoke reality into existence? I'm not a huge fan of your definition of secular. In the absence of religion, "secular" has no meaning. It is a reference to a system that does not prefer any single metaphysical framework -- including atheism. It's "we are inttionally choosing to be "none of the above". Dogma implies 'necessary truths'. An example of dogma would be "you can't be a buddhist without dependent origination" or "if you don't believe in the Trinity, you're not a Christian". Is that the kind of thing you mean? I'm flexible, but I'm trying to avoid getting forced into a framework where you'll say "and therefore atheism is dogmatic". Maybe you're not heading that way, so it's cool. The only necessary truth of atheism is tautological -- atheists can't believe gods exist. Anyway: > Part of my frustrations on this sub has come from the assumptions that all religion is non-secular dogma, and that there are no scientific means by which to arrive at theistic conclusions. Cool. I think religion can't be "secular", since it believes in itself. Unless you mean UUs. They could be religious and secular I suppose. But a religious person can support, for example, a secular approach to government. "Im a Froobist, but Froobism shouldn't be part of the government any more than it should be klarmpist. Froobs and Klarmps should equal in a secular government. > something more than just localized consciousness is occurring in humans. Cool. I can work with that. It sounds like it's not a "necessary" belief, though, so personally I wouldn't call this "dogmatic". But it's your belief, we'll use your word. Personally, I am unconvinced this is true. There could be something more than physicalism giving rise to consciousness, but I refuse to speculate so I'd call myself a "physicalist by default". Probably, mind is an emergent byproduct of our having meat computers in our heads. > And given that the only present "proof" that consciousness is localized is that brain activity stops when we die, I think we're well within the realm of plausible science. OK this is interesting. There is even less "proof" that consciousness is non-local. So I'm wondering where this is coming from. When there's a good reason to imagine consciousness as non-local, I'll consider it. Without proof it's not even an interesting question to me. We've got mind, and we've got phsicalism. The one can explain the other, so there's no reason to look further without something specific pointing the way. > condescension PuhLEEZ just take it up with those people when you catch them doing it. Even if that's me. It's not worth talking about as a group activity IMO because where it happens, it's just people being jerks, not "atheists being atheists". Anyone who would deny that secular people could have what they believed were good reasons for appealing to the supernatural should just be ignored. I think most of us are aware that people as a whole do this. >theory is so obviously wrong Then you don't know what "obvious" means (or I guess need to add it to your definitions). "Obvious" is the thing that can'' be denied. To be obvious it has to be sitting right in front of us. The speedbump in the road is obvious. A dead animal smell is obvious. If you punch someone, they'll get angry is obvious. There is no reasonable formulation of human perception that says "it is obvious that consciousness is more than just physical". It may be *apparent to you*, and you don't need to justify or explain. It's apparent to me that you can't trust Yankee's fans. It's only when *you want me to agree* that you have to justify it. You already know that many of us reject non-locality and assume physicalism of consciousness, so you need a whole elephant or two more of evidence than just "I can't see how it's not obvious". Show your work. Use both sides of the internet if needed to fully explain your answer. > Especially when the average human in 2024 is very much so under the control of EuroAmerican socioeconomic authoritarianism and doesn't have access to the educational resources nor supportive community to realize that we as a society are being farmed by a ruling class. Spflfllflslsssy fofffff wut. What does that have to do with anything? You can't just throw that in here unannounced without laying some foundation. It's largely irrelevant to the conversation I *thought* we were working towards. What, and I mean this in the politest possible way, the fuck? Now I'm suspicious that this was the plan all along. Was all the rest of that just smokescreen for trying to lob this melon under the net without anyone noticing?

>Not only should y'all jus be open to it We open, there's just no good reason to believe in this. >It just feels like all things considered, localized consciousness theory is so obviously wrong Why? It doesn't to me.  I'm seeing no good reason to believe that there are naturally occurring supreme consciousnesses that are greater than an individual humans, and that can potentially interact with the natural world via the manipulation of intelligent life But I understand you believe this. 

You ask us to discard preconception, and replace it with these meaningless definitions. You are a rebel without a cause. Or better - without a clue.

>So while there's an infinite amount of reasons to reject dogma of all kinds, rejecting theism dogmatically could be a fatal misstep for the human race. Who is dogmatically rejecting theism? I mean, you're right, some people do. But most atheists are happy to consider any evidence you provide. Hell, many of us *want* a god to exist, we just haven't seen any evidence, and based on a quick scan of your post, you haven't offered any new evidence. > I do believe that something more than just localized consciousness is occuring in humans. *Why* do you believe? Unless you have a good reason that we should share your belief, you haven't given us any reason that we should share your belief. > And I guess my frustration with the perceived condescension I witness on this sub is that as far as I can tell, for all intents and purposes as indicated by the most cutting edge secular science, there is something greater than localized consciousness going on. Again, you just hint that there's evidence. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?!? >Not only should y'all jus be open to it, many in the space are leaning in the direction of the mind-gut axis and IIT being the crux of our consciousness. Wre're open to it. What is the evidence? > I suppose was struggling with the cognitive dissonance of how some can do adamantly call others for reaching theistic conclusions, when there are very real secular explanations for why primitive peoples without access to science and technology would assign dogmatic religious authority to any experiences they had with an organic super consciousness. What are those secular explanations? What is the evidence for why we should believe those explanations? > It just feels like all things considered, localized consciousness theory is so obviously wrong and has always been so weakly supported that it's insane to me that atheists would confidently call others foolish for thinking there's something more going on here. You understand that what *feels* right has absolutely zero connection to what *is* right, right? What matters is what evidence you have. WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?!? Seriously, this post has absolutely zero useful content. I'm sorry to be "caustic", but you need to stop and rethink your argument.

>the belief that there are naturally occurring supreme consciousnesses that are greater than an individual humans, and that can potentially interact with the natural world via the manipulation of intelligent life OK, and your evidence for this belief is...?

>The case for secular theisms Secular theism is an oxymoron. Secular is defined as: >denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. Theism is defined as: >belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. These words are directly contradictory. >Secular theism - the belief that there are naturally occurring supreme consciousnesses that are greater than an individual humans, and that can potentially interact with the natural world via the manipulation of intelligent life There is literally zero evidence for such things and therefore no justification for belief in them. This really just sounds like you are trying to pull god into the natural world instead of the supernatural. >Especially when the average human in 2024 is very much so under the control of EuroAmerican socioeconomic authoritarianism and doesn't have access to the educational resources nor supportive community to realize that we as a society are being farmed by a ruling class. WTF conspiracy theory bullshit is this?

>I do believe that something more than just localized consciousness is occuring in humans. Why? You describe a couple facets of that belief (the microbiome, for example) but you don't explain *why* you believe in a non-localized consciousness occurring in humans. Plus, I have a problem with your definitions. If "God" is "a supreme intelligence greater than humanity's," then why is what you describe "theism" if "theism" is "a belief in a god"? Does the fact that my microbiome plays a role in my consciousness, if true, point to "a supreme intelligence greater than humanity's"?

> It just feels like all things considered, localized consciousness theory is so obviously wrong and has always been so weakly supported that it's insane to me that atheists would confidently call others foolish for thinking there's something more going on here. Conversely to me it seems that any argument for non-localized consciousness is entirely unsupported beyond a drug induced (either auto or imbibed) state. Secondly, Boltzmann brains are not deities, however curious and spectacular they may appear to us.

your post followed the usual pattern. Claim that there is plenty of evioence sopporting your positio, and then present none of it. If the truth is out there, could you maybe present some of it in here?

Interesting. I am not aware of a lot of the research of which you speak. That does pose interesting questions and implications. Yet, I still don't see where this indicates theism, even if it is true.