Liberty Sea wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
He could conceiveably have a different form of consciousness - have different senses, have the ability to think faster, have more intuitive insight, experience things more vividly, etc. But the essential characteristic of consciousness - that of being aware of what is before us and blocking everything else out - would be the same.
God's consciousness is described to be able to perceive everything, like the eye that could see itself. And he perceives time spatially, which means, he see the past, the present and the future simultaneously like different frames of a movie placed together. For this reason God's consciousness is beyond time. Our cannot conceive his.
It's irrational, that's why we can't conceive of it. It's all very well for us to go off on airy-fairy flights of fancy, but at some point we do need to ground it all in logical fact. Otherwise, we run the risk of simply participating in nonsense.
For example, it is easy - indeed, very easy, especially if we do it with a vague and hazy mind - to imagine a "universal consciousness" that perceives everything. It sounds like a nice idea on the surface. But it all begins to fall apart the moment you look more closely at it.
The act of perception requires an observer, objects to observe, and a perspective linking the two. Thus, the "perception of everything" requires an infinite number of observing positions and an infinite number of perspectives - in other words, an infinite number of consciousnesses. I would be tempted to say that this would pose a problem for the unity of our proposed universal consciousness, but I suppose someone could pipe up and claim that because God is infinitely intelligent he would have no problem integrating all these consciousnesses into one. Even though this is a purely theological solution (i.e. it's simply concocted out of the blue), I'll let it slide.
But suddenly, we encounter another problem - namely, a perception always involves a simplification, an approximation, a cutting away of much detail. When we perceive a tree with the naked eye, for example, we only ever perceive a few essential features of it. We don't perceive its molecular structure or its inner chemical workings. We only take in a few of the many nuances of the bark and leaves and so on. In short, to perceive is to simplify and distort.
Not even an infinite God with an infinite consciousness can get around this problem, for the problem is inherent to perception itself. It is similar to the act of measurement. As soon as you try to measure something - say, the length of a table - you immediately create errors and approximations, for it is impossible to measure something to an infinite degree. At some point, one has to stop at a certain level of accuracy and make the measurement. It doesn't matter if you take it to 3 decimal places or 6 decimal places or 100 trillion - this stopping and measuring will always produce errors. In the same way, a perception involving an observer, observed objects and a perspective will always be simplified and distorted.
By now, the credibility of a universal consciousness is looking more than a little shaky. No matter how you cut it, an infinite number of simplified, distorted perceptions doesn't add up to the perception of everything. And then there is the further problem of where each observing point should be. Even if you had countless observing points packed in together as tightly as can be, there are still going to be gaps in between each observing point. Yet more data is being lost within the cracks.
Liberty Sea wrote:If a geometric point had consciousness, it could not conceive a line. If a one-dimensional straight line had consciousness, it could not conceive a plane. And if a plane had consciousness it could not conceive a three-dimensional solid object. We are three-dimensional beings, can we conceive how a 4-dimensional being who exist in a higher dimension would think? Can we see two circles in a table and guess that they are the marks of two fingers of a human being? Any line consist of infinite points in a way that a point cannot conceive, any plane consists of infinite lines in a way that a line cannot conceive and any solid consists of infinite planes in a way that a plane cannot conceive. A higher dimension object would consist of infinite three-dimensional objects in a way that a three-dimensional being cannot conceive. In this dimension the past, the present and the future of the whole universe are displayed simultaneously, all three-dimensional images of the universe at all point in time are perfectly visible to the eye of God like a jewel of infinite facets. Among the modern physics community, this concept is not new.
None of this gets around the problems I outlined above.
Liberty Sea wrote:Any potion of the All might just be as infinite as the All. For example, the totality of Odd numbers is as infinite as the totality of Natural numbers, which is just as infinite as the totality of Real numbers. A popular view in mysticism is that: In God's mind, any potion of the All contain all that is not it within itself, and A is both A and not A. It is not illogical, just a higher logical that is seemingly illogical from our lower logic's point of view.
There is no such thing as "higher logic". There is only logic. While our conceptions and worldviews can be challenged by different or higher perspectives, logic itself can never be. Take extreme care here, Liberty. This is a vital issue!
Portions of the ALL can indeed contain infinities of the kind you mention, albeit as conceptual possibilities in the mind. But when I talk about the infinite nature of the ALL, I am meaning something a little different. In essence, the ALL is infinite because it is not a thing. It has no form, no location, no rival. Although it generates all things, it itself can never coalesce into a thing. This is using the word "infinite" in a deeper, more existential sense.
As for your mystical quote, I would interpret that as saying that the whole of God can be seen, by those with enlightened eyes, in any particular thing. The whole of God is everywhere.
Liberty Sea wrote:
David Quinn wrote:It is exactly the same. We are able to distinguish between consciousness and strawberries because they each have their unique characteristics and their own unique identity. Identity is not a physical property. It is a property that all things partake in, physical or otherwise.
If a strawberry is all that is, it won't have the outer shape of a strawberry, but it atomic structure, i.e. inner structure remain the same. The chemical process within it would be pretty much the same.
The process of God's consciousness does not have an outer appearance, and it is not composed of part, it is indivisible.
Yes, so neither of these conceptions apply to the real world that we experience. The world we experience is neither homogeneous, nor is it composed of nothing but strawberry parts. This is no surprise given that conceiving of the ALL as a strawberry or as God's consciousness are both equally ludicrous.
Liberty Sea wrote:You seem to think that enlightenment is equal to immortality. But it is just a metaphorical immortality.
No, it is real immortality, not metaphorical, and the only kind there is. In enlightenment, one literally goes beyond life and death. One sees the impossibility of being alive in the first place.
Liberty Sea wrote: From a materialistic point of view, your consciousness arose when the atoms in your brain are put together in right positions, when then these atom decompose, or fall apart from their positions your consciousness would disappear. In a sense you are your consciousness and when your consciousness no longer work, you die.
True, but we are not our consciouness. We are the ALL. Going beyond life and death means abandoning attachment to all things, even to our own life and our own consciousness. A thief cannot steal from a person who possesses nothing to begin with.