MythFree

Just to show I'm open-minded I will share this
BUT
it is in no way the description and concept of a creator 'God' that is taught in mythology and current religious circles...
it is a scientific possiblity (a poor one at that).

If Rupert Shedrake is correct and there are morphogenetic fields (many debunk him), it would mean as life/energy evolves the information would be stored in a non-physical collective field,

IF stored information can become self-aware as a self-conscious energetic field,
(I seriously doubt this part)

THEN it would become a non-physical field/being containing all the knowledge in the universe.
If this ever does happen I also believe that it would communicate with us given all the knowledge it would have.

This NEW being would be the result of all collective experiences driven by instinct to this point. Creation would birth a supreme being...quite the opposite of what religious mind-sets have envisioned and recorded.

But right now...look around and listen...not yet...maybe never.

Izmir Stinger

May the force be with you.

copernicus

See this skepdic.com link on Sheldrake. As it points out, Sheldrake just uses new terminology to describe old ideas--spirits, telepathy, etc. He uses his credentials as a scientist to promote non-scientific ideas, which is reprehensible. Basically, you are just saying that one could believe in a Supreme Being if an immaterial spirit world exists. There is no evidence to warrant such a belief, and Sheldrake's postmodernist babble seems too vague to test in any scientific manner. Hence, it should be put on the shelf with the rest of the bottles of snake oil.

modernPrimitive

Something like Jung's Collective Unconscious that takes on a "life" of it's own?
So which came first, the Chicken or the egg?

MythFree

Yes in a way...I know it's a long shot not defending it, juat posting it as a strange possibility.

Since organisms and intelligence are a long way down the evolutionary trail -
the egg (radiation and gases) came first.

modernPrimitive

Just a question: You're implying that intelligence and consciousness are the synonomous - is this correct? Hypothetically, what if there is a base, elementary consciousness from which all things arise - both human consciousness as well as what appears to be inanimate (matter)?

MythFree

Quite the opposite!
That's what everyone here seems to think I'm saying, and the very opposite is my major premise as to why there can't be a creator 'God'(s) (fully intelligent and personalized) before the fist creation wave in an expansive or expressive portion of the eternal cycle.

Energy with the capacity to be aware of it's existence, or 'consciousness if you prefer, and it's drive to be active, which I label 'instinct' would seem to me to be eternal or 'lawys present'.

Intelligence and knowledge, or the ability to store records of experiences to influence future activity is developed....NOT always present, especially at the beginning of an expressive or expansive portion of the eternal cycle.

Instinct is the eternal drive...intelligence is temporary.
I like the way it's expressed here: http://repetition.freeservers.com/cycle.html

modernPrimitive

What of the impersonal Absolute of Buddhism then?