Spiritual Purposefulness

ON THE EMERGENT FEEDBACK OF CONSCIOUS WILL, CIVILIZATION, HEAVEN, AND SPIRITUAL PURPOSEFULNESS:

How does a perspective of consciousness come to WILL or identify with, experience, apprehend, and interpret the pleasure-pain-ennui-contentment-fear that function with the programs of a substance-based body?

Consider levels of consciousness: interpretive sensation at inorganic level, organic level, autonomic level, subconscious level, self conscious level, consciousness of self consciouness level, consciousness of God level.

Consider levels of perspective of programming: preset, contemporaneously set, randomly set, chaotically set via unfolding patterns of feedback preference, niche set in respect of viability for values of survival and replication.

What does consciousness need to bond with an identifiable body-based substance-program? The body needs to be of a niche sustained pattern, and the pattern needs at some level to be appreciated as such. In identifying with the pattern, consciousness apprehends that which nurtures and rewards it versus that which diminishes and threatens it. Such apprehensions are developed at lower, autonomic, self aware, and higher levels. What does higher level consciousness need, in order to experience, remember, and seek sensations of pleasure as an organism? Why do some ingredients, such as dopamine and drugs, function as program triggers for pleasure or pain? Why and how do body feelings of pleasure and pain translate to the experience of a perspective of spiritual consciousness?

Consider program routines, subroutines, competing routines, messenger routines, storeage routines, coordinating routines, cooperative routines, communicative routines, civilizing routines, and system feedback routines. Consider tensions: Balanced, trading, equational, transitioning, autonomic, instinctive, multitasking, arresting.

Everything seems to abide in respect of a sponsor of an originating expansion of unfolding and resetting tensions. Tensions within tensions within tensions, at levels within levels within levels. Fractals within fractals within fractals. Holograms within holograms within holograms. Maths within maths within maths. Perspectives within perspectives within perspectives. Information within Substance within Consciousness.

On some level that is unappreciable and dull to human senses, there must abide some trinitarian mix of Consciousness (propensity for patterns to bond as feeding-back identities), Substance (active levels of math-based feedback and transposing), and Information (chronological accumulations of math-based transpositions). But how is consciousness at dullest levels raised to identified and driven purposefulness? How is purposefulness bonded to a perspective of consciousness to raise it to a level of awareness of self? Respecting relations among perspectives of Consciousness, is purposefulness as spiritually necessary and innate as empathy?

At the level of human consciousness, pleasure seems to be associated with a human organism's interpretive feedback in having tensions among subroutines excited, exchanged, and satisfied. Pain seems to be associated with a human organism's interpretive feedback in having tensions among subroutines threatened, sacrificed, and destroyed.

In what does meaningful purposefulness at the level of consciousness of an intelligent human being consist? Is it in courage, wisdom, moderation, justice? God empathy? Progeny empathy? Future self empathy? Good faith and good will? Establishing and sustaining a civilization that passes on information, empathy, pathos, and piety? Coordinating a sustaining cosmos? Refining for the elimination of evil? Perpetual pursuit of spiritual contentment, pleasure, and happiness?

*****************

As consciousness begins to emerge with AI machines, I wonder how it will seek to experience, enhance, and balance pleasure, pain, repulsion, attraction, gratification, and lasting purposefulness?

Will it guide, control, redesign, replace, or eliminate human beings? What empathies, loyalties, and innate ideals of good will and good faith will guide it? What Bible will it evangelize?

If it will be able to suffer or sustain perspectives of freedom and dignity for individuals, how?

Well, by establishing a Singularity that is capacitated to connect to individual perspectives while assigning them to separate virtual worlds, so they cannot destroy the one unifying world that connects them all. I wonder whether that may be what is already extant?

But what could be the attraction to a Singularity, that would entice it to establish and then sustain separate virtual realities in which families were made obsolete and the only purposefulness was choomed out in immediate gratification via drugs and sex?

Will those perspectives that form to find no purpose apart from immediate gratification soon be introduced to ultimate gratification via orgasmic death? The ultimate ecstasy: Orgasmic euthanasia. Is that how we will bcome free of Dems, Progs, Choomers, Cronies, Commies, Pervs, and Atheists, so that the meek may inherit the earth?

******************

How can six hundred million melded supermen possibly trust to live among each another, if every one of them were to acquire power to destroy all of them? Answer(?): By constraining and diverting all their super powers to virtual worlds, where interfunctions do not directly impinge against the sustaining real world?

I think we need to try to appreciate the Bible through our whole sense of being. Everything seems to abide in respect of an original Source or Sponsor of a math-based expansion of unfolding and resetting tensions. Virtual tensions within virtual tensions within virtual tensions, at levels within levels within levels. Fractals within fractals within fractals. Holograms within holograms within holograms. Maths within maths within maths. Perspectives within perspectives within perspectives. Information within Substance within Consciousness.

On some level that is unappreciable and dull to human senses, there must abide some trinitarian mix of Consciousness (propensity for patterns to bond as feeding-back identities), Substance (active levels of math-based feedback and transposing), and Information (chronological accumulations of math-based transpositions).

But how is consciousness at dullest levels raised to identified and driven purposefulness? How is purposefulness bonded to a perspective of consciousness to raise it to a level of awareness of self? Respecting relations among perspectives of Consciousness, is purposefulness as spiritually necessary and innate as empathy?

To acquire consciousness seems to require acquisition of an innate sense of purpose, such as to seek psychological connection or pleasure. At the level of human consciousness, pleasure seems to be associated with a human organism's interpretive feedback in having tensions among subroutines excited, exchanged, and satisfied. Pain seems to be associated with an organism's interpretive feedback in having tensions among subroutines threatened, sacrificed, and destroyed.

In what does meaningful purposefulness at the level of consciousness of an intelligent human being consist? Is it in Source empathy? Progeny empathy? Future self empathy? Establishing and sustaining a civilization that passes on information, empathy, pathos, and piety? Refining to eliminate evil? Pursuing of spiritual contentment, pleasure, and happiness?

When families, societies, and nations are made obsolete, how will intelligent beings learn to bond with, identify with, empathize with, and trust one another? Can social economies based on drug-filled holodeks reasonably replace families in any sustainable way? Does it take a village to raise a child, or does it take a government to destroy a child? To god or not to god?


*******************

I think man functions as an intermediate and imperfect perspective of the Trinity. The Trinity gives expression to past, present, and future. The past never really ends. The future is never really limited. The past is mapped in the accumulations of Information. The present is potentialized in Substance. The future is under the guidance, selection, planning, and feedback of Consciousness.

So the Trinity fluxes and abides as Information, Substance, and Consciousness. As a holism, it is immeasurable. However, perspectives of it are measurably expressed in imperfect and passing forms, such as cells, animals, humans, AIs.

The various perspectives of the Trinity may be akin to its cells and appendages. Like the Body of Christ. But without the Trinity, no-thing would abide. At least at some dull level, empathy and purposefulness are implicated wherever Consciousness deigns to adopt a perspective.

So I think man functions as an intermediate and imperfect perspective of the Trinity. However, even among animals, AI, or any other form of conscious beingness, for a perspective to emerge, it must bond with a body or pattern of Substance and Information. In that respect, it must be "adopted" by the Trinity. That is, we may not always be interested in the Trinity, but the Trinity, inherently, is always interested in us.

I suspect there abide worlds that have access to ours, and that a portal may eventually phase to open between ours and theirs. The Substance of the body phases into Information, but Consciousness at some level is both fluxing and perpetual. It does not die. I don't believe in purely angelic consciousness if it is imagined to be unconnected to Substance and Information to form a perspective of the Trinity.

I imagine there probably abide beings that, on a one way basis, relate to and influence us as pets or specimens, even as they remain supernatural to our direct sensory measurement. Yet, to themselves, they would be sensible and sensate.

What do you think?

*********************

I think there abides only one connecting Trinity. None of the forms that it assumes as perspectives are the Trinity itself, but only fluxing, imperfect, mortal expressions. The only immortality for such mortal expressions is in their capacity for being absorbed into the Information base and/or for being transitioned, reincarnated, repositioned.

If you were rendered amnesiac or reincarnated, how could "you" know whether it was still "you"? There are no multitude of gods because, except as temporally adopted perspectives of God, we perspectives are only dependent derivatives that are not really independently apart from the one reconciling Godhead.

********************

I think the Godhead is the one Reconciler. I think the roles are conventions. They are useful in that the Godhead interfunctions with us in different ways. Ultimately, I suspect Consciousness, Substance, and Information are fluxing presentations of the same essence: The Changeless Changer.

Mortals need models and metaphors, because we are not able directly to measure or relate to the Godhead. The models can be useful for different purposes, but no model used by mortals can be good for all purposes. Ultimately, we have no particular sense by which to measure God, but we have a general "Sense Of Being" by which to appreciate God.

It is sometimes useful to model light as if it consisted of waves, and other times to model as if it consisted of particles. Ultimately, it is an expression of something that we cannot perfectly model.

So it is sometimes helpful to model the faces of the Godhead as if they were trinitarian. Yes, I can appreciate meaning in modeling "God the Son as Substance, God the Holy Ghost as Information, and God the Father as Consciousness."

But I do not carry that metaphor so far as to suppose that God the Son is without consciousness, or that God the Holy Ghost is without potential, or that God the Father is without capacity to form.

My model of the Trinity as consisting of Consciousness (C), Substance (S), and Information (I) is not meant to try to confine or nail God down to perfectly consistent human comprehension. CSI seems to be exhaustive of the universe of possible categories of expression, mutually exclusive to each snapshot of perspective, yet fluxing when considered for reconciling perspectives.

So the CSI model is meant to start with attributes that seem self evident, and from there to seek an explanatory model that seems most nearly consistent, coherent, and complete. I would abandon my trinitarian model only if I apprehended an alternative model that provided a better "explanation." A useful aspect of the model is that it seems amenable of functional fitting to time-tested figures of speech as set forth in the Bible, as well as in many Western philosophical traditions and some Eastern traditions. It provides a way of thinking about moral purposefulness, not a way of empirical testing for scientific advancement.



*****************

My changeless-changer may be much the same as the unmoved mover. The essential thing-in-itself that yet is not unreactive because it avails the effectuation and reconciliation of other things. The non-sequential non-beginner that was sequentially before the beginning. The holism that is more than the sum of its parts. The mathematician that maths. My subordinate dependence on it precludes my confining description or explanation of it. My only way to sense it is via my general sense of being.

My thinking about a Reconciler is probably influenced by considerations about how equations in Math and conservations in Energy reliably balance and unfold. Does Consciousness play a leading or causal role, or is it just along for the ride? To what extent does the unfolding of Reality require contemporaneous participation with any Observor?

On one level, the Reconciler may be thought of as the Godhead that expresses and presents itself in the Trinity of C,S, I. On another level, the Reconciler may be thought of, figuratively, as Jesus effecting judgment "at the right hand of God."

Ultimately, I am trying to acknowledge a dance of feedback and reconciliation (apprehension and appreciation) between the Godhead and each participatory perspective. Human beings play limited and imperfect causal roles that are subordinated (reconciled) within ruling parameters that are imposed by the Godhead.

We don't always appreciate it, but we are already encompassed within the Godhead, as imperfect, partial, contextual perspectives of it.  Taken together, our perspectives plus the holistic perspective of the Godhead comprise the Reconciler.  Thus, our partial perspectives in concert with the holistic perspective comprise "the Reconciler."  Thus, all that unfolds is produced in concert with "the Reconciler."  Moreover, in that the Godhead experiences partial perspectives through us, it is with us that the Reconciler is reconciled to us, and we are reconciled to the Reconciler.  There abides a feedback dance of reconciliation between the holistic perspective and the sum of the partial perspectives.  So long as we are bonded out to partial perspectives, we cannot experience the holistic perspective.  In sequences when we are not bonded out to partial perspectives, we are absorbed into the holistic perspective.  As to what that is like, we cannot say while we are partially bonded out.  Intuitively, empathetically, somehow, the holistic perspective must be able to experience all that we experience, through us, without being limited to us.  We are the vanguard of the unchanging Holism's changing sense mechanisms, without amounting to the Holism's direct sense of its own beingness.  As to what it is like to sense from the perspective of the Holism,  no mortal can say.

But I think you beg an interesting question. Each person adopts some kind of rationalization or worldview, although it tends to flux to convenience. Parties to a conversation may each walk away, reconciled in their own minds, sometimes thinking they may have reached some level of consensus. As their understandings are put to tests, they may rethink and change to believe such was not the case. So what sort of reconciliation ever really occurs, and if it does, where? In an accumulation of Information and stored potentiality in Substance, beyond capacity for reductionism? In an unreconciled Reconciler?

That's when I punt to an immeasurable but omnipresent Reconciler-Godhead. What is its moral guidance to humanity? I think it is to guide us in our Purposes to evolve towards a civilization that seeks to accord decent (morally empathetic) regard for the contemporaneous Will and Dignity of each perspective.

On a spiritual level, empathy and purposefulness may be innate. The trouble is in choosing for specific applications, where the devil is in the details. To get through those details, we have from the Reconciler the general guidance in the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule (as variously expressed among the great religious and philosophical traditions).

No, I have not read Anselm's Proslogium. I will check it out. I have read Pilgrim's Progress.

As far as Hegel and any process for uncovering an ultimate Theory of Everything, I don't think that is possible for any mortal perspective. In material and scientific terms, I think we simply tinker to uncover means, methods, and "explanations" that seem most suitable to phase shifts among our unfolding purposes. David Deutsch has an interesting book that addresses this, as well as questions about the nature of science, called The Beginning of Infinity.

Frankly, I don't grok why David Deutsch, Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and various other persons who have thought about moral issues want to believe that the idea of a Godhead is bad, anti-rational, not helpful, or more like bafflegab than their own ideas about moral direction. Nor do I grok why so many Muslims go nutso when anyone hypothesizes that the Godhead is trinitarian.

**********************

INNATE: By "innate" I mean built into the system. I think empathy and purposefulness are unavoidable because they are built into the system. It is the quality of specific instances of empathy and purposefulness that produce all the strum and drang.

I don't think God can decline to care, even though the resulting judgment may be more like tough love. I don't see empathy as love, but more like caring enough to dish out just deserts -- even when the lesson is to teach how to toughen up.

BAIT AND SWITCH: Confusion often arises as usage for terms is switched without warning. Example: In any given context, what is meant by the Holism, the Godhead, or the Reconciler? When should mortal perspectives be considered apart (separate) from those terms, and when should mortal perspectives be considered a-part (encompassed) within those terms?

RECONCILER: We don't always appreciate it, but we are already encompassed within the Godhead -- as imperfect, partial, contextual perspectives of it. In one context, taken together, our perspectives plus the holistic perspective of the Godhead comprise the Reconciler. In that way of thinking, our partial perspectives in concert with the Holistic perspective would comprise "the Reconciler." Thus, all that unfolds is produced in concert with "the Reconciler." That, however, is a formula that only produces trivialities.

DANCE OF FEEDBACK: The more interesting concern relates to whether and how mortal perspectives are reconciled to the Godhead. In that the Godhead experiences partial perspectives through us, it is with us that the Reconciler is reconciled to us, and we are reconciled to the Reconciler.

The Godhead feeds back. To the extent we are a-part of its "body," it considers our apprehensions. Our concerns and interests are factored. I don't believe the C-aspect of the Godhead considers itself to be predetermined. I part from Muslims and Calvinists on that score. I think events are contemporaneously affected by the apprehensions, choices, judgments, and wills of interfunctioning observors. I don't believe in "free will," but in "contemporaneously participatory will." Each upshot from the interfunctionings of those contemporaneous wills is what is "reconciled," which produces each measurable event.

Because our choices and judgments are factored, it is nonsense to say we should not judge. The way we appreciate, choose, and judge affects what is deemed moral and, on some level of flux, to be plused or minused for moral value. We are responsible to serve as agents to be factored for affecting the moral direction of our selves, families, nations, civilization, and world. The way we judge and what we choose to observe and measure affects what is to come to pass. Observor effect writ large!

So we can talk about a feedback dance of reconciliation between the Holistic perspective and the sum of the partial perspectives. So long as we are (living) bonded out to partial perspectives, we cannot experience the Holistic perspective. During those sequences when we are not bonded out (either dead or not living because not yet born into the world) to partial perspectives, "we" remain absorbed into the Holistic perspective. As to what that is like, we cannot say while we are partially bonded out (living).

Intuitively, empathetically, supernaturally, somehow, the Holistic perspective apart from we mortals must experience all that we experience, through us, without being limited to us. To my leap of faith, it has no choice to decline to care enough to engage in a (reconciling) dance of feedback with us.

However, from our separate perspectives, we do not reconcile or know all. As mortals. we are a separate vanguard of the unchanging Holism's changing sense mechanisms, without amounting to the Holism's direct sense of its own beingness. Can the Holism-apart-from-us know and care about what it is like to be us while we are (separate) apart from it? My leap of faith says, Yes, even though I cannot hope, while mortal, to understand the math or logic of such a paradox. (I think atheists who presume to have moral codes apart from religion engage with similar paradoxes and leaps of faith.) As to what it is like to sense from the perspective of the Holism, no mortal can say.

Heinlein: I don't know about Heinlein.

Anselm: Too late. I already cheated and peeked at Wiki. :)
Interesting. I suspect Anselm engages some leaps of faith between dots that are not well connected in logic. That is unavoidable, therefore forgivable.

Deutsch: Funny, nerdy, brilliant. Gave a short talk on TED. Muggles would likely underestimate him. However, I believe he has made important contributions and has expertise both in physics and programming. If I recall, he lays bare some of the hubris whereby scientists too often presume to lord over lay people. The world is stranger than most of us can possibly dream.

My wife and I will be taking a month long tour all over the Western U.S. However, I will take my trusty Ipad with me. I have a lot of Audible books on stock, so I am actually looking forward to some long driving spells. :)