Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
You Either Exist in God's Mind or in God's Novel (Hassidic vs. Berkeleyan Idealism)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- In episode 228 of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined by Dr. Kenny Pearce and Dr. Sam Lebens to discuss which view of God better explains the creation we live in, Hassidic Idealism, wherein we live in God's mind, or Berklean Idealism, wherein the external world is separate from God's mind but intimately dependent on it. (Of course these options aren't the only ones!).
This episode is the culmination of two other episodes, one with Dr. Lebens and one with Dr. Pearce. Check them out here for more background on the discussion from this episode:
Pearce: • God is the Author of R...
Lebens: • We Might All Be Living...
If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here:
Patreon: / parkers_pensees
If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal:
paypal.me/ParkersPensees?loca...
Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: teespring.com/stores/parkers-...
Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees
Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: parknotes.substack.com/
Check out my blog posts: parkersettecase.com/
Check out my Parker's Pensées UA-cam Channel:
/ parker's pensées
Check out my other UA-cam channel on my frogs and turtles: / parkersettecase
Check me out on Twitter: / trendsettercase
Instagram: / parkers_pensees
0:00 - Do we live in God's mind?
4:44 - Can God create a world outside His Mind?
10:20 - Why Berklean Idealism over Hassidic Idealism?
16:06 - Ontological Pluralism and Fictional Characters?
29:20 - Free Will and the Authorial Analogy
31:38 - How Many Stories is God telling right now?
37:17 - Contingency Arguments and Idealism
42:28 - God's Mental Causation on Hassidic vs. Berkeleyan Idealism
46:27 - Information Theory and God's Language
58:38 - Can you be a Classical Theists and an Idealist?
1:01:10 - Free Will, Pharaoh, Paul, and Divine Agency
1:08:40 - Simulation Hypothesis vs. Idealisms
The research for my podcast episodes is intense. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
0:00 - Do we live in God's mind?
4:44 - Can God create a world outside His Mind?
10:20 - Why Berklean Idealism over Hassidic Idealism?
16:06 - Ontological Pluralism and Fictional Characters?
29:20 - Free Will and the Authorial Analogy
31:38 - How Many Stories is God telling right now?
37:17 - Contingency Arguments and Idealism
42:28 - God's Mental Causation on Hassidic vs. Berkeleyan Idealism
46:27 - Information Theory and God's Language
58:38 - Can you be a Classical Theists and an Idealist?
1:01:10 - Free Will, Pharaoh, Paul, and Divine Agency
1:08:40 - Simulation Hypothesis vs. Idealisms
Always good to see more idealism on the channel🧠
I paused this video and didn’t go back. This is interesting even though I’m not an idealist. Hegelian, getting close to it, but will never be idealist, because of Mario Bunge’s hold on me.
@1:11:12 - the logical necessity of a revelatory epistemology comes to mind, as it seems the discussion is progressing. Humbling and amazing; and it reminds me of Athanasius, and the renewal of our nature via the Incarnation, and the maintenance of our memory via the inscripturation of God's revelation and maintenance of the Scriptural story so we can make sense of ourselves and of Christ as the center.
The sim pointing to the greater probability of being characters is an incredible thing to chew on.
Thank you Parker! Thank you Drs. Pearce and Lebens. What an incredible gateway this is to so many riches you all have labored on!
This is a great talk!! Samuel and Kenneth always make me think! Keep up the great work Parker
Eureka!! It’s a little funny to me to ask if we live “within God’s mind,” as opposed to “within God’s heart or belly or big toe.” I thought God just _is_ an Unlimited Mind, and to say that we’re outside of it somehow seems to put some kind of boundary on God. It also raises this cool idea that God doesn’t see things from any particular vantage point the way we do… 🤯
I like this line of thought! I'm thinking God could have created a physical universe outside of his mind, while still being immense and occupying everywhere within that physical universe, or alternatively, the universe we take to be physical really isn't and we are literally ideas in God's mind so the reason He's immense is because His mind is the location of our universe. What chu think?
@ I think this is awesome! 😆 The hard part is holding that something exists outside of God while also holding that God is immaterial and unlimited… so that anything that exists must exist within God, and any new substance would be alien to God. Dr. Lebens’ argument from omnipotence to the same conclusion is pretty killer, too, if there really is no best possible world, but I’ve been opening up to accepting a kind of Leibnizian optimism as I’ve been thinking about the ubiquity and importance of play. So the best of all possible worlds is one where the best possible world is possible, and the best way to make it happen is through a game-like system. That’s what gives rise to notions of fair play and goal-oriented natures, which would account for the necessity of ethics and morality in a way that the authorial analogy and simulation theory fall short, by my lights. So accounting for morality is a big motivator for me, and games and constructing things necessarily involve some form of rules or instructions, so I think looking at the world as a game makes a lot of sense, with the goal being for things to be on Earth as they are in Heaven means, to me, that the best of all possible worlds is at hand. 🤔 Thoughts??
@ 🤯🫠 I just found out through Perspective Philosophy’s channel that iai recently had a conference with “a communist, a gamer, and a shaman” about the topic of life as a game.
11:11:12 That is EXACTLY what Abrahamic Religions are saying. It is not only True that God has Revealed Himself to us. Moreover, He has Revealed that we are made in His image, and that we share with Him a likeness. It is this Revelation that allows us to speak about Him, because He has told us that we can.
Hey man! What are the books in the background?
38:25 bookmark
This is so interesting. I'm really flirting with Idealism.
We don't have enough idealism! We need more parker 🙌
Working on it!
@ faster! 😥
I think what I am going to say has already been suggested by Joe Schmid, but, anyway, it would seem strange to me to think that we are something like the thoughts of God. That is, I can have thoughts and conceive of beings that, on the face of it, have personality (e.g., Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort), but it is clear that no matter how hard I try such beings are not going to become conscious. One answer to what I say is simply to note that there is no good parity between my mind and God's, but I think that is to say that God has a special power that none of us enjoy, namely the power to make the beings he imagines have consciousness and personality and still all be in his imagination. To me it would be much more plausible to postulate that all minds derive from a single mind. Perhaps God is dissociated, like someone suffering from multiple personality. Although, as is evident, this is basically pantheism, so not many would be happy to accept it.
I think you solved your own problem. God acts in a roughly analogous to disassociative way, but doesn’t fully dissociate, resulting in Panentheism
I think it'd be closer to panentheism than pantheism but perhaps that depends on whether one thinks they are constituted by one's thoughts
@@whatsinaname691 That God is not totally dissociated is an answer to not falling into pantheism, I accept that. However, I am one of those who do not appreciate very well, it seems to me, the distinction between pantheism and panentheism, because although all minds are not fragments of God, it is no less true that at bottom all derived minds would be "God". That is to say, at bottom, it is God expressing himself, like me acting in a theater believing myself to be Jason of the Argonauts. I don't know, for me panentheism is ultimately pantheism.
@@ebrietassmaragdina1063 I see it like you. Panentheism lapses either into theism or pantheism. It's a vague term, like you want to have the cake and eat it too.
Hey Parker
I find the idea of Hasidic Idealism interesting. Any good books you can recommend that deal with this exactly? Thx 🙏🏻
Dr. Leben's book, The Principles of Judaism or his paper "God's Imaginary Friends" we did a podcast episode about it not too long ago and you can find the link to his website in the description 💪
55:00 Me trying not to jump up and down and mention the fall of Constantinople and the following proliferation of Old Neo-Platonist and Hermetic Texts as well as Eastern Orthodox writings which were influenced by the former.
It would seem very strange to me if we are just a story, dream, or movie playing out in God's mind, and we have libertarian free will because that would mean God isn't really steering the story that's going on in his own mind. Maybe he's nudging it, but it has a mind of its own. He's not completely the author of it.
But for me, that doesn't matter because I don't think we are just figments of God's imagination. I question whether it's possible for a mental construct of a person to actually be its own person, to have it's own consciousness, etc. I don't think the characters in our dreams are really conscious, and it isn't just because we're less capable than God. I think it has more to do with what it means to be a person.
This is all very speculative, though, so I don't have strong opinions about any of it. It is all very interesting to speculate about, though.
I would say we are dream characters in God's dream, but I don't think that means we're mere figments of imagination or a mental constructs. There is actually evidence that some of the people we experience in dreams are actual conscious persons: ua-cam.com/video/r948z5hrfhU/v-deo.html
The idea of free will existing in a dream makes more sense than free will existing in a story created by an author. In a story, what happens is determined by what the author says. But in dreams, characters behave in all sorts of ways that aren't being consciously controlled by the dreamer. The lucid dreamer is ultimately in charge and has the power to change the dream as they please, but if they want to let it unfold freely to see what happens next then they can do that.
@@MonisticIdealism I agree with you that we don't consciously control the people in our dreams. I just have a hard time believing the same would be true of God. If the characters in God's mind were like the characters in our dreams, it would mean God had a kind of subconscious that was not in his control. That just seems unlikely to me.
Anyway, given your user name I'm assuming you're an idealist. Under your view of idealism, do you think there's a difference between God merely having thoughts about people and those people actually being real? Could he, for example, think about fictional people? Or do God's thoughts, imaginings, etc., entail their existence?
Could God, for example, dream up a totally different world merely as an unactualized possible world, or would his dreaming up of such a world entails its existence? Supposed under this scenario that he dreams it up exhaustively. He knows and is consciously aware of everything that goes on in that possible world. Does that entail that world's real existence in God's mind the way our world exists? It could it still be a merely possible world that's not actual in the same sense that our world is actual?
I hope I'm explaining myself clearly.
@@introvertedchristian5219 A lucid dreamer has the power to control, but they also have the power to not impose their will like a puppet master and to instead let the dream unfold organically. This allows the characters in the dream freedom of will and responsibility for their actions, however the lucid dreamer is all powerful and can take control at any time.
Yes, there is a difference. I explain this in the video I linked you about conscious dream characters. There's a difference between merely imagining a person vs. experiencing a person. In a story you merely imagine people, but in a dream you experience people. So I believe God can think of something and He can choose to not actualize that thought into an experience.
To dream is to experience. If you had a dream of a chair then you experienced a chair, you didn't merely think of a chair.
@@MonisticIdealism I just watched a little bit of the video. I'll watch the rest later. But so far, it's very interesting. I have had several lucid dreams, but in spite knowing it was a dream and having some control in it, I've never had much control over the behavior or others. I just hope the next time I have one of these dreams, I can question others about their mental life. That would be interesting. My problems is that whenever I find myself in a lucid dream, I can never remember what I had planned to do the next time I had one. Usually, it's to fly.
@@introvertedchristian5219 Thanks for checking it out, I hope you finish it. It surprises many that there is actual scientific research on the consciousness of dream characters. In the video I go over how scientists questioned dream characters about their mental life and came to some incredible results. Lucid dreamers often report not having full control right away. It's usually experienced lucid dreamers that are able to exert far more control, such as making people do whatever they want, unless someone is naturally gifted in lucid dreaming which does happen. There are places you go can find online to learn how to obtain more control in your lucid dreams.
Could one not say that even in Hassidic Idealism, that our mind is a kind of "Self Insert" of God into the narrative if reality?
That is, our mind, in as much as we have free will is God acting within the narrative and in as much as we do not have free will, we are manipulated by God as objects. In other words, really crudely put, could our Personhood (as in our acting as willing, conscious beings) be seen as God acting within the narrative (with self imposed constraints, like God saying "what would I do if put in x position") and our being as Objects in the universe be manipulated by God as storyteller?
1:02:25 What I am positing here obliterates the question of God's knowing counterfactuals, as free action is understood as divine action under theoretically self-imposed constraints. In other words, the existence of the particular circumstances of any situation are the playing out of what God "would do" in a given situation.
Remove the anthropomorphic language and what's left?
What're you counting as anthropomorphic language?
@ We can start with "God's mind" ( I will ignore the phrase "God's Novel" since it would need several qualifiers).
@@atthehops why think 'mind' is anthropological and not analogical? Seems like minds are the kinds of things that can be multiply realized right? Dogs, aliens, maybe even robots (some day?) could or do have minds? Seems like a perfectly good word that ranges over more than just human beings
@ Not "anthropological," anthropomorphic, having human characteristics. One might argue for the reference of "made in God's image" but this is then unique to a biblical god and would still need to be qualified. A reference to "God's mind" is otherwise a confabulation?
@@atthehops yeah I typed the wrong word though I think the same point was conveyed. But it seems like you think the term 'mind' can't be used without anthropomorphism, why think that? I gave examples of other creatures with minds or which potentially have minds. What makes you think that talk of God's "mind" is inherently anthropomorphic? Is the same true when speaking of animal, alien, or artificial minds?