NationStates Jolt Archive

its late, and i'm tired and need to go to sleep, but i just had an idea i'd like to hear opinions on (largely cos i'm too sleepy to think about it properly in my own head :P)
bear in mind i don't think about religion much...

what if "God" = the universe itself

so god isn't a supernatural being, or a creator, or even a sentient anything, but "god" is simply everything... gaia, and more. the air we breathe, the ground beneath our feet, stars in the sky, etc.

it'd explain the whole "god is omnipotent" thing, heh. and stuff like moses (supposedly, in a book) parting the sea... it was the universe's (god's) fate to have such a low tide at that time to enable moses and his peeps to cross. somebody interperets it as god's will, thinking god is a sentient creature with great powers of some sort... and you get a misinterperetation of what actually happened.


what this means in terms of the objective morality of monotheism/christianity, i don't know. if all this were the case surely the morality attached to the religion would be purely arbitary? and how could jesus (if he existed) possibly be the 'son of "god"' if god is simply a different term for the power of the universe?


and with my head running on different thoughts... god supposedly just "is" and "was" since the beginning of time. since the universe created itself (so to speak) in the big bang, then god created itself and time, and has always been... so to speak.

is this a way of reconciling religion and science? am i just talking utter shit? thoughts?

]
what if "God" = the universe itself

so god isn't a supernatural being, or a creator, or even a sentient anything, but "god" is simply everything... gaia, and more. the air we breathe, the ground beneath our feet, stars in the sky, etc.


Animism. Been thought of before. Sorry. :p

am i just talking utter shit?

Yup. Stop anthropomorphising.

its late, and i'm tired and need to go to sleep, but i just had an idea i'd like to hear opinions on (largely cos i'm too sleepy to think about it properly in my own head :P)
bear in mind i don't think about religion much...

what if "God" = the universe itself

so god isn't a supernatural being, or a creator, or even a sentient anything, but "god" is simply everything... gaia, and more. the air we breathe, the ground beneath our feet, stars in the sky, etc.

it'd explain the whole "god is omnipotent" thing, heh. and stuff like moses (supposedly, in a book) parting the sea... it was the universe's (god's) fate to have such a low tide at that time to enable moses and his peeps to cross. somebody interperets it as god's will, thinking god is a sentient creature with great powers of some sort... and you get a misinterperetation of what actually happened.


what this means in terms of the objective morality of monotheism/christianity, i don't know. if all this were the case surely the morality attached to the religion would be purely arbitary? and how could jesus (if he existed) possibly be the 'son of "god"' if god is simply a different term for the power of the universe?


and with my head running on different thoughts... god supposedly just "is" and "was" since the beginning of time. since the universe created itself (so to speak) in the big bang, then god created itself and time, and has always been... so to speak.

is this a way of reconciling religion and science? am i just talking utter shit? thoughts?

It's not a way of reconciling religion and science, but it is an interesting idea that I've toyed with before.

Animism. Been thought of before. Sorry. :p
i figured as much - thats why i said i don't think about religion very much (and i stick to political philosophy... none of this metaphysical crap :p)

i'll look it up :) the idea intrigues me... (thanks!)

PM, you and I should chat sometime.

i figured as much - thats why i said i don't think about religion very much (and i stick to political philosophy... none of this metaphysical crap :p) i'll look it up :) the idea intrigues me... (thanks!)

Animism was one of the first religious system to arise in the development of human civilization along with polytheism; interestingly, you didn't see as much religious conflict or repression between different systems until monotheism came along. Sometimes I think our religious beliefs took a step backward rather than forward with that one...

Animism was one of the first religious system to arise in the development of human civilization along with polytheism; interestingly, you didn't see as much religious conflict or repression between different systems until monotheism came along. Sometimes I think our religious beliefs took a step backward rather than forward with that one...

Similar to the original 'Mother Nature' I suppose.

I quite like that idea...

what if "God" = the universe itself

You are Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), and I claim my five pounds.

Animism was one of the first religious system to arise in the development of human civilization along with polytheism; interestingly, you didn't see as much religious conflict or repression between different systems until monotheism came along. Sometimes I think our religious beliefs took a step backward rather than forward with that one...

I dunno, banning a religion because it offends your dignity isn't that much of a better excuse. And polytheists still (sometimes, there were a lot of different ideas going around) found stuff to be ungodly (human sacrifice for example).

[QUOTE=Pure Metal]its late, and i'm tired and need to go to sleep, but i just had an idea i'd like to hear opinions on (largely cos i'm too sleepy to think about it properly in my own head :P)
bear in mind i don't think about religion much...

what if "God" = the universe itself.[QUOTE]

Spinoza already had this thought. Yet, I don't think he was tired.

Anyway, if God=the universe, then there wouldn't be much point of talking about a universe. I mean, we would say things like the universe is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. There's going to be some logical problem with this type of equation, but I can't be bothered to work it out now. Google search "objections to Spinoza".

George Lucas also thought of this.

"We are part of the universe, through our eyes, ears and minds, the universe may know itself"

I've seen this quote, or something very similar, attributed to Carl Sagan.

If religion is man's search for his purpose and place in the universe, that idea of it is probably as good as any.

I dunno, banning a religion because it offends your dignity isn't that much of a better excuse. And polytheists still (sometimes, there were a lot of different ideas going around) found stuff to be ungodly (human sacrifice for example).

I think ending human sacrifice was a good thing, but I see your point. Still, religious freedom did take a general step backward at least until the Renaissance or the Enlightenment.

Anyway, if God=the universe, then there wouldn't be much point of talking about a universe. I mean, we would say things like the universe is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. There's going to be some logical problem with this type of equation, but I can't be bothered to work it out now. Google search "objections to Spinoza".

The standard reading of Spinoza is surely the other way round - not that it is pointless to talk about a universe, but that it is pointless to talk about God. Spinoza's whole God malarky was just a camoflague for his atheism.

its late, and i'm tired and need to go to sleep, but i just had an idea i'd like to hear opinions on (largely cos i'm too sleepy to think about it properly in my own head :P)
bear in mind i don't think about religion much...

what if "God" = the universe itself

so god isn't a supernatural being, or a creator, or even a sentient anything, but "god" is simply everything... gaia, and more. the air we breathe, the ground beneath our feet, stars in the sky, etc.

it'd explain the whole "god is omnipotent" thing, heh. and stuff like moses (supposedly, in a book) parting the sea... it was the universe's (god's) fate to have such a low tide at that time to enable moses and his peeps to cross. somebody interperets it as god's will, thinking god is a sentient creature with great powers of some sort... and you get a misinterperetation of what actually happened.


what this means in terms of the objective morality of monotheism/christianity, i don't know. if all this were the case surely the morality attached to the religion would be purely arbitary? and how could jesus (if he existed) possibly be the 'son of "god"' if god is simply a different term for the power of the universe?


and with my head running on different thoughts... god supposedly just "is" and "was" since the beginning of time. since the universe created itself (so to speak) in the big bang, then god created itself and time, and has always been... so to speak.

is this a way of reconciling religion and science? am i just talking utter shit? thoughts?


From Babylon 5 - "We are the Universe made manifest, trying to understand itself" - Delenn of Minbari

"We are part of the universe, through our eyes, ears and minds, the universe may know itself"

I've seen this quote, or something very similar, attributed to Carl Sagan.

If religion is man's search for his purpose and place in the universe, that idea of it is probably as good as any.

This statesment doesn't really have anything to do with religion, it has to do with the human mind and how it creates ways of perceving and constructing the world. It essentially says, "be careful with your knowledge systems as they may be imputing something that isn't there". We don't have another, different mind -- like an alien one - to compare our minds to.

The standard reading of Spinoza is surely the other way round - not that it is pointless to talk about a universe, but that it is pointless to talk about God. Spinoza's whole God malarky was just a camoflague for his atheism.

Possibly. That is a literary interpretation. It may be right, I don't know.

From Babylon 5 - "We are the Universe made manifest, trying to understand itself" - Delenn of Minbari

Meh. If our brains were clever enough to understand themselves (never mind the universe) they would be so complex that they would not be able to understand themselves, and conversely if our brains were so simple that they could understand themselves they wouldn't be clever enough to understand themselves (never mind the universe).

Meh. If our brains were clever enough to understand themselves (never mind the universe) they would be so complex that they would not be able to understand themselves, and conversely if our brains were so simple that they could understand themselves they wouldn't be clever enough to understand themselves (never mind the universe).

The universe is infinite and so cannot comprehend the finite, the limitations of physical bodies.

We are finite and so cannot comprehend the infinite, the concept of the limitless.

The infinite universe, understanding infinity, made itself finite to understand limits.

Meh. If our brains were clever enough to understand themselves (never mind the universe) they would be so complex that they would not be able to understand themselves, and conversely if our brains were so simple that they could understand themselves they wouldn't be clever enough to understand themselves (never mind the universe).

A system that is able to understand itself and everything it does. Do you think this is impossible? I guess such a being would be god-like.

I wonder if there is a logical regression here, because you would always be involved in trying to understand what you just did, but then you would have to understand the fact that you understanding what you just did and then you have to understand the fact that you are understanding and so on and so on ad infiitum.

The universe is infinite and so cannot comprehend the finite, the limitations of physical bodies.

We are finite and so cannot comprehend the infinite, the concept of the limitless.

The infinite universe, understanding infinity, made itself finite to understand limits.

Just because you are finite doesn't mean that you can't have an understanding of what is infinite. Otherwise, you and I would be having this conversation right now.

Just because you are finite doesn't mean that you can't have an understanding of what is infinite. Otherwise, you and I would be having this conversation right now.

Our understanding of the infinite is incomplete and intermittant, limited by the finite body to which we are confined. We have moments when we can free ourselves of this and know the infinite, but to understand it completely is impossible and will be until we die and are released back into our infinite state. But then we will know what it was to have limits and so have a more complete understanding of existence.

Anybody else feel like they just drank a slurpee very, very quickly?

Our understanding of the infinite is incomplete and intermittant, limited by the finite body to which we are confined. We have moments when we can free ourselves of this and know the infinite, but to understand it completely is impossible and will be until we die and are released back into our infinite state. But then we will know what it was to have limits and so have a more complete understanding of existence.

Let's be precise here or else we'll get in trouble. If we know something, then we understand it. Unless, of course, you mean that infinite is made of various parts, some parts we can know, some we can't. My question would be, if you don't know something, then how can you know that it is there?

We have moments when we can free ourselves of this and know the infinite, but to understand it completely is impossible and will be until we die and are released back into our infinite state.

Zero is not an infinite number.

Zero is not an infinite number.

Indeed, no number is infinite.

Let's be precise here or else we'll get in trouble. If we know something, then we understand it.


Nah. I know love, but I don't understand it.

Let's be precise here or else we'll get in trouble. If we know something, then we understand it. Unless, of course, you mean that infinite is made of various parts, some parts we can know, some we can't. My question would be, if you don't know something, then how can you know that is it there?

Do you postulate a limit on the universe? If so, what is beyond that limit? Perhaps another universe. Then what is beyond that? Do we ever get to a point where we can postulate nothingness? Is nothing, in and of itself, something? My point is we can imagine infinity without knowing infinity.

Indeed, no number is infinite.

Ah, but certain infinities are numbers.

Nah. I know love, but I don't understand it.

No you are familiar with the feeling of love (which love, though, as there are different types). Knowledge requires that you have a belief that it is true and that there is a process in place that guarantees that your belief turn out to be true.

Ah, but certain infinities are numbers.

You're right here.

No you are familiar with the feeling of love (which love, though, as there are different types). Knowledge requires that you have a belief that it is true and that there is a process in place that guarantees that your belief turn out to be true.


What you failed to do when attempting to clarify terminology earlier was that you are dealing with the knowing of propositions, and not acquaintance.


So, if I know how to digest wheat do I understand how to digest wheat?

Ah, but certain infinities are numbers.

I mean, we refer to them with a greek sign, but that greek sign (I think it is lower case omega -- the one that looks like a 'w') can be applied over and over ad infinitum, in the same way you would have any polynominal.

You're right here.

???

Was there a quick edit there?

I mean, we refer to them with a greek sign, but that greek sign (I think it is lower case omega -- the one that looks like a 'w') can be applied over and over ad infinitum, in the same way you would have any polynominal.

I thought you were refering to aleph-null, the simplest countable infinity.

What you failed to do when attempting to clarify terminology earlier was that you are dealing with the knowing of propositions, and not acquaintance.


So, if I know how to digest wheat do I understand how to digest wheat?

Knoweledge of propositions: "I'm in love" is a proposition because it is true or false. "I know love" is true or false, also. "I know how to digest wheat" is a propostion. I think it is false. You don't know, your body does it for you.

???

Was there a quick edit there?

spelling error. Is that alright?

In terms of love, you need some cognitive component so we can sses the propositions involved.

Furthermore, there can be any amount of propositions, but it doesn't follow that you know their truth value.

Do you postulate a limit on the universe? If so, what is beyond that limit? Perhaps another universe. Then what is beyond that? Do we ever get to a point where we can postulate nothingness? Is nothing, in and of itself, something? My point is we can imagine infinity without knowing infinity.

Yeah, there's a limit, "there a finite number of atoms in the universe". Here's another limt, "i will not live beyond 500 years old" -- that are many limits on this universe. Nothing can't be something by definiton. However, Robert Nozick has some weird argument that, I think, claims that nothingness exists. I've never been able to find this argument. Nevertheless, what is beyond this universe? I don't know. Perhaps space is infinite.

You don't know, your body does it for you.

So I != my body?

spelling error. Is that alright?

I thought I saw 'Show me such a number' or suchlike there at one point.

Do you postulate a limit on the universe? If so, what is beyond that limit? Perhaps another universe. Then what is beyond that? Do we ever get to a point where we can postulate nothingness? Is nothing, in and of itself, something? My point is we can imagine infinity without knowing infinity.

Yeah, there's a limit, "there a finite number of atoms in the universe". Here's another limt, "i will not live beyond 500 years old" -- that are many limits on this universe. Nothing can't be something by definiton. However, Robert Nozick has some weird argument that, I think, claims that nothingness exists. I've never been able to find this argument. Nevertheless, what is beyond this universe? I don't know. Perhaps space is infinite. As to the imagining aspect: well we can imagine many things: a dog mixed with a lion, mixed with a turtle, mixed with a shark. You get my point. I think you mean to claim that the concept is a little more respectable than any wimsy of the imagination. So, in order for it to be intellectually respectable, we must have some clear knowable concept of it. I mean, it is knowable as a mathematical concept, but it is not available to my perception, I'll give you that.

Yeah, there's a limit, "there a finite number of atoms in the universe". Here's another limt, "i will not live beyond 500 years old" -- that are many limits on this universe. Nothing can't be something by definiton. However, Robert Nozick has some weird argument that, I think, claims that nothingness exists. I've never been able to find this argument. Nevertheless, what is beyond this universe? I don't know. Perhaps space is infinite.

And what makes up the non-physical person? Do we postulate a soul? Is it made up of atoms? Or is it just awareness? If the soul isn't physical, what is it?

I thought I saw 'Show me such a number' or suchlike there at one point.

You're right. I've edited a bunch of my posts because of spelling errors. In your case, I remebered my philosophy of mathematics class where we were dealing Hilbert who worked with infinity and verification. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be dishonest or anything.

So I != my body?

You tell me.

And what makes up the non-physical person? Do we postulate a soul? Is it made up of atoms? Or is it just awareness? If the soul isn't physical, what is it?

Look, before we go further, tell me how, in terms of physics, how a non-physical substance interacts with an physical substance. I'm not really into souls.

And what makes up the non-physical person? Do we postulate a soul? Is it made up of atoms? Or is it just awareness? If the soul isn't physical, what is it?

Look, before we go further, tell me how, in terms of physics, a non-physical substance interacts with an physical substance. I'm not really into souls.

You tell me.

You were the one who implied a division.

You were the one who implied a division.

So, you want to tell me that there is no difference between digesting your food and anything that the mind or the aware brain is concerned with? Digestion is an unconcious process. It has nothing to do with knowledege. We can can have knowledge of it, but it (the digestion system) isn't knowledge. In this sense, yes I draw a distinction between mind (as a purlely physical entity) and rest of the body.

Look, before we go further, tell me how, in terms of physics, a non-physical substance interacts with an physical substance. I'm not really into souls.

I understand some basic physics, but I don't really have the math to get deeply into it. I'm speaking less from a scientific perspective than a "spiritual" perspective. (for the record, I'm not happy with the terminology of the "spiritual" - words like theology, etc. since it implies a belief in deity which I by no means espouse.) But, if I understand some of the things I've read correctly, quantum physics actually crosses over into "spiritual" areas (or vice-versa) and may be beginning to address some of these issues - like non-physical existence. Or am I misunderstanding?

I understand some basic physics, but I don't really have the math to get deeply into it. I'm speaking less from a scientific perspective than a "spiritual" perspective. (for the record, I'm not happy with the terminology of the "spiritual" - words like theology, etc. since it implies a belief in deity which I by no means espouse.) But, if I understand some of the things I've read correctly, quantum physics actually crosses over into "spiritual" areas (or vice-versa) and may be beginning to address some of these issues - like non-physical existence. Or am I misunderstanding?

Unfortunately, science concerns itself with the physical universe. Indeed, I don't know of an academic subject that concerns itself with things that are not physical.

In this sense, yes I draw a distinction between mind (as a purlely physical entity) and rest of the body.

The mind as a physical entity? Certainly the brain is one, but I'd be very cautious about describing the mind as such.

The mind as a physical entity? Certainly the brain is one, but I'd be very cautious about describing the mind as such.

So you think the mind is non-physical?

-snip-

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but this is essentially pantheism.

Panentheism, which is somewhat similiar, is the idea that 'The universe is God, but God is not the sum of its parts'. Essentially, that he is immanent within the universe which is described as his 'body', but he also transcends it...

It's a nice 'koan' I guess. If you believe that everything is God you will be much less likely to do negative or harmful things. I used to believe it, mainly to change my outlook on life (it made everything more colourful and alive and beautiful, to think that you were a part of God), but I tend to agree more with the Hindu idea of Brahman.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but this is essentially pantheism.

Panentheism, which is somewhat similiar, is the idea that 'The universe is God, but God is not the sum of its parts'. Essentially, that he is immanent within the universe which is described as his 'body', but he also transcends it...

It's a nice 'koan' I guess. If you believe that everything is God you will be much less likely to do negative or harmful things. I used to believe it, mainly to change my outlook on life (it made everything more colourful and alive and beautiful, to think that you were a part of God), but I tend to agree more with the Hindu idea of Brahman.

It is, philosophically, more than this. The consequence of the universe being God -- Spinoza, whom has been mentioned twice, is a pantheist -- is that we can know God because we are part of the universe. So, we are part of God. getting to know God involves getting to know ourselves. I mean, this is as respectable as Berkeley's Solipism.

It is, philosophically, more than this. The consequence of the universe being God -- Spinoza, whom has been mentioned twice, is a pantheist -- is that we can know God because we are part of the universe. So, we are part of God. getting to know God involves getting to know ourselves. I mean, this is as respectable as Berkeley's Solipism.

I've never read Spinoza, but I've heard of him a lot in reference to the whole concept.

I never really focused on the part about knowing God, but more about experiencing life because I was a part of God and consequently my actions would affect the rest of God. But the whole idea was somewhat irreconcilable with other things I believed about God.

Is solipism the idea that nothing verifiably exists beyond your world?

its late, and i'm tired and need to go to sleep, but i just had an idea i'd like to hear opinions on (largely cos i'm too sleepy to think about it properly in my own head :P)
bear in mind i don't think about religion much...

what if "God" = the universe itself

so god isn't a supernatural being, or a creator, or even a sentient anything, but "god" is simply everything... gaia, and more. the air we breathe, the ground beneath our feet, stars in the sky, etc.

it'd explain the whole "god is omnipotent" thing, heh. and stuff like moses (supposedly, in a book) parting the sea... it was the universe's (god's) fate to have such a low tide at that time to enable moses and his peeps to cross. somebody interperets it as god's will, thinking god is a sentient creature with great powers of some sort... and you get a misinterperetation of what actually happened.


what this means in terms of the objective morality of monotheism/christianity, i don't know. if all this were the case surely the morality attached to the religion would be purely arbitary? and how could jesus (if he existed) possibly be the 'son of "god"' if god is simply a different term for the power of the universe?


and with my head running on different thoughts... god supposedly just "is" and "was" since the beginning of time. since the universe created itself (so to speak) in the big bang, then god created itself and time, and has always been... so to speak.

is this a way of reconciling religion and science? am i just talking utter shit? thoughts?
I'm too lazy to read all of this or any of the thread, what with all the lovely ladies IMing me right now, but I'll say that the universe does = God. But God is not a sentient being, per se. Just the quintessence of the reality we perceive and that beyond our perception.
*flees to other threads*

I've never read Spinoza, but I've heard of him a lot in reference to the whole concept.

I never really focused on the part about knowing God, but more about experiencing life because I was a part of God and consequently my actions would affect the rest of God. But the whole idea was somewhat irreconcilable with other things I believed about God.

Is solipism the idea that nothing verifiably exists beyond your world?

Yes, what you are talking about is the ethical consequence of pantheism, I suppose. Now you can see how a philosophical system has consequences in terms of the nature of our world, knowledge and how we should act.

Solipism is the doctrine that claims, only my ideas exist -- conseqently, I'm the only person in the world. People generally disregard this theory. However, what many people don't understand is that Solipism was created to get rid of the philosophic skeptic -- the one who claims that we can't know things about the world. The solipistic solution is that I can know my own ideas because only my ideas exist. It's actually a very clever and beautiful solution.

I think that Pantheism makes a move similar to this. It reduces something that appears outside the mind to mind.

I'm too lazy to read all of this or any of the thread, what with all the lovely ladies IMing me right now, but I'll say that the universe does = God. But God is not a sentient being, per se. Just the quintessence of the reality we perceive and that beyond our perception.
*flees to other threads*

Stick IM girls, mate.

Yes, what you are talking about is the ethical consequence of pantheism, I suppose. Now you can see how a philosophical system has consequences in terms of the nature of our world, knowledge and how we should act.

Solipism is the doctrine that claims, only my ideas exist -- conseqently, I'm the only person in the world. People generally disregard this theory. However, what many people don't understand is that Solipism was created to get rid of the philosophic skeptic -- the one who claims that we can't know things about the world. The solipistic solution is that I can know my own ideas because only my ideas exist. It's actually a very clever and beautiful solution.

I think that Pantheism makes a move similar to this. It reduces something that appears outside the mind to mind.

Yeah, it really does have tremendous significance upon how you interact with the world.

I see.

Animism. Been thought of before. Sorry. :p

Nope. He's reinvented pandeism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism), not animism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism).

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but this is essentially pantheism.

Panentheism, which is somewhat similiar, is the idea that 'The universe is God, but God is not the sum of its parts'. Essentially, that he is immanent within the universe which is described as his 'body', but he also transcends it...

It's a nice 'koan' I guess. If you believe that everything is God you will be much less likely to do negative or harmful things. I used to believe it, mainly to change my outlook on life (it made everything more colourful and alive and beautiful, to think that you were a part of God), but I tend to agree more with the Hindu idea of Brahman.
that i have a problem with (and wasn't what i meant). that requires belief in god as (to be vague) some kind of supranatural being... god has to be something in order to "trancend the universe"

all i was suggesting is 'God' basically is a synomym for the universe, nothing more. (moral, philisophical, epistemological and practical considerations only then follow, but i'm off out for the day now :P)


though personally i like my ethics rational and god-free (hooray for (selective bits of) Kantian ethics! :P)

It's not even 9 in the morning and my head hurts. What kind of thread have you started Huw???

It's not even 9 in the morning and my head hurts. What kind of thread have you started Huw???

Yeah, I'm on the other end of the spectrum, it's 1am. This type of stuff is always interesting.

Yeah, I'm on the other end of the spectrum, it's 1am. This type of stuff is always interesting.
Oh, definitly fascinating. Fascinating but head-hurting :p

Oh, definitly fascinating. Fascinating but head-hurting :p

You're right, too. I wouldn't mind to chat about things on here that aren't deep or anything, as long they aren't too trivial.

I mean, this is as respectable as Berkeley's Solipism.

... but once again it should be noted that Spinoza was essentially sneaking in a blatently athesist conception of the world. Berkeley still needed God, whereas Spinoza had dispensed with him.

So you think the mind is non-physical?

In much the same way as I wouldn't describe World War II as a physical entity, I wouldn't describe the mind as one. The brain is certainly one, and the mind is something which arises from it. If we describe the mind as a physical entity then we must also describe consciousness as a physical entity and reflexive self-awareness. Such ways madness lies. If anything I lean towards describing mind as process.