View Single Post
Old 03-15-2017, 08:13 PM   #239
Paul Parnitzke
LiveLeaker
 

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,063
Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!Paul Parnitzke is a forum GOD!!
Points: 85, Level: 1
Points: 85, Level: 1 Points: 85, Level: 1 Points: 85, Level: 1
Activity: 6%
Activity: 6% Activity: 6% Activity: 6%
Default Indeed. It both did and it does and just as we do ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportster View Post
Sure he/they were aware. The arrow of time, the result of the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy, which dictates the arrow of time) was discovered by Clausius in 1850 and later championed by Ludwig Boltzmann, in early as 1880's. In order for the universe, or for that matter, the space it consumes, to be considered God, one then has to subscribe to the notion that the universe created itself out of nothing.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...y-2-180961461/
Indeed.
It both all did and it actually does and just as we do ourselves.
That "no thing" is "consciousness or spirit or mind-stuff", itself!

See:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
From the above:
"This leads to the final consideration in favor of panpsychism to be considered here, which is a sort of methodological argument. Panpsychism enjoys a metaphysical advantage in that it avoids the difficulties of emergentism, which are greater than is generally thought. Not only is there a problem simply in accounting for the emergence of something so distinctive as consciousness from mere matter, it is surprisingly difficult to articulate a form of emergentism that does not threaten to make the emergent features causally impotent or epiphenomenal. This is not the place to discuss the difficulties of all the varieties of emergentism, but they seem serious."

and:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/
From the above:
"Gillett points out that panentheism lacks an explanation for a causal efficacy higher than the causal efficacy realized by microphysical causation (2003, 19). Generally, panentheists respond to these criticisms by affirming the inadequacy both scientifically and metaphysically of any type of reductionistic naturalism. Such a naturalism whether articulated in scientific categories or religious categories fails to recognize the emergence of levels of complexity in nature. The emergence of higher levels of organization that cannot be completely explained in terms of lower levels renders non-differentiated accounts of being inadequate. Panentheists often argue that the emergence of higher levels of order makes possible downward causation. Davies describes the difficulties in coming to a clear description of downward causation and concludes that the complexity of systems open to the environment makes room for downward causation but has not yet provided an explanation of how downward causation works (2006, 48). The concepts of entanglement and divine entanglement may offer new perspective on causation and especially the role of the divine in natural causation (Wegter–Mcnelly 2011)."

and:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=900
and:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopi...t=Darwin#p6151

and also do see these two philosophers with these related ideas as well:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/
and:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/johann-fichte/

Last edited by Paul Parnitzke; 03-18-2017 at 02:56 PM. Reason: Added relevant links.
Paul Parnitzke is offline   Reply With Quote