Enimerism: Beyond Naturalism

I have been thinking for some time as how to put together a manifest of a level of consciousness that supercedes naturalism. I have finally come up with the term: “Enimerism” derived from the Ancient Greek “enimeros” or “aware”.

Enimerism is different from Animism in that it does not believe in a supernatural soul. Instead it believes in a naturalistically understandable consciousness. Enimerism believes that consciousness has evolved along with the species and that right-brain omni-consciousness (assimilation) and left-brain self-consciousness (dissimilation) are spectra not an absolute afforded only to humanity.

Enimerism requires us to respect the consciousness of all things. That all things have an omni-consciousness and a self-consciousness. Since there is no way we can supernaturally understand this it appears we will only come to understand it through science and technology that will augment communication between the minds of different species including the human species.

We think about teaching an artificial intelligence about morality in order to protect ourselves from it.  What would other species teach us about our morality when they communicate with us?

Will we discover consciousness in living things that do not have nervous systems?

The Brain: The Hierarchy of Consciousness

I have been thinking about consciousness since I read Milan Kundera’s novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I don’t believe that humanism is the atheist vision. I believe that humanism has failed. Homo sapience is inadequate. Natura sapience is necessary for us to survive and to thrive. Naturalism is the future of atheism.

Human beings do not have a monopoly on consciousness. Consciousness is a spectrum. The more complex the life form, the higher the level of consciousness. If we think about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as differing levels of consciousness in living things and not simply in human beings we can think about what level of consciousness each form of life has managed to evolve into.

Environment: Please, Give Me Better Evidence

I have been following the Global Warming/Climate Change debate for some time and I am frustrated. I am frustrated with the beating that science and free speech are taking.

I watched a TED.com presentation by Al Gore last night and I was deeply disappointed. I saw little science and reason, and a great deal of anecdotal evidence and emotional appeal. Sometimes I wondered what the examples even had to do with global warming.

I regard science as the best philosophy we have. Give me atheism, reason and logic over anything. However, like all philosophies, its adherents are human and subject to all of humanity’s frailties. We have humans who are trying to meet their physiological needs, their safety needs, their belonging needs, their esteem needs, their self-actualization needs and their transcendence needs as scientists. They have to pay their mortgage and 80% will surrender their ideals and objectivity to make that payment. The consequent cost in principle, human life, best practices, material, land and time are enormous.

Because of this human frailty, I am skeptical about every scientific claim. The latest “discovery” that makes the one minute daily news bite does not influence me, because I know there has most likely been an error in the hypothesis, observation, method, data, apparatus or events. I also know that a vested interest was paying for that research.

Another thing I am aware of is naturalist philosophy is as flawed as capitalist philosophy. Naturalists tend to spend their time promoting pastoral myth. Capitalists tend to spend their time promoting progress myth. Both have time and again proven themselves out to lunch. And scientists are in both camps.

In saying all of these things I have been accused of “slander” by both sides. And it has led me to the conclusion that I am attacking the correct problem. The problem isn’t Global Warming or Climate Change, the problem is bad science. Climatology is as complex as artificial intelligence and genetics, and the evidence that the climatologists on both sides provide is far from convincing. The samples are not global and the margin for error is too great.

So as a skeptic I say. “Please, give me better evidence” and less myth.