Do you believe in higher being?

[Stofsk]

Collectively, one could argue that society does have what each individual has, but in a collective form.

You dirty communist!

[Faram]

No and i pity or despice people that do.

Irrational belief is the root of all human misery, we would be much better of without any religion.

[Rye]

I don't think society really counts as a larger being, it's a collective convention between discrete entities, wheras with neurones and other examples the individual parts do not have autonomy.

If you interviewed a band and decided to ascribe it the same sorts of properties, would you say "oh, I met Pantera, he is cool" when relaying an account of the interview to your friends?

[Stofsk]

Why can't society be considered a "higher being"? It is greater than any one of us. It is more powerful than any one of us. It is organic, constantly growing and changing.

Or the Earth in its entirety, for that matter.

The Earth is an inert object. Society, on the other hand, is arguably sentient. It responds to stimuli, reacts, etc. It fits all of the criteria for a "higher being".

That's a very interesting way of interpreting a 'higher power'. It also serves as a counter to religion, which usually claims ownership of being integral to the community or fostering a sense of community. Why can't the community itself be the focus?

[Stofsk]

I don't think society really counts as a larger being, it's a collective convention between discrete entities, wheras with neurones and other examples the individual parts do not have autonomy.

And we have complete autonomy ourselves? Aren't our lives directly affected by the authorities, the economy, the environment etc? Can't our choices become limited by any one or all of the above factors?

[Haruko]

No. Quite early on in my childhood (I am unsure of the age, but I was probably in the third or fourth grade), I dropped the belief in God instilled upon my by my Christian mother. My reason was quite naive: I prayed for things that weren't exactly taxing (e.g.--that life be less trying), and I felt they were never answered, so I simply concluded prayer doesn't work, and that the God said to answer them doesn't either. Of course, at the time, I didn't even know of other gods people believe in, neither was even aware of the term "atheism", and I didn't read any books yet about the related subjects, nor been exposed to heretical people. Later in my life my belief in atheism was reinforced when I started reading posts by learned people, both heretical and orthodox Christian, and my atheism was refined as I discovered why it is accurate for me to say I'm atheist and not agnostic, and why gods in general deserve the same treatment and therefore why I do not need to study, in depth, every single religion to have the right to call their claims irrational.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think society really counts as a larger being, it's a collective convention between discrete entities, wheras with neurones and other examples the individual parts do not have autonomy.

Autonomy from what? The neurons do what is in their nature to do. So do we, but we are considerable more complex. How does this not fit the definition?

If you interviewed a band and decided to ascribe it the same sorts of properties, would you say "oh, I met Pantera, he is cool" when relaying an account of the interview to your friends?

You seem to be saying that if a being isn't just like a human in every respect, then it's not a being. Is that your position?

[Ted C]

You seem to be saying that if a being isn't just like a human in every respect, then it's not a being. Is that your position?

IT'S A TRAP </Ackbar>

[Covenant]

No, it's a valid question. Since when does a "higher power" have to be supernatural, never mind world-creating supernatural?

I've just always heard of 'higher powers' referenced only in circumstances where it meant to be some sort of supernatural force. The only exception I can come up with is an AA meeting or 12-Step program where the Higher Power can be considered things like family, or the group or whatever. In this way society would certainly be a higher power than an individual, but I didn't see it that way, at least within the context of religion. It brings up the interesting concept of society worship thought.

So? Your thoughts are made up of countless individual neurons firing, and your thoughts can even be altered by tiny chemical changes in that system of neurons, yet you still think of yourself as a discrete thinking being.

I actually think of myself as a compound being. I like the thought of little cells running around, trying to keep themselves alive, and by doing that keeping me alive. It's an amazing concept, but I've given the idea of me actually being just a blob of cooperative organisms a lot of thought.

The difference between a Metaorganism like society and a compound organism like me is that while I am just a construct of several cooperative bits, society is often a collection of several uncooperative bits. Our society is nearly an adversarial system, without hands or a mind or a common will. When I move my arm, my cells do the work, but there's no backtalk from my arm. I wouldn't really consider it much of a life-form.

Society is on the life-support of technology anyway, and it's not fully intergrated. In places where communication is sparse and population density is low, people act nearly completely as individuals in a system rather than a collective being. And even where population density is high, there are several societies that work paralell to each other, sometimes against each other, and rarely with any sense of direction. These would be insane, blind, limbless higher powers. I wouldn't consider a T-Rex a higher power either, even though it's bigger and stronger and more powerful than I am. Or a whale. Or a pod of whales, like 20 killer whales. They're working as a group, are much bigger and more powerful than me, but I wouldn't call them 'higher.'

I wouldn't call an alien species a higher power either. They're just a more advanced power, not something beyond the realm of normal. That may not be the definition you use, but it's the only one I can see that's widely used.

Nonsense. No individual human can accomplish what society has accomplished. Take science for example; it relies on cumulative, co-operative work. No individual human, not even the greatest genius who ever lived, could possibly duplicate even a small fraction of it on his own.

Yeah, but three people can do more work than one person, and I don't consider them a higher power. Someone who can't walk has much less power to accomplish things than someone who can walk, especially in the wild, but the walker isn't really a higher power. Birds can fly, but they're not a higher power either, even if flying like Superman is something that would certainly make a human look fancy to the rest of us.

I suppose it's a matter of definition. We'd need to agree on a definition of what makes a power "Higher" than another. I'd say that the will of society gets nothing done--it's individuals acting out of their own interests that usually does things. Scientists don't create science out of a Lamarkian desire for advancement the same way I command my foot to move forwards. While you can take a few steps back from the question and view society as a much more powerful thing than anyone, and make the case for societies changing the world and fates of men the way Gods would have in a Greek Tragedy, I think that's more a matter of inertia at a social scale, and not really fitting for the title of Higher Power as it is used in the common method. I can't find a scientific usage either, so I'm not sure how we should define 'higher power' beyond subjectively.

Anyway, I can see your point, and I believe it's quite valid. It wouldn't fit my current understanding of what a Higher Power is, but it could certainly fit a definition of higher powers.

[Zor]

No, i do not. The whole idea of vastly powerful invisible spiritual beings above me just seems really damn silly to me.

Zor

[Darth Wong]

I've just always heard of 'higher powers' referenced only in circumstances where it meant to be some sort of supernatural force.

When someone challenges you to think unconventionally, it doesn't really help to restate the conventions.

The difference between a Metaorganism like society and a compound organism like me is that while I am just a construct of several cooperative bits, society is often a collection of several uncooperative bits. Our society is nearly an adversarial system, without hands or a mind or a common will.

And yet it somehow manages to move in certain directions, have collective policies and values, and accomplish grand things.

When I move my arm, my cells do the work, but there's no backtalk from my arm. I wouldn't really consider it much of a life-form.

There is plenty of backtalk from your arm. You just don't consciously recognize it as such.

Society is on the life-support of technology anyway,

So?

I wouldn't call an alien species a higher power either. They're just a more advanced power, not something beyond the realm of normal.

That's a totally meaningless statement. "More advanced" but not "higher" or "beyond normal"?

That may not be the definition you use, but it's the only one I can see that's widely used.

In other words, you defend conventional thinking by pointing out that it's conventional. Brilliant.

Yeah, but three people can do more work than one person, and I don't consider them a higher power.

Why not? They are more powerful than one, are they not?

Someone who can't walk has much less power to accomplish things than someone who can walk, especially in the wild, but the walker isn't really a higher power.

Why not? He's more powerful, isn't he?

Birds can fly, but they're not a higher power either, even if flying like Superman is something that would certainly make a human look fancy to the rest of us.

And why wouldn't Superman be a higher power?

I suppose it's a matter of definition. We'd need to agree on a definition of what makes a power "Higher" than another.

There is a perfectly serviceable definition of "higher power" in the English language, but you obviously want to add a shitload of conditions to it without any justification other than tradition and convention. I hope you have something better to offer than this.

[Covenant]

When someone challenges you to think unconventionally, it doesn't really help to restate the conventions.

Well, if you want to think unconventionally, then yes. It could be a higher power in that sense. Your original question was if society could be considered a Higher Being. I was saying no. Changing the conventions by which we define what a higher being is seems more like moving the criteria around so that it fits society, rather than society fitting the existing criteria.

In the context you give I will agree it could be a Higher Power.

However, if the goal is to think in more abstract terms, there are many examples of higher powers, such as a family or an Elephant or the Ocean. I would say that if a series of disconnected beings working together can be a higher power, why can't an inert object that nonetheless operates in a manner more powerful than humanity? The ocean certainly has the power to crush mankind in certain circumstances. If potency of action is the metric we use to measure something's Higher Power, then why must it be organic?

We're not calling it a God, afterall. I don't see a reason to include so many things as Higher Powers--it seems that we'd be multiplying them to the point of subjectivity, which would violate parsimony, correct?

And yet it somehow manages to move in certain directions, have collective policies and values, and accomplish grand things.

Well, I would say that those things are the actions of individuals, not of a single organism or Power. America does not decide it wants something, and as we have seen in the past, individuals can make significant contributions as well that impact the greater society as a whole. People manage to agree on policies and work towards accomplishing things, but that agreement is voluntary, and still depends on the actions of each individual. At best, society is a large diffuse animal. I consider an animal with greater strength than me to have MORE power but not access to a higher power.

If I could hop in a tractor, I suddenly have vastly more power than I did. Not as in my body, but as a cooperation between myself and an inert object. You've already said inert objects cannot be higher powers, so am I now a higher power when seated in my tractor? Like I said, I would consider that having MORE power, but not any degree of higher power, if only because a higher power denotes something different than just pushing harder or having more people.

Society is on the life-support of technology anyway,

So?

So I'd say that it's not really a higher power, it's just a construct. Remove the lifeline and it'd collapse to smaller levels. I see it as being a phenomenon created by communication, but not a real power itself. It's certainly at the mercy of things like weather, so it's hardly a higher power than much of anything. When people lose communication, society will break down, but people remain functional. I would make an arguement therefore that the individual is almost higher in power than society. You can split societies up, mix their individuals around, and come up with completely new cooperative unions. There's really no power there. Just a mass of individuals.

That's a totally meaningless statement. "More advanced" but not "higher" or "beyond normal"?

Right. I'm bigger, stronger and smarter than my younger, less educated and less physically developed brother. But I'm not a higher power, not by any definition that assigns any real special meaning to the term 'higher power.'

And why wouldn't Superman be a higher power?

I skipped most of the minor questions--I felt it would be less clutter if I just answered this one. No, I wouldn't consider Superman a higher power, no matter if he's Silver Age godly superman or not. Superman has more power than a locomotive, but he is still just an example of more power.

To me, comparitively, Superman is just a stronger being. Subjectively, he may as well be a boulder, or a runaway car or a starving tiger if it comes down to battle, and where his other powers are concerned, I wouldn't consider them Higher due to the fact that he is an alien. Birds fly because that's what they've evolved to do. Superman is an alien with strange powers, but it's not supernatural for a Kryptonian to have those kinds of powers in a similar circumstance, so I'd still call him just something bigger and stronger than me. On a planet around a Red Sun, I could be just as tough. And if I had a baseball bat with Kryptonite in it, I'd probably be able to beat his ass on Earth. These are examples of specific instances of greater strength or speed or whatnot in a subjective, specific sense.

There is a perfectly serviceable definition of "higher power" in the English language, but you obviously want to add a shitload of conditions to it without any justification other than tradition and convention. I hope you have something better to offer than this.

Well, there is, but I think it makes so many things higher powers that the term loses any meaning. I will, however, restate what I said above: By the definition you propose, society is indeed a higher power.

[Darth Wong]

Your entire post can be summarized as "Because I say so". When I challenge you to explain yourself, you simply repeat that this is the way it is. In short, "Such-and-such example is not a higher power because it is not a higher power" or "If I take an analogy, that is not a higher power either, because I say so". No other explanation given, even though you concede that it fits a strict definition. Is this really your idea of debate?

[Covenant]

I don't believe the conventional definition is lacking for this circumstance. If you ask if society is a higher power by those standards, no, it is not. If you change the standards and ask if it is now, yes, it is. But those standards are meaningless because they no longer signify anything, and the only way to slip society in-between those goalposts is to widen them to the point of absurdity. I don't think that's actually what you're attempting to do.

The 'strictest' definition is also the one that makes nearly everything a higher power, so long as it has more ability than I do in a specific circumstance. I can't very well say that you're wrong to count society as a higher power by those standards, so I'm not sure how I could debate such a point. I decided to cede your point to you, since there's no way around that "what if," but I don't believe that society meets any more selective definition of higher power than that.

So, when I explain myself, you dismiss it as convention when I'm trying to say that is indeed what I define as a higher power. It may be conventional, but just because it is the conventional definition doesn't mean it's wrong, or that I don't actually believe it. Society has no will of it's own, no motivations of it's own, and no ability to act on it's own accord. It is forever just a reducable mass of people that occasionally conspire to construct things together, may or may not share views. So it's not even alive, or an animal, let alone a being capable of having powers 'Higher' than my own. I still do define 'Higher' as supernatural.

I wouldn't consider a hive mind a 'Higher' power, nor would I consider Captain Kirk or Q to be higher powers by merit of their technology. I wouldn't consider myself a higher power than my dog either. I have knowledge and capabilities that it lacks, but that's just by merit of gray matter. It's certainly not power that extends outside the realm of what we can understand. Even a technology that does things we cannot understand wouldn't be a higher power, since it's just technology.

Saying that several people can join hands and declare themselves to be a 'Higher Power' to someone on a bench because it is capable of doing more things than one person doesn't even address the term 'Higher Power' as if it meant anything besides 'Bigger.'

[Rye]

I don't think society really counts as a larger being, it's a collective convention between discrete entities, wheras with neurones and other examples the individual parts do not have autonomy.

Autonomy from what? The neurons do what is in their nature to do. So do we, but we are considerable more complex. How does this not fit the definition?

Why should the definition of "higher entity" count when it's merely more than one person working together? If you had a short gnome and a tall gnome, and the taller one holds the smaller one up so it can get some gnome food, they are not some new entity, they are two minds, not one. If you have multiple minds, how can you consider them one being?

If you interviewed a band and decided to ascribe it the same sorts of properties, would you say "oh, I met Pantera, he is cool" when relaying an account of the interview to your friends?

You seem to be saying that if a being isn't just like a human in every respect, then it's not a being. Is that your position?

No. "Multiple people are not one super person," is what it boils down to, those minds can be from any species you like.

Though, thinking about it, there is the argument that if you arranged people in a neural fashion and made them relay messages according to neural net rules, their simple actions would create an actual entity you could interact with.

Hmm, I'll have to ponder it a bit more... I wouldn't consider society or bands or other stuff a true superior being unless it could at least think like us independently of our minds. If your colon was sapient but thought differently to you, would you be the same entity? Not by my concept of what constitutes an entity. An entity has to have one discrete mind, otherwise it is multiple entities because there are multiple minds present. You dispute this, correct? If so, why?

[Darth Wong]

I don't believe the conventional definition is lacking for this circumstance. If you ask if society is a higher power by those standards, no, it is not.

Good thing I wasn't asking that. I was only suggesting that society could fit the definition of a higher power or higher being. And the only argument I've heard to the contrary is you saying that people don't generally think of it that way. Well duh.

If you change the standards and ask if it is now, yes, it is. But those standards are meaningless because they no longer signify anything, and the only way to slip society in-between those goalposts is to widen them to the point of absurdity. I don't think that's actually what you're attempting to do.

Don't be an idiot. At no point did I say that it was OK to use totally meaningless standards. The standard is simply that something be an "entity" and that it have higher power. That is not difficult to define; you are simply pretending that all kinds of extra conditions are implicit in this definition, and they are not.

The 'strictest' definition is also the one that makes nearly everything a higher power, so long as it has more ability than I do in a specific circumstance.

Care to explain why that is wrong? You seem to think that if it strikes your gut instinct as being wrong, then it must be wrong. Why can't "higher power" be something measured on a sliding scale, rather than some kind of black/white condition with an arbitrary line in the sand defined by you?

Saying that several people can join hands and declare themselves to be a 'Higher Power' to someone on a bench because it is capable of doing more things than one person doesn't even address the term 'Higher Power' as if it meant anything besides 'Bigger.'

And who says it means anything besides "Bigger"? How does God prove that he's a higher power in the Bible? By doing things that Man cannot. That's ALL he does in order to prove himself. But you're basically arguing that something has to be just like your idea of God before you will declare it a "higher power". Why don't you just admit that in your mind, "higher power" = "God" and nothing else?

[Darth Wong]

Why should the definition of "higher entity" count when it's merely more than one person working together?

Do you deny that large groups take on certain characteristics that small groups don't?

Do you deny that there is even a particular sociology of large groups, which can be studied in relation to the psychology of individuals but is not identical to it?

Just how much of sociology do you intend to urinate on in the course of this discussion?

If you had a short gnome and a tall gnome, and the taller one holds the smaller one up so it can get some gnome food, they are not some new entity, they are two minds, not one. If you have multiple minds, how can you consider them one being?

Why shouldn't I? What is your definition of "being"? Are you really intending to refute my ideas by basically appealing to your own incredulity? Your whole argument seems to be "I can't believe you're really doing this, so you must be wrong".

No. "Multiple people are not one super person," is what it boils down to, those minds can be from any species you like.

So? Why does that mean that a group can't be regarded as an "entity" or a "being" or a "power"? We're not arguing about whether society can be regarded as being identical to a person here, so please dispense with the strawman. We are arguing about whether it can function as a "higher power".

Though, thinking about it, there is the argument that if you arranged people in a neural fashion and made them relay messages according to neural net rules, their simple actions would create an actual entity you could interact with.

Hmm, I'll have to ponder it a bit more... I wouldn't consider society or bands or other stuff a true superior being unless it could at least think like us independently of our minds. If your colon was sapient but thought differently to you, would you be the same entity? Not by my concept of what constitutes an entity. An entity has to have one discrete mind, otherwise it is multiple entities because there are multiple minds present. You dispute this, correct? If so, why?

Ignoring the small scale for a moment, let's try an analogy. Is a tank an entity? Inside it are several men. Discrete minds. Yet it seems to move and act, react and attack as if it is one entity. Its power can be quantified. Its abilities can be quantified. If you see one attacking you, you don't say "We are being attacked by several discrete entities working as a team!" You say "That tank is attacking us!" You address it as an entity. What's the problem here?

[Kuroneko]

Why should the definition of "higher entity" count when it's merely more than one person working together? If you had a short gnome and a tall gnome, and the taller one holds the smaller one up so it can get some gnome food, they are not some new entity, they are two minds, not one. If you have multiple minds, how can you consider them one being?

Two gnomes may indeed be not much more than just two gnomes, but at the level of entire societies, such constructs can be meaningfully said to have attitudes, general dispositions, or even make decisions. The fact that its constituents, individual people, can be also said to have such properties doesn't appear to have much relevance. Moreover, since such "superbeings" are by definition greater than their constituents, it seems improper to look only one level in such cases.

No. "Multiple people are not one super person," is what it boils down to, those minds can be from any species you like.

Why not? It's not even a linguistically new concept--corporations have the legal status of personhood already. Societies are much more analogous to individual people than such legal entities.

Though, thinking about it, there is the argument that if you arranged people in a neural fashion and made them relay messages according to neural net rules, their simple actions would create an actual entity you could interact with.

Yes. But why do you require their interactions to be "simple"? Whether one has a great number of simple neurons and the other has a smaller number of more complicated neurons has very little relevance. Your position requires otherwise, but you give no reason for drawing such lines.

Hmm, I'll have to ponder it a bit more... I wouldn't consider society or bands or other stuff a true superior being unless it could at least think like us independently of our minds.

Can you think independently of your neurons?

If your colon was sapient but thought differently to you, would you be the same entity? Not by my concept of what constitutes an entity.

Perhaps you see such cases as an "exclusive or" situations. You plus sapient colon is not different from simply two gnomes, but suppose each individual cell in your body somehow gained the intelligence to perform abstract logic and mathematics and otherwise worked just as they do now. Put in some limited amount of sapience within a microcosm if you like. Where is the contradiction in holding both them and you persons? They would be very different kind of persons, surely, but that was not only admitted but explicitly stipulated from the beginning.

An entity has to have one discrete mind, otherwise it is multiple entities because there are multiple minds present. You dispute this, correct? If so, why?

I'm not certain why Mr. Wong disputes this, but I would dispute it simply because there is no reason to draw such a line.

[Rye]

I give up.

[Darth Wong]

It sounds like you're still sure you're right, but you don't know how to explain why you're right. Often times, this situation arises when you're not actually as right as you think you are.

[Rye]

No, I'm feeling contradicted, half of me agrees with you, the other half says they're not true higher beings since they are limited to human ability and has no self-aware experiential existence akin to human beings, which is what really defines us as beings.

[Covenant]

I'm responding out of order to make it flow better.

Don't be an idiot. At no point did I say that it was OK to use totally meaningless standards. The standard is simply that something be an "entity" and that it have higher power. That is not difficult to define; you are simply pretending that all kinds of extra conditions are implicit in this definition, and they are not.

You act as if you can pick up a dictionary and look up "Higher Power" and read that. The idea of a Higher Power being something other than a Cosmic Force or God is something I can't find any evidence at all for, anywhere. I can't find any reasons why, besides you saying so, anyone should ever consider a discussion of Higher Powers to ever mean anything other than the common (and as far as I can tell, only) definition of what a higher power is. It certainly wasn't the definition we were using before you asked if society counted, and your alternate definition has only been stated since.

It is possible that this is an American brainbug, but I got out my dictionary and did some google searches and I can't find evidence to support you.

The one exception is the 12 Step Program, which changed their wording to make it more available to everyone, but that's an outlier and not a trend.

Care to explain why that is wrong? You seem to think that if it strikes your gut instinct as being wrong, then it must be wrong. Why can't "higher power" be something measured on a sliding scale, rather than some kind of black/white condition with an arbitrary line in the sand defined by you?

Because it's reduces the phrase's value to a point of meaning nothing by merit that now nearly everything is a higher power. The term Higher Power is used and was concieved as a euphamism for a more abstract kind of God--as far as I can tell, our literal English language usage comes from Deism/Unitarianism. Using it in your fashion doesn't address it's actual meaning, and doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that it's almost always equal to 'Creator.'

I may be applying Occam's Razor incorrectly in this situation, but I see no reason to include EVERYTHING as a higher power just to allow all of Society, which is not a creator, has no will of it's own, no thoughts of it's own, and cannot speak on it's own behalf to articulate what it wants to do.

And even that's not the worst part. Since we're also letting in Anthills, my Brother and Elephants, it doesn't even need to be capable of 'great things' or whatnot. It just has to exist.

And who says it means anything besides "Bigger"? How does God prove that he's a higher power in the Bible? By doing things that Man cannot. That's ALL he does in order to prove himself. But you're basically arguing that something has to be just like your idea of God before you will declare it a "higher power". Why don't you just admit that in your mind, "higher power" = "God" and nothing else?

I already know that Higher Powers are essentially Gods, but I don't need it to conform to the idea of what a God would be. I've made it pretty clear that I'm operating under the assumption that the common understanding of a "Higher Power" is really the only one necessary.

A being that, by it's very nature, exists outside our definition of time would be a Higher Power to me. A time machine would not. If Dr. Who could bop through time without the Tardis, that'd work for my definition.

God is attributed as a Higher Power in the Bible by being able to do things like create the universe, slap down mankind in a nice little garden, and create complicated physical phenomena without the need of any physical substrate. Now, God is obviously pretty suspect once you start testing his actual physical limits. In the same way you convinced me that Q is probably just a jackass with a fancy starship cloaked off someplace, it's puzzling that God's limitations are so varied. But if God is indeed honest about his own capabilities, and the various seers and prophets and whatnot are to be believed, precognition and the creation of several alternate planes of existance along with the ability to violate things like Thermodynamics would place him in a Higher Power catagory.

But then again, if the Force existed, it would also be a Higher Power. I'd say someone who is a pyshic would also be a Higher Power, regardless of how weak this is, since it violates physical laws that we have set down. If we find out that there's a concrete, scientific reason for it... then it's just technology (even in the sense that it's evolved, biological machinery like an arm or the eye) and not an actual higher power.

[dragon]

Ok I'll admit that I believe in a higher being but as to the fact he's the bibical god not so much but I leave room open. After all it can't hurt. I mean I don't go to church or spend tons of tying praying but I do throw the occasion thank you his/her/its way.

Can you say 1+1=3? No. Why? Because 1+1 simply equals to 2. Why can't we just create our own set of equations and be right?

Because numbers are defined that way. You could create your own number system, but then nobody else would understand it. And what would be the point anyway?

We accutly did that for one of my Master's lvl math classes and boy did we confuse the hell out of the undergrads when they saw the work especially as you have to change so many other things.

[K. A. Pital]

No. There's no evidence of any higher power than mankind civilization at this point. If we find this evidence, fine by me, but why should I believe in something for which there is no evidence?

[Kuroneko]

No, I'm feeling contradicted, half of me agrees with you, the other half says they're not true higher beings since they are limited to human ability...

But some aren't--no more than you are limited to the ability of an individual neuron.

... and has no self-aware experiential existence akin to human beings, which is what really defines us as beings.

That's true in the two gnomes example, but as the complexity increases, the validity of this claim isn't as clear as one might think. How does one make such determinations in the first place? In any case, society has at least a crude form of self-awareness in some sense, even if it's not quite the same as that of an individual. But that's no surprise. To say that it is a cruder form is to simply restate the old adage "a person is smart; people are dumb" in different terms.

--

It is possible that this is an American brainbug, but I got out my dictionary and did some google searches and I can't find evidence to support you.

Then you're not looking hard enough. Just googling "what-is-a-higher-power" gives sentences like "For others, it may represent a connection to something greater than ourselves, like nature, community or love." Mr. Wong's usage may be very uncommon, but it's not peculiar to him alone.

I may be applying Occam's Razor incorrectly in this situation, but I see no reason to include EVERYTHING as a higher power just to allow all of Society, which is not a creator, has no will of it's own, ...

In what sense? Society can be meaningfully said to have dispositions, attitudes, and preferences--possibly even disconnected from the dispositions or preferences of most people within it (e.g., Abilene paradox). Just because such things are ultimately reducible in some (nontrivial!) manner to the behaviors of individual people is not significantly different from the fact that the behavior of a person is ultimately reducible to the activities of individual neurons.

... no thoughts of it's own, ...

Again, in what sense?

... and cannot speak on it's own behalf to articulate what it wants to do.

And being able to converse with people directly is a prerequisite for such things?

But then again, if the Force existed, it would also be a Higher Power. I'd say someone who is a pyshic would also be a Higher Power, regardless of how weak this is, since it violates physical laws that we have set down.

You contradict your own notion. I can violate the laws of physics as 17th or early 18th century scientists have set down (in case of the theories of heat, it's even possible with my own body--although with the hindsight of 21st century, I could set up situations in which many other theories would be violated), but that wouldn't make me a 'higher power' by your previously defined notion even if I was magically transported to that century. It's quite possible I'm violating the laws of physics as we know them right now to an even weaker degree--all that would take for this to obtain is that for the known laws of physics being slightly revised in the future, which is actually highly probable.

But for the most part, your implied difficulty can be resolved just by asking "how much higher?"