Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

[Eugene I]

Ashvin, you keep turning the problem upside down and looking at it objectively from the third-person perspective. But I'm asking to answer from your first person perspective: if you would be Harry Truman, would you be able to make a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands of civilian people including children, even though it would eventually lead to a greater good, would end the war and would prevent from possibly larger death tolls if the war would continue? If you would be God, would you be able to create such universe where innocent conscious beings are afflicted with pain and suffering without their consent, even though it would eventually lead to a greater good? Myself, from the third person perspective or form the first-person perspective of the victims I agree with all you said about suffering leading to eventual greater good, about personal faith, finding meanings in suffering, etc, But from the first person perspective, if I would be God, I just cold not do it, and that's exactly what Alyosha said.

[Shaibei]

Shiabei, I am aware of such version of the answer to the "problem of evil", and this is indeed a possible answer. My personal take is that it is a "Veritas ad Absurdum" answer, it may work for other people but does not work for me. This position is also very similar to materialist's position of New Mysterianism on dealing with the "hard problem of consciousness". So if one is open to accept the Mysterianism position on the "problem of evil", then one losses the right to criticize the materialist Mysterianism position on the "hard problem of consciousness".

I can't write an answer If I don't feel it about myself. Even if there is an answer to intellect, in a time of distress it does not solve much. So, for me it's a matter of faith.
After saying that the position of Judaism is close to what Ashvin wrote. In a paraphrase on Leibniz, one rabbi said: "We are living in the worst of all possible worlds in which there is still hope.”
In terms of Judaism values ​​are part of the collective unconscious and their fulfillment by man brings good not only to himself but redeems the world, and as it were God himself

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin, you keep turning the problem upside down and looking at it objectively from the third-person perspective. But I'm asking to answer from your first person perspective: if you would be Harry Truman, would you be able to make a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands of civilian people including children, even though it would eventually lead to a greater good, would end the war and would prevent from possibly larger death tolls if the war would continue? If you would be God, would you be able to create such universe where innocent conscious beings are afflicted with pain and suffering without their consent, even though it would eventually lead to a greater good? Myself, from the third person perspective or form the first-person perspective of the victims I agree with all you said about suffering leading to eventual greater good, about personal faith, finding meanings in suffering, etc, But from the first person perspective, if I would be God, I just cold not do it, and that's exactly what Alyosha said.

Eugene, I don't think compassion can be located in a single first person perspective. Compassion is found in dynamic process. Creativity is both constructive and destructive.The horror of the atomic bombings resulted in multiple nuclear-armed nations resulted in Mutual Assured Destruction which is the thing that so far at our level of imperfect compassion has prevented another atomic bombing. The same God giving creativity, gives checks-and balances. Compassion is found in process.

[Lou Gold]

Shiabei, I am aware of such version of the answer to the "problem of evil", and this is indeed a possible answer. My personal take is that it is a "Veritas ad Absurdum" answer, it may work for other people but does not work for me. This position is also very similar to materialist's position of New Mysterianism on dealing with the "hard problem of consciousness". So if one is open to accept the Mysterianism position on the "problem of evil", then one losses the right to criticize the materialist Mysterianism position on the "hard problem of consciousness".

I can't write an answer If I don't feel it about myself. Even if there is an answer to intellect, in a time of distress it does not solve much. So, for me it's a matter of faith.
After saying that the position of Judaism is close to what Ashvin wrote. In a paraphrase on Leibniz, one rabbi said: "We are living in the worst of all possible worlds in which there is still hope.”
In terms of Judaism values ​​are part of the collective unconscious and their fulfillment by man brings good not only to himself but redeems the world, and as it were God himself

Shaibei , I AGREE!

[Eugene I]

The thing is, we are wasting our time discussing a non-existent problem, because there is an easy resolution to it. It is sufficient for God to simply ask for our consent to sufferings of the human life before we incarnate into humans in order to resolve this moral contradiction. Even within the framework of Christianity it can be resolved if we do not strictly stick with the Nicene Creed and accept the Origen's view on the pre-existence of souls (which would obviously include the souls' consent to incarnate). Also in Judaism (Shaibei, correct me if I'm wrong) the "transmigration of souls" is an accepted view, which also means that the souls give their consent to incarnate. And lastly, this view is supported by the majority of the NDE and regression therapy accounts. So, from my perspective, the problem is resolved. However, it still exists in the Nicene-Creed version of Christianity that rejects the pre-existence of souls.

With that said, I agree with the rest of what you said, Shaibei and Ashvin, although personally I'm also open to other non-monotheistic versions of idealism, such as BK's, Advaitic and Buddhist. I do not feel compelled to strictly stick with only one version and to become a firm believer in it. I prefer to keep a "possibilian" position and remain open to a variety of possible versions of idealism (as long as they make sense to me).

[Simon Adams]

I used to live in South Africa a long time ago, and visited a vineyard. I remember the owner telling me about why good wines are expensive. He said that there is supply and demand factor, but a big one was also the condition of the soil. If you have very fertile loamy soil, the vines grow big and bold and you get a great big harvest of grapes. However the wine you make from those grapes is going to be poor. To make a really good wine, the soil needs to be poor, low nutrients and full of stones. In that case the vine struggles and you don’t get a huge crop of grapes, but the wine you make from them is usually something special.

I didn’t really think of this as anything other than an interesting fact until much later, and I’m still not sure if this is a general fact or was just his theory. But it seems to be a clue to a hard truth, especially hard for those who think this life is all we have. I personally think that we just can’t see enough of the big picture to understand suffering, and why it’s a necessary part of this current existence.

[Eugene I]

I don't think there is one "right" understanding and attitude to the life challenges and sufferings, but rather there are many possible attitudes, including positive and negative ones. Listing some positive ones (because negative are not productive):
- Faith and hope ("I don't know why I'm suffering but I trust God that there is a reason and meaning to it"). This is what many religious people do.
- Learning and spiritual growth by experience through succession of incarnated lives. This is what NDE/regression data often suggests and New-Age religion holds.
- Challenging and dangerous adventure similar to mountain climbing. This is what some believers in "Earth as virtual reality game" theory holds.
- Opportunity for creative activity and creative exploration of the space of conscious forms and states.

It's possible that it's not one or the other, but all of them are valid at the same time. I personally like the last two ones because they are not so utilitarian-targeted towards some ultimate telos that we all need to achieve. The "need to achieve" and "the need to meet God's expectations" feels somewhat neurotic to me. I do creative work just for the delight of the process itself and for the sake of the beauty of creations with no need to achieve anything or meet any expectations. The growth in learning, knowledge and development of consciousness for me is an unintended byproduct of creative activity rather than a telos.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, you keep turning the problem upside down and looking at it objectively from the third-person perspective. But I'm asking to answer from your first person perspective: if you would be Harry Truman, would you be able to make a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan killing hundreds of thousands of civilian people including children, even though it would eventually lead to a greater good, would end the war and would prevent from possibly larger death tolls if the war would continue?

If you would be God, would you be able to create such universe where innocent conscious beings are afflicted with pain and suffering without their consent, even though it would eventually lead to a greater good? Myself, from the third person perspective or form the first-person perspective of the victims I agree with all you said about suffering leading to eventual greater good, about personal faith, finding meanings in suffering, etc, But from the first person perspective, if I would be God, I just cold not do it, and that's exactly what Alyosha said.

Eugene, you keep arguing against a strawman theistic and utilitarian ethics which I am not advocating for. I agree with you that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator who creates a life of agonizing suffering for his creatures cannot be considered "moral" no matter how much 'pleasure', virtue, goodness, etc. is gained from that suffering in the long-run.

The question is, then, whether the voluntary incarnation proposition is the only remaining option left for philosophically dealing with the 'problem of evil', or whether a pragmatic Darwinian process framework, which emphasizes individual sovereignty, agency and stewardship, can handle it more effectively. Right now it seems pretty obvious to me the latter is true.

[Eugene I]

Ashvin, I'm puzzled about your view on the role of the divine/God in you Darwinian consciousness development process philosophy. I may be able to understand it better if you could elaborate on it. I'm myself also leaning toward the evolutionary view, although the voluntary incarnation model also makes a lot of sense and is supported by a vast number of NDE accounts which I would not discard either. IMO it may be a combination of both.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, I'm puzzled about your view on the role of the divine/God in you Darwinian consciousness development process philosophy. I may be able to understand it better if you could elaborate on it. I'm myself also leaning toward the evolutionary view, although the voluntary incarnation model also makes a lot of sense and is supported by a vast number of NDE accounts which I would not discard either. IMO it may be a combination of both.

To be clear, I find the voluntary incarnation scenario very plausible. I am not making an argument against it, but rather an argument that it is not necessary or appropriate as a response to the problem of evil, at least not any more than the traditional theistic response.

The Divine in my Darwinian approach is found within us, as beings "made in the 'image of God'". The evolutionary process is the means through which we, as individuals, come to have the capacity of remembering our true nature and reimagine our role as stewards in the epic of life. That approach is what I believe provides us with the most meaning in our lives and deep spiritual meaning is what is needed to overcome the most horrendous suffering and malevolence.