God, like money, is real only because of the human mind

As I noted in a previous post about Lisa Feldman Barrett's book, How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain, I'm enjoying the book more now that I'm past the introductory chapters.

One reason is that Barrett doesn't just describe how emotions are made. She embeds that description in larger issues. For example, her "Emotions As Social Reality" chapter starts off with the classic question, If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present to hear it, does it make a sound?

Even though I should know better, when I ponder this question my first intuitive reaction is to visualize a big tree falling in a forest with no one around, and it sure does make a sound. 

But that's my imagination talking, not reality. Meaning, I forget that the question says no one is present to hear it, and that includes me -- even though I'm just visualizing the tree falling, not experiencing it in physical reality.

It's easy to make this sort of mistake. After all, for each of us, the only way we know anything about the world and our surrounding universe is through the human brain. So for us, reality basically is synonymous with "how we experience reality."

This is true even on the cosmic level, though scientists likely are less prone to this thinking error. 

I wonder, how would the universe appear if there was no consciousness in it? I wrote about this back in 2007 in Consider a cosmos with no consciousness. 

I try to imagine a cosmos with no consciousness. No human awareness. No animal awareness. No plant awareness. No alien life form awareness. No angelic awareness. No awareness of any kind. None at all.

(Note: I consider “consciousness” and “awareness” to be terms pointing to the same mysterious phenomenon, as this Wikipedia article implies).

Now, this is where the thought experiment should end, because it’s already failed. For I’m aware. And awareness, or consciousness, obviously can’t envision a cosmos with no awareness, for the same reason I can’t picture what the world would be like without me in it.

Nevertheless, I keep forging ahead because the experiment is so intriguing, ignoring the impassible existential abyss that’s stopped me in my tracks.

I consider a universe with no life, no awareness, no sentience. It’s easy to do. I think: “What a marvelously simple thought experiment!” The universe appears to me just as it does now, planets, stars and galaxies filling the fabric of space, yet with nobody conscious of it.

Obvious questions then crash the party of my thought experiment: Who is doing the considering of this cosmos with no consciousness? From what perspective is this entity contemplating the universe?

It dawns on me that this entity, namely me, is equipped with eyes that translate a certain wavelength of electro-magnetic radiation into perceptions of which I’m aware. Photographs of distant galaxies, for example, from which I derive some of the raw imaginative material for my thought experiment.

Yet what if I had the body of a bat and sensed with sonar? Or that of a snake with heat-sensing capabilities? The world would look entirely different.

So my envisioning of the cosmos as illuminated by light is terribly anthropomorphic, a fact I’m reminded of every time I walk the dog and watch her spending enthralled minutes sniffing a bush that my smell-impaired brain considers to be nothing special.

So not surprisingly, Barrett's answer is:

A falling tree itself makes no sound. Its descent merely creates vibrations in the air and the ground. These vibrations become sound only if something special is present to receive and translate them: say, an ear connected to a brain...Even after the brain receives these electrical signals, its task is not complete. The wave must still be interpreted as the sound of a toppling tree. For this, the brain needs the concept of "Tree" and what trees can do, such as fall in a forest.

A tree is indisputably real, though. So is a forest. And so is the cosmos, or universe. While these things appear the way they do to us only because of how human consciousness operates, there's little or no doubt that something would be there whether or not humans or indeed any other form of awareness is.

This is similar to how Barrett views human emotions.

A third and final riddle is, "Are emotions real?" You might think this question is ridiculous, a classic example of academic indulgence. Of course emotions are real. Think about the last time you were thrilled or sad or furious. These were clearly real feelings.

But in fact, this third riddle is like the falling tree and the red apple: a dilemma about what exists in the world versus in the human brain. The riddle forces us to confront our assumptions about the nature of reality and our role in creating it. But here, the answer is a bit more complex, because it depends on what we mean by "real."

Barrett explains that some things fall in a perceiver-independent category, such as subatomic particles. If there were no humans, there would still be subatomic particles. (Such was the case for virtually every moment of the universe's 13.7 billion year existence, until very recently.)

She goes on to say that "Emotions are real, but real in the same manner of the sound of a tree falling, the experience of red, and the distinctions between flowers and weeds. They are all constructed in the mind of a perceiver."

So these are examples of social reality. Human civilization, Barrett says, is literally built with social reality. Money, to offer another example, only has value because we human give it value. Otherwise money is just a piece of paper or electronic digits.

Yet this doesn't make money less important to humans (though it is utterly meaningless to our dog and other animals, or to a person who lacked the concept of "money"). 

Likewise, I see the notion of God as akin to that of money. It has immense value to people who imbibe the concept of "God" with meaning. But for those of us who don't embrace that concept, "God" is just a word that, like "money," only has meaning to those who create that meaning in their own mind. 

Unlike a tree, there's no evidence that God exists outside of the human mind. Thus God has even less significance that a tree falling in a forest with no one present to hear it, since that tree possesses an independent reality while God doesn't.

Comments

[Ron E.]

As Barrett points out it takes an observer with ears and a brain to turn the vibrations emitted from the falling tree to turn them into sound – and further, the brain needs the concept of "Tree" and what trees can do, such as fall in a forest.

It's difficult for us to separate our everyday world of perceived 'reality' from what is in fact mainly a conceptual world, as it is also difficult to see that the mind is a product of the observer and its environment. As Brian point out, God is just a concept, a word, only becoming meaningful to those who create that meaning in their own minds.

In one of Barretts co-written books; -'The Mind in Context', it is mentioned that “Thoughts, emotions, attitudes, selves, identities, and personalities are not internal entities that control behaviour; instead, they emerge in mutual and reciprocal relations between individuals and their environments”.

This is not to say that the mind, the self, emotions etc. do not exist, just that they are not separate entities in their own right. Like all mental processes they emanate from a brain in conjunction with its environment. All creatures perceive the world differently. Differently because their brains interpret their environment in the best way to enable survival.

Our human experiences, wired into the brain's network, have the survival ability to predict situations in our environment as they arise. Although the physical surroundings exist separately from the observer, the mind (or brain) determines the nature of the situation and acts according to its established experiences, consequently the 'situation' does not exist separately from the person.

All such mental processes we term the mind. Our thoughts and beliefs, all come under the umbrella term mind. Thoroughly realised, one can exist quite happily with the knowledge that much of what we believe to be reality is illusory – unless one is so attached to investing everything with purpose or meaning. There will still be trees, rivers, sky, mountains, people, cultures etc. and they can be enjoyed and appreciated for what they are – not what we desire or wish them to be.

[Trez]

For Gurinder Singh Dhilion God is Money, and Money is God and very real that too

A selfish immoral Baba who has no consideration for other fellow humans. With a devious mind concept to ripp others out of pocket just so he himself and his family can live a life of Kings riches, is a devil made flesh as they say

They also say the Devil disguses as Saint or a Baba so he himself can deciveve the world and keep the soul entrapped here forever.

That's the goal Gurinder is working towards in time.
There is a well known Radha Soami Satsangi who even mentions that in the inside realms Gurinder is a well honoured sex demon of a high rank who indulges in the most bizarre sexual acts up there with others.

Makes sense as they were the ones who invented and indulged in the Kama Sutra as we see so many carved idols in these positions in the hundreds of temples around in India.

They are who he works under the couple called Radha n Krishan the Hindu gods they are the real Radha Soami

That is why Gurinder is always in hiding because if the truth comes out, he's a finished. Which is happening as we see it

[Kranvir]

Wow That's a great insite Trez, gurinder singh dhillon as a sex demon, makes total sense as he subtly flirts around with females in satsangs and has said many times that he's too sexy - pervert baba.

Added to this that the five secret mantra holy names given at initiation are satanic. The first name is Jot Niranjan, which literally translates as light of the devil. The remaining 4 names are onkar, rarunkar, sohung, satnam. Don't repeat them as they are satanic mantras that take your consciousness to these deities / demonic / etheric beings where you will be a slave to what ever they desire. You have been warned

[🦉]

This blog really seems to be your attempt to convince yourself that “God” doesn’t exist.

If you truly believe that in your heart of hearts, why are you continually trying to prove it? Who are you trying to prove it to? And, why do you even care what others believe in the fist place?

You really shouldn’t care what others believe.

[Dungeness]

@ Brian Ji [ Unlike a tree, there's no evidence that God exists outside of the human mind. ]


But who/what is god? A luminous figure in sandals with
deeply set eyes and a booming voice? Maybe you conjure
up a subtler, less Biblical persona or maybe you describe
him abstractly as a formless, energetic force. How do you
frame a satisfactory definition or characterize him in a
meaningful, accurate way through the mind's dubious
lens... rely on sensory evidence or action-at-a-distance
guesswork perhaps?

The mystics simply and honestly say "neti, neti" (not
this,not this) when challenged to define who/what God
is and offer a path of devotion/mindfulness to those
sincerely curious to find answers within themselves
rather than be spoon-fed by Scientism or religion.