The Winding Path – 003

For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlink above it.  You could also consider addressing any comments in situ, rather than here.  – Thanks.

09 June 2013 06:01 AM [ # 54 ]

Write4U – “Then why call it God, which is associated with all religions, including Abrahamic. God has been given a specific property of being able to hear you when you pray. And that is fine, but do not expect god to ever answer your prayers. That’s vanity and a no, no.

The proper word is Potential. It is the potential inherent in the human system and configuration that allows us to function and evolve. It is no different for all living organisms. Each develops and uses it’s potential dependent on it’s environment.

Ask yourself if we could make a sentient computer. And if we could communicate with it would it be able to answer our prayers? Fundamentally I see very little difference. Only when you start adding magical powers, can you expect to find miracles. But the powers are not magical, they are just potentials made Explicate.”

If I am hoping to educate, catalyze and improve the conceptualization of God, I should not burn the bridge.

Though, I am tempted to resort to Sanskrit from time to time. This stuff has been worked out long ago.

The need for Scientists and Atheists in general, to exclude the G word from their contemplation is okay, but really, these are all just words.

As for calling it ‘Potential’. That would exclude the manifested world that we experience. Again, isolating the creator from the creation.

and,… in my own experience…the more accurate my understanding gets, the more malleable and “mind like” reality gets…the sanskrit word for this translates to ‘proof’.. though in other circles it is thought of as ‘powers’, or ‘answered prayers’, you would say ‘potentials made explicate’.

We all seem to be doubling back on previous arguments. I think I’ll defer to this guy: S. James Gates, and move on.

I have really enjoyed and benefited from talking with you, and the others. Thanks. I think that I should venture beyond the “Introduce yourself” forum. See what other people are talking about. Maybe go in search of some ‘Abrahamic’ folks. Let them help me past my attitude problem.

09 June 2013 05:43 AM [ # 53 ]

“Obviously there are “purposeful” atheist and there are “lost” theists. If only god can provide their answers, how can that be?”

It is all God. Atheist or Theist. Doesn’t matter. What a person believes now, will in time, change. Any answers to any questions, are only for this moment.

08 June 2013 01:42 PM [ # 51 ]

TimB – “I absolutely think that instincts are passed on genetically.”

“brmckay – I would of course agree. However, your answer side steps the questions purpose. How, does memory get transmitted before the brain exists? Maps, to or from Mexico, for Monarch butterflies etc.?”

TimB – “I certainly don’t know if butterflies have what we typically refer to as memories. My understanding is that Monarch butterflies who travel to congregate in Mexico have never been there before. So something that is passed on genetically must be inplay.

How is that something passed on genetically? The same way that our reflexes are. The same way that our autonomic functions are. In humans, the same way that our propensity for developing verbal behavior is. The same way that the general shape and coloring of a particular organism is passed on. The same way that sensory abilities are passed on genetically. The same way that a general course of development of an organism is passed on. The same way that the course of development of the brain, itself, in an organism is passed on.”

I found it! (also a lot of other interesting stuff that I had missed.)


How? For one thing, instinct is a form of knowledge.

I, since I have hypothesized that my sense of I, is contiguous with a Universal sense of I, have recast the processes of evolution into terms of a learning process.

If there is “motivation”, I would suggest that it is in the line of exploration or self knowledge. An effect of natural law. Expressing itself through us.

But, why do I call this God? Why not? Just seems like giving credit where credit is due.

I don’t give a hoot if the Abrahamic version doesn’t jive, and I’m not smart enough to be a scientist.

08 June 2013 11:42 AM [ # 50 ]

Write4U – “Seems to me you are beginning to think Bohmian.”

Maybe, but how could I tell. Simple fellow that I am.

08 June 2013 11:25 AM [ # 49 ]

TimB – “Evolution, itself, doesn’t have a purpose. It’s just a natural law. But I think you know that. So when you ask “What is the purpose of evolution?” I surmise that you are actually covertly asking about some made up sentient entity’s purpose in somehow creating/using evolution.”

Not really.

I thought the statement was clear.

The sentient entity I am talking about is you or me. Per the original question from ufo-buff.

I found it a helpful exercise and was glad to give it a try.


You make an interesting point in saying “Evolution, itself doesn’t have a purpose. It’s just a natural law.” Are you saying that “purpose” is a subjective phenomena? Like though, emotion, sense of self, etc. not as real as the physical universe? What about learning? What about knowledge?

07 June 2013 11:12 AM [ # 44 ]

ufo-buff – “Your post got me thinking: maybe we can define God/religion as the answer to various questions like: “what is my purpose?”, “what happens when we die?”, “how should we live?”, etc.

It seems like you use a deist definition of God, when you seek the source of the laws governing creation. That would probably explain why you don’t see a conflict between God and science.

I tend to ask “what is my purpose?” and hope God will answer. Can a deist God answer that question?”

Good question.

Several levels to think about.

What is the ‘purpose’ of evolution? Without the ‘Awareness’ I’m attributing to the Universe (God); (Ask the current batch of scientists); Random change rewarded by continuity of form within time, possibly gaining in complexity. Or, some such. With ‘Awareness’, more like ‘Self discovery’. Discovery of what? The true nature of ‘Self’. Infinite and Finite. The Great paradox. I don’t want to say more because that is what ‘religions’ do.

On a personal level, what would ones ‘purpose’ be? Assuming the second version of evolution (the one that is shaped by Awareness), I would suggest, aligning one’s consciousness to the natural process of evolution within one’s own life. Leting the results speak for themselves. Trusting the process the way one trusts Gravity.

How to behave? Whatever works to facilitate the above.

As for death? Who dies?

07 June 2013 10:26 AM [ # 43 ]

Write4U – “The problem is that there just is no evidence of motivation being required for the natural law of Cause/Effect to function in physics.

One cannot say that one ‘knows’ without really knowing. You can ‘feel’ without knowing, but that is subjective and belongs in psychology.”

Why is ‘knowing’ less subjective than ‘feeling’? Who knows, who feels?

In my view the subjective is just as much subject to natural law as say Gravity. If it doesn’t seem so, that just means our understanding of “natural law” is incomplete (or, artificially restricted in scope). IMO

No one ever really tried to answer my questions about ‘instinct’ and DNA, or about the possible universality of the sense of ‘I’. (remember the bungled ‘light’ analogy). The lack of response could be thought of as a clue to an incompleteness of our understanding.

I don’t usually think of ‘motivation’ on the foundational level of Cause/Effect. Potential being infinite. But, Awareness on the other hand, doesn’t seem out of the question. There has to be the potential for self awareness. I usually leave the motivation part to us, as the expression of awareness in the complexities of finite form. This of course, is only my working model.

Thinking about what I just said, I am tempted to suggest that Awareness may be the first ‘Effect’ of Infinite Potential. Maybe that guy ‘Bohm’ said something like this. I know the Rishis did.

This entry was posted in logs. Bookmark the permalink.