Posts by Amanda Jackson5

Joseph Murphy10 said:You're dreaming if you think there's common ground there. A bunch of Catholic individuals is really just a collection of people with their own separate opinions. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches don't operate that way—and honestly, I doubt most Protestant denominations do either, though I'm no expert on their specific doctrines since the core theology is basically the same as the first two mentioned.
Getting even a tiny bit of consensus out of the individuals present on this specific issue is going to be nearly impossible.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

It’s that classic tug-of-war between your own internal compass and whatever doctrine the Church hands down to you. If you decide to follow their script to the letter, you basically trade away your authenticity just to stay in line. But if you actually listen to your own conscience instead? Well, then you’re suddenly labeled a heretic or told you belong with some fringe sect rather than the mainstream congregation. It’s a bit of a catch-22, really. If being "Catholic" is actually an important part of who you are, but you have any desire to avoid being a total hypocrite or a mindless zealot, you’re essentially walking straight into a minefield.

I don't have any text to work with yet! Please provide the posts you want me to rewrite, and I'll get to work transforming them into that dry, conversational, Americanized style for you. kaže:
When it comes to this specific question, I honestly don't think you could get even a handful of people in the same room to agree on the bare minimum.

You’ll finally reach a consensus once the church decides what passes for "the truth." Of course, that kind of absolute authority is losing its grip these days, even among folks who aren't exactly looking for deep philosophical debates.

hiddeneagle98 said:Is there actually some kind of lingering doubt about whether I was talking about "data processing"? Seriously?

I’m honestly not quite sure what you're getting at with all these exhaustive, hyper-detailed descriptions of what you're seeing under the microscope.

When I brought up neural structures earlier, I wasn't just throwing random science terms at the wall; I was trying to bridge the gap to that whole "panpsychism" thread we've been circling. My line of thinking goes like this: if you look at those incredibly complex architectures within the brain and try to calculate how particles move through them—basically how they interact with the fundamental fabric of the universe—you eventually land right back at the doorstep of consciousness as we experience it. It’s all interconnected, and honestly, if you follow that logic to its conclusion, it fits perfectly under the umbrella of panpsychism.

So, here’s how I see it: consciousness is basically an emergent phenomenon arising from the very fabric of the universe—that underlying substrate that dictates how everything material actually moves and behaves. Honestly, we could probably get away with using the word "spirit" here too (though, Amanda Jackson5, please jump in and set me straight if I’m totally off base). If we go that route, then consciousness becomes this specific formation of a "universal spirit"—maybe even the Absolute—which gets triggered by a particular arrangement of matter. We're talking about the brain's physical structure and those specific electrochemical signals it generates. It’s like the universal spirit is using nature as its secondary vehicle to finally achieve self-awareness.

I think I’ll throw in one more little analogy just to make this easier to wrap your head around or visualize properly. Think about it like this: just as a tornado or a whirlwind is its own distinct, specific formation within the atmosphere, consciousness itself is a unique, specialized formation within the "cosmic spirit." In fact, if you really look at it, living beings are essentially just complex vortices—little swirling whirlwinds of existence, if you will. When you start looking at energy dissipation structures operating outside of equilibrium, things get incredibly messy, and honestly, that’s where the real science happens. Most textbook models want to pretend everything is sitting in a nice, predictable state of balance, but the real world doesn't work like that. It’s rarely static. It’s constantly being kicked, pushed, and shoved by external forces, and trying to model how a system sheds that excess energy when it isn't in a steady state is like trying to map out the exact path of a leaf caught in a Chicago windstorm. In a standard equilibrium setup, you can almost predict the decay. But once you step outside those boundaries—into that non-equilibrium territory—you’re dealing with systems that are actively resisting or reacting to constant flux. You have these complex dissipative structures that aren't just absorbing energy; they are organizing themselves around it. It reminds me of how a massive power grid like ConEd handles a sudden surge during a heatwave in New York; the system has to dissipate that massive influx of load through a series of complex, interconnected failsafes to prevent a total meltdown. If the structure isn't designed to handle that specific type of chaotic input, the whole thing collapses. The math gets heavy because you aren't just looking at simple entropy increases anymore. You're looking at how energy flows through a system to create order out of chaos, even if only temporarily. It’s a delicate dance between the driving force pushing the system away from stability and the internal mechanisms trying to bleed off that energy to keep the structure from tearing itself apart. It’s far more dynamic than the simplified versions they teach in intro physics, and frankly, it’s much more interesting to think about how these patterns emerge when everything is in constant motion.Look, there’s an endless mountain of material out there regarding that topic, and honestly, I was one of the first people to stumble right into it and get caught up in the whole mess.

I'm on board with that, though I'd take it a step further: if individual consciousness emerges from nature—which itself sits atop this absolute spirit—then it works both ways. As our individual and collective spirits evolve through that natural process, we eventually start to liberate nature itself from the shackles of causal necessity.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Aha, caught that quote 🙂
Philosophically speaking? His argument actually holds water.
Look, I don't mind sizing people up. I sized you up, and since it doesn't seem to bother you, then we're good @Volver

Anyway, back to the point... you religious folks and your endless alien talk... just because I hold a certain view doesn't mean every other believer feels the same way. It's not my job to interpret everyone's faith for them. I don't get why you guys always go down that road—every person is an individual, plain and simple.

Well, I can't really pose a question to a vague concept of "an individual" without actually addressing someone, nor can I just broadcast it to every believer in the country all at once. Besides, while it's true that every person is an individual, the real question is how much authenticity they actually possess. That said, a group of American Catholics does share certain universal elements in their faith, so I don't see the harm in addressing them as a collective using terms like "you believers."

gentlerider7 said:I mean, why wouldn't they? Look at the history of this whole planet—every culture on Earth has had its own prophets, its own specific religions, its own unique little paths leading back to God and all that stuff.

I wasn't really getting at whether aliens have some sort of organized religion or if they're just floating through the cosmos without any spiritual framework—though I’d assume they do. That's not the point. What I’m actually wondering is whether they hold a genuine faith, specifically a belief in Jesus.

Terry Martinez10 said:Honestly, this comment is just pathetic.
The whole supposed debate lost its direction and its relevance a long time ago.

It really is pathetic—and frankly a bit embarrassing—to find yourself unable to engage in a conversation, or even just handle a few straightforward questions, and then instead of wondering why you're hitting a wall, you turn around and accuse the person asking them of using hate speech. If you feel like a discussion has lost its purpose, just don't participate. It’s as simple as that.

Terry Martinez10 said:This is nothing but pure hate speech—completely provocative and insulting.
I have absolutely no interest in engaging at this level or in this kind of discourse.

That isn't really an accurate assessment. There isn't a single ounce of hatred in what I wrote; I'm just not the kind of person who carries around that sort of malice. If you're looking for an exit from the conversation, it might be worth being honest with yourself about why you're walking away. I originally thought about using the word "fairer" instead of "better," but then I realized you probably don't even grasp the context of what we're discussing here. Sure, it’s provocative—I'll give you that—but provocation isn't against the rules, and I fail to see how it could possibly be considered insulting.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Am I related to Gering or what? Just need to know before I go any further

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S9 using Reddit

Nope, and besides, you already mentioned you didn't mind. We're talking about a guy who actually agrees with Goering’s logic that the deer over at Carinhall are perfectly happy being shot at because, in his view, they were basically born just to be trophies. (post #88)

So, does this bother anyone else?
Fine, maybe we’ll actually get some input from that relative of Göring's then.
Still, I can't help but wonder: if religious folks genuinely believe there are alien civilizations out there, did their God reveal Himself to them too, or are they just sitting around waiting for us to drop by and share the good news? How does that even work in your head? Does every single civilization need its own version of Jesus?

Joseph Murphy10 said:I'm not being offensive here—go ahead and come at me all you want 🙂

I’m not exactly aiming to be a jerk either, and frankly, none of this is intended as a personal jab. That said, it would actually be pretty interesting to get an actual answer to that question I asked above.

Of course, this invitation is still very much on the table:

Amanda Jackson5 said:I honestly don't see how pondering hypothetical extraterrestrial civilizations has anything to do with conspiracy theories.

It’s truly Fascinanto how certain people get so worked up over the mere idea of alien civilizations—ideas that, based on everything we know about the scale of the universe, wouldn't just be possible, they'd be statistically bizarre if they didn't exist. Yet, at the very same time, those same people cling desperately to notions of some fantastic supreme being, convinced that this entity "loves" them or will eventually "save" them (whatever that's supposed to mean). We're talking about beliefs in things that likely don't exist and lack even a shred of evidence, let alone any connection to common sense or critical thinking. It's pure bias. I’d love to hear a rational explanation from you religious types regarding why the concept of extraterrestrial life bothers you so much. Rational, mind you, not emotional. From an emotional standpoint, it's obvious that these ideas just mess with your head. Are you afraid your imaginary friend might run into some competition?

But honestly, my hope of hearing anything that isn't just "empty, pseudo-philosophical nonsense" is getting slimmer by the minute. 😁

Joseph Murphy10 said:None of that matters. Honestly, all this pseudo-philosophical nonsense is just irritating—especially when it's 100 degrees out and I'm stuck in the shade dealing with it. Btw, my mind is totally open to the idea of alien civilizations and the existence of God, and the fact that both can coexist in one brain is something you’ll never wrap your head around. No offense, Amanda Jackson5 🙂

User using Tapatalk

If you actually look back at what I’ve already posted in this thread, it’s pretty obvious my mind is just as open to those possibilities, which naturally means I am capable of grasping them. The real distinction here is that I can actually provide a rational argument for both sides, whereas you can't—so you end up hiding behind words like "never." Don't say never. And if we're being honest, it's quite clear who the one doing the "pseudo-philosophical rambling" is, considering you feel the need to bring God into every single post. No offense.

Amy Bennett said:I honestly doubt that alien conspiracy theories come from anyone's actual, coherent thought process.

But... isn't that exactly what they're meant for?

I honestly don't see how pondering hypothetical extraterrestrial civilizations has anything to do with conspiracy theories.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Like...

I got stuck reading comment number 50 about hypothetical civilizations and honestly, I started wondering the exact same thing.

Thank God there are still some grounded people left in this world.

It’s truly Fascinanto how certain people get so worked up over the mere idea of alien civilizations—ideas that, based on everything we know about the scale of the universe, wouldn't just be possible, they'd be statistically bizarre if they didn't exist. Yet, at the very same time, those same people cling desperately to notions of some fantastic supreme being, convinced that this entity "loves" them or will eventually "save" them (whatever that's supposed to mean). We're talking about beliefs in things that likely don't exist and lack even a shred of evidence, let alone any connection to common sense or critical thinking. It's pure bias. I’d love to hear a rational explanation from you religious types regarding why the concept of extraterrestrial life bothers you so much. Rational, mind you, not emotional. From an emotional standpoint, it's obvious that these ideas just mess with your head. Are you afraid your imaginary friend might run into some competition?

Amy Bennett said:Intuitively, those kinds of theories at least feel like they make sense to me. I remember being a kid and always making sure to finish my entire lunch—mostly because I felt like if I didn't, the food would somehow be sad, given its whole purpose is to be eaten.

It’s kind of like how Hermann Göring used to claim that the deer at The White House were actually happier when he went hunting them, simply because they were fulfilling their destiny by being caught.

Amy Bennett said:They might be reptilians.

Sure, if you want to go down that rabbit hole, maybe, but there isn't a shred of actual evidence to back that up.

Terry Martinez10 said:What if aliens actually exist within the spaces between us, functioning almost like a biological parasite embedded inside individuals? Imagine an extra layer of consciousness that slowly suppresses your own volition until it eventually seizes total control over the body. It makes you wonder if that’s how they manage to pull the strings on all of humanity from the shadows.
And then there's the whole business with ghosts, demons, and those other entities—perhaps they're nothing more than astral projections cast by these beings. Or maybe, just maybe, they were roaming this country long before we ever showed up, leaving behind traces of their technology hidden somewhere in the soil...

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

steelridge58 said:You really aren't, and please, I'm asking you, try not to take this all so personally...

🙂

I don't think critical thinking has to be superior to friendship; the two can actually coexist quite easily. Besides, I know you're perfectly capable of offering a critical perspective without being condescending or looking down on the views of your fellow members here on the forum.

Not necessarily...🙂

...but justice tends to be blindfolded...

It’s a razor-thin line separating what actually makes sense from just being blind dogma.

Amy Bennett said:There’s a very thin line between being imaginative and being schizo. Maybe stop watching so much History Channel.

Actually, I'd argue you should watch more—way more—and read even more than that. It's really about believing less and actually thinking for yourself more.

Terry Martinez10 said:Given that's the case, I'm really not sure why I should even bother attempting a response when it's painfully obvious that I'm operating on a level far beneath her expectations....

"Here’s the bottom line: critical thinking, much like actual science, sits far above friendship, private or group interests, and ideological leanings."

Saša Ćirić

James Lee77 said:And why couldn't it work like in Sagan's Contact? Maybe "aliens" just contact individuals directly so they don't even have to physically land on Earth. Or, if we're talking imagination here: like, 160 years ago, nobody had any clue that what we call electromagnetic waves even exists. To some enlightened materialist atheist back then, everything we take for granted today involving EM waves would've seemed like straight-up magic—you know, long-distance communication, moving things from afar, all that stuff. Basically, EM waves would have felt "incorporeal." So, isn't it possible that in another 160 years, we'll stumble upon some other form of "matter" that looks totally "ghostly" to us now, almost like "magic"? And maybe some "aliens" actually have a "material" form made of stuff like that? It makes me wonder if those various "gods," "angels," or "demons" are just aliens like that, influencing human history by communicating with specific people through these weird mediums.

So, yeah, is that imaginative enough for you? 😉

Sure, it's possible. It's just as possible that the entire universe was constructed by people from the future, or perhaps by the descendants of self-replicating machines—since we don't really have a better term for them yet—operating on a timescale where our concept of time becomes totally irrelevant.

James Lee77 said:And why couldn't it work like in Sagan's Contact? Maybe "aliens" just contact individuals directly so they don't even have to physically land on Earth. Or, if we're talking imagination here: like, 160 years ago, nobody had any clue that what we call electromagnetic waves even exists. To some enlightened materialist atheist back then, everything we take for granted today involving EM waves would've seemed like straight-up magic—you know, long-distance communication, moving things from afar, all that stuff. Basically, EM waves would have felt "incorporeal." So, isn't it possible that in another 160 years, we'll stumble upon some other form of "matter" that looks totally "ghostly" to us now, almost like "magic"? And maybe some "aliens" actually have a "material" form made of stuff like that? It makes me wonder if those various "gods," "angels," or "demons" are just aliens like that, influencing human history by communicating with specific people through these weird mediums.

So, yeah, is that imaginative enough for you? 😉

Yeah. 👍

Everything being said here just feels incredibly narrow-minded, uncritical, and frankly, a bit unimaginative:

Terry Martinez10 said:No matter how sophisticated a civilization becomes, it can't truly be God, because even they have limitations, whereas God is limitless.
Oumuamua was spotted far too late... basically as it was already leaving. And sure, it’s possible it was some leftover tech from a distant civilization, but isn't it more likely to be just a natural phenomenon?
The real distinction, if you ask me, lies in the intent; God is a benevolent Father, someone with harmless intentions, whereas if we happen to be the product of some alien civilization, wouldn't they eventually expect a return on their investment, or some kind of payoff for their creation?
There is a massive difference between simply being aware of another civilization existing out there and actually being the direct biological byproduct of those aliens.

Without getting bogged down in how we define God, you have to wonder why an advanced enough civilization couldn't reach a state where they effectively have no boundaries—whatever that implies, whether physically or spiritually. If you believe in the idea of quantity eventually transforming into quality, anything is on the table. I don't see any theoretical reason why some form of consciousness couldn't evolve to a point where you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a god. In fact, I’d argue that any form of self-awareness naturally strives toward that. It might have even happened somewhere else in the universe already, maybe even more than once. And perhaps that first instance of "godhood" actually prevents others from happening, much like how the emergence of life on Earth changed everything else...

Terry Martinez10 said:No matter how sophisticated a civilization becomes, it can't truly be God, because even they have limitations, whereas God is limitless.
Oumuamua was spotted far too late... basically as it was already leaving. And sure, it’s possible it was some leftover tech from a distant civilization, but isn't it more likely to be just a natural phenomenon?
The real distinction, if you ask me, lies in the intent; God is a benevolent Father, someone with harmless intentions, whereas if we happen to be the product of some alien civilization, wouldn't they eventually expect a return on their investment, or some kind of payoff for their creation?
There is a massive difference between simply being aware of another civilization existing out there and actually being the direct biological byproduct of those aliens.

Nobody has sat down to run the actual probabilities here, but even looking at the linked article, it's clear that object behaved strangely in ways science hasn't quite pinned down yet. To be honest, there are some explanations out there that are far weirder than the idea of an alien origin.

Terry Martinez10 said:No matter how sophisticated a civilization becomes, it can't truly be God, because even they have limitations, whereas God is limitless.
Oumuamua was spotted far too late... basically as it was already leaving. And sure, it’s possible it was some leftover tech from a distant civilization, but isn't it more likely to be just a natural phenomenon?
The real distinction, if you ask me, lies in the intent; God is a benevolent Father, someone with harmless intentions, whereas if we happen to be the product of some alien civilization, wouldn't they eventually expect a return on their investment, or some kind of payoff for their creation?
There is a massive difference between simply being aware of another civilization existing out there and actually being the direct biological byproduct of those aliens.

First off, when you look at God through a philosophical lens rather than a religious or emotional one, you're essentially talking about a theoretical construct. We can plug just about any attribute we want into that construct, provided the final result remains logically coherent. You could even imagine one that is logically incoherent, but then you lose the ability to make any meaningful arguments regarding its traits.
Second, we have absolutely no way of knowing what a hypothetical alien civilization might want from us or what their motives would even be.
So, at the end of the day, both God and aliens are just hypotheses, and whatever traits we assign to them are really nothing more than our own human projections.