Universal Consciousness?

[Iacchus]

Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness? Hmm ... Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

Yes, and what else might that possibly entail, except that we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."

[Some Friggin Guy]

Universal consciousness is not necessary to determine things which are observable through the senses.

The example you use of 1+1=2 is a prime example of it. The decimal number system is based off of the 10 finger we posess combined with an agreed upon language (in our case, English) which shows that if we take our a single finger and combine it with another single finger, we end up with a grouping we represent with the character 2.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness?

Define "Making sense". And defining consciousness wouldn't hurt either.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Universal consciousness is not necessary to determine things which are observable through the senses.And yet some form of consciousness is, or else how would we even know we exist? And if we can't even determine that, then what else is there to know?


The example you use of 1+1=2 is a prime example of it. The decimal number system is based off of the 10 finger we posess combined with an agreed upon language (in our case, English) which shows that if we take our a single finger and combine it with another single finger, we end up with a grouping we represent with the character 2. A rose by any other name is not a rose? No, it doesn't stand to reason. And only goes to show that "universal axioms" do exist, and quite possibly a Universal Consciousess does as well.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Define "Making sense". And defining consciousness wouldn't hurt either. If you were totally unconscious you would be totally unaware, and there would be "nothing" to make any sense out of.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness? Hmm ... Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?
Crazy as it may sound (AND ITS CRAZYCRAZYCRAZY!), humanbeings exist independently from one another. Thats why you and I are not the same person.

And another crazy concept (ITS TOTALLY CRAZYGONUTS!), perhaps consciousness is reducable down to a few materialistic functions. Weird aint it? Well its not like I'm suggesting something like digestion is reducable to a few materialistic functions, that would be proposterous...

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

Yes, and what else might that possibly entail, except that we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."
This statement is in no way logically connected to your above statement...

Ants are social insects which live in colonies numbering in the 10s of thousands, therefore watching television causes illiteracy.

The reason why we can all agree 1 + 1 = 2 is because it is demonstratably true. This is not evidence of a universal consciousness, to conclude such of thing would be beyond general sensibility. However, it is evidence of the efficiency of the educational system.

[scribble]

Interesting game. The only winning move...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Crazy as it may sound (AND ITS CRAZYCRAZYCRAZY!), humanbeings exist independently from one another. Thats why you and I are not the same person.


And another crazy concept (ITS TOTALLY CRAZYGONUTS!), perhaps consciousness is reducable down to a few materialistic functions. Weird aint it? Well its not like I'm suggesting something like digestion is reducable to a few materialistic functions, that would be proposterous...And yet you and I are both linked to the Internet and still remain separate don't we? While you and I can both watch the same TV program and remain separate can't we?


This statement is in no way logically connected to your above statement...How so? ... And how do we recognize anything if we don't recognize it through consciousness?


Ants are social insects which live in colonies numbering in the 10s of thousands, therefore watching television causes illiteracy.I won't even bother to go there.


The reason why we can all agree 1 + 1 = 2 is because it is demonstratably true. This is not evidence of a universal consciousness, to conclude such of thing would be beyond general sensibility. However, it is evidence of the efficiency of the educational system. And yet how can we possibly agree, if there wasn't something universal about our ability to agree (and be able to see the same thing). All of which as I say, boils down to consciousness.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble
Interesting game. The only winning move... Which move? ... 1 + 1 = 2 because our teachers tell us it's so?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you were totally unconscious you would be totally unaware, and there would be "nothing" to make any sense out of.

So conciousness is defined as awareness? Like a bacteria being aware of light?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


So conciousness is defined as awareness? Like a bacteria being aware of light? This is obviously not what I had in mind, but it's possible.

[fishbob]

And yet how can we possibly agree, if there wasn't something universal about our ability to agree (and be able to see the same thing). All of which as I say, boils down to consciousness. It boils down to your individual consciousness and my individual consciousness, and the individual consciousnes of everybody else. Not some linked up "universal". Did you feel it last time I hit my thumb with a hammer? I can demonstrate to you that 1 + 1 = 2. You should test this out for yourself. Why invoke some big mysterious universal concept to explain something so simple?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet some form of consciousness is, or else how would we even know we exist? And if we can't even determine that, then what else is there to know?


A rose by any other name is not a rose? No, it doesn't stand to reason. And only goes to show that "universal axioms" do exist, and quite possibly a Universal Consciousess does as well.

First, you are dealing with two concepts: perception and consciousness. I do not have a handy dictionary definition of consciousness, but I usually go with the definition of being aware of one's surroundings. When one is aware of one's surrounding,s one is conscious and one exists. You are aware of your surroundings, therefore you have consciousness. I am aware of mine, therefore, so do I.

I DON'T have any kind of awareness of your surroundings, therefore, my consciousness is different from yours.

As for your second issue, that of perception, you mangle a famous quote from Shakespeare (The actual quote being "would a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet?")

To that, I offer the following geeky answer:

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh no! It's the "1 + 1 = 2 because our teachers tell us it's so?" gambit. Run for your lives! See my second sig line!

This conversation is going to go nowhere.

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This conversation is going to go nowhere. Isn't it interesting that we've had several new posters lately that come here, not to converse, but to teach? Most of whom have the same underlying premise: "Consciousness is everything." Further, they all claim that their insight into universe is based on reason or logic alone.

And yet, what they fail to see is that this same methodology lead different posters to different conclusions. Which only proves to highlight the fact that reason and logic alone is insufficient to determine Truth. The truth-value of any system derived by reason and logic are determined by the premises, or assumptions, on which that reason and logic is based. (This is assuming, of course, that the system is self-consistant and not self-contradictory.) Given the right combination of initial premises, any conclusion can be reached through reason and logic. What makes a conclusion True is the Truth of the premises, not the truth of the reason and logic.

This is how we can have two posters like Iacchus and lifegazer, who basically have the same worldview, who both are convinced of the truth of their beliefs, and yet argue between themselves on the details. They've focused on the truth of their logic rather than on the truth of their premises.

Pragmatically, however, scribble is correct once again. There is only one winning move....

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

As for your second issue, that of perception, you mangle a famous quote from Shakespeare (The actual quote being "would a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet?")
Um....

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
R&J, II. i. 85-86.

Sorry, sorry, sorry...I can't help myself sometimes

[hgc]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Which move? ... 1 + 1 = 2 because our teachers tell us it's so? Are you telling us that you haven't been able to independently verify this?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Isn't it interesting that we've had several new posters lately that come here, not to converse, but to teach? Most of whom have the same underlying premise: "Consciousness is everything."
If they have anything to teach, it would be a shame if we dismissed them unheard. The premise is interesting, and I think it is possible to make some good arguments in that general direction (especially once the teleological implications have been stripped away).

fishbob:

It boils down to your individual consciousness and my individual consciousness, and the individual consciousnes of everybody else. Not some linked up "universal". Did you feel it last time I hit my thumb with a hammer?
I don't know about you, but when I hit my thumb with a hammer, the neighbors for a block around know about it right away -- they may not feel it, but they sure do hear about it.
Yahweh:

Crazy as it may sound [], human beings exist independently from one another
Yet just how autonomous are they, really?

You also mention ants living in colonies. You might say, based on the fact that they have separate little bodies, that ants also exist independently from one another. But they don't, really. Not for long, anyway. The plan for an ant nest does not exist in the mind of any individual ant, it emerges as a consequence of the collective actions of (often millions, actually) of individuals.

If you look at the behavior of an entire colony of ants, you see an intelligence far greater than that of any individual ant. This is often used as a metaphor for brain processes: neurons aren't very smart individually, but when you get a bunch of them connected together, things begin to happen.

But why should the analogy stop there? Once the decision has been made that the individual organism is an essentially arbitrary place to define the boundaries of a cognitive entity, doesn't it then become more reasonable to think of individual human brains and bodies as 'merely receptacles', linked to something greater? (especially if we are allowed to clarify that by greater, we don't necessarily mean better; just bigger -- perhaps even as in 'mob mentality').

Is it not reasonable to think of the JREF forum as a cognitive entity, more sophisticated than any individual member? Sometimes I think this might be not be an entirely trivial matter.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dymanic

If they have anything to teach, it would be a shame if we dismissed them unheard. The premise is interesting, and I think it is possible to make some good arguments in that general direction (especially once the teleological implications have been stripped away).Well, I've tried with lifegazer and others to engage in conversation about such a premise, but I've found that trying to get them to justify the premise without relying on logical fallacies and circular reasoning is nearly impossible.

To be honest, I haven't really given Iacchus a chance to justify his premise, but everything I've read of his sounds just like everyone else's rhetoric who assumes immaterialism. Maybe he'll surprise me, but I don't have any optimism that he will.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness?


Actually, there is not "one thing", most critical thinkers try to create as many scenerios as possible to make sense of consciousness and then examine the merits of each. You however seem to be stuck on examining only one.


Hmm ... Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?


Ok, there is one to consider. Now, lets take the evidence we have, and compare it to that. Lets see, everyone's consciousness, intelligence level, thinking process, etc is different, doesn't seem consistent with a universal consciousness...Damage to certain parts of the brain damage certain mental abilities, memory, recolection, speech, recognition, and can even effect our sense of self, again, doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. Ok...what about drug use, that effects the brain and sense of self, also doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. What about neurons, we seem to understand them very well, and there is no evidence for them being receptors.

All the evidence I have points away from a universal consciousness, what about you? Add to that that saying there is a universal consciousness does not explain *anything* about consciousness, which is what you set out to do.


Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?


the reason we agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is that we have all learned the concept of counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. We didn't all automatically know it through some universal consciousness, we learned it.


Yes, and what else might that possibly entail, except that we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."

It means that we are capable of learning from the world around us.

Now, I have this other philosophy I've heard about that does match all the evidence we have, and even attempts to explain consciousness, care to hear about it?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

A rose by any other name is not a rose? No, it doesn't stand to reason. And only goes to show that "universal axioms" do exist, and quite possibly a Universal Consciousess does as well.

is y = 4x a "universal equation"? It certainly exists whether we write it down or not. Does that make it special in any way? Does the same thing about counting make it special in any way? Can you point out any relavence with a universal consciousness?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you were totally unconscious you would be totally unaware, and there would be "nothing" to make any sense out of.

Wonderful job of answering the question, I give it a 0 out of 10.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet you and I are both linked to the Internet and still remain separate don't we? While you and I can both watch the same TV program and remain separate can't we?


We are not really "linked" to the internet ourselves, our computers are. So its pretty ease for us to remain seperate. Once again, a very poor analogy.


And yet how can we possibly agree, if there wasn't something universal about our ability to agree (and be able to see the same thing). All of which as I say, boils down to consciousness.

The fact that we can agree on occurances only indicates a shared external world. If we shared consciousness, we wouldn't necessarily agree, we could be experiencing completely seperate realities.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by hgc
Are you telling us that you haven't been able to independently verify this? Yes, we all have the ability to "tune in" independently.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, we all have the ability to "tune in" independently. So, you checked in with The Big Giant Head, and verified that 1+1=2. Glad to know it. I got the same result, but it was my dog Sam who told me. He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by fishbob
It boils down to your individual consciousness and my individual consciousness, and the individual consciousnes of everybody else. Not some linked up "universal". Did you feel it last time I hit my thumb with a hammer? I can demonstrate to you that 1 + 1 = 2. You should test this out for yourself. Why invoke some big mysterious universal concept to explain something so simple? Then how do we all "tap" into the "universal fact" that 1 + 1 = 2? Why do birds of a feather flock together?

I wouldn't underestimate the power of the "collective unconscious" here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by hgc
So, you checked in with The Big Giant Head, and verified that 1+1=2. Glad to know it. I got the same result, but it was my dog Sam who told me. He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge. Oh, he's connected too by the way. ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, we all have the ability to "tune in" independently.

Interesting statemnt, where is your evidence? If you have none, then it is just as valid for me to say, "No, we do not have the ability to tune in", or, "No, only the select few can tune in". Which statement is right, how do you decide which statement is right?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by hgc
(snipped) He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge.

Don't do it man! Don't do it! Just put the compass down!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then how do we all "tap" into the "universal fact" that 1 + 1 = 2?


What makes it a universal fact, rather than just a plain old, the milk is in the fridge, fact? What makes universal fact's special? Why do we need to tap into anything to learn these special facts but not other, not so special facts?


Why do birds of a feather flock together?


Because its advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint.


I wouldn't underestimate the power of the "collective unconscious" here.

really? Why is that, have you seen any power in it? Can you show us that power?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by hgc
So, you checked in with The Big Giant Head, and verified that 1+1=2. Glad to know it. I got the same result, but it was my dog Sam who told me. He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge.

The big giant head told me that 2+2=5 for very large value of 2

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy


First, you are dealing with two concepts: perception and consciousness. I do not have a handy dictionary definition of consciousness, but I usually go with the definition of being aware of one's surroundings. When one is aware of one's surrounding,s one is conscious and one exists. You are aware of your surroundings, therefore you have consciousness. I am aware of mine, therefore, so do I.

I DON'T have any kind of awareness of your surroundings, therefore, my consciousness is different from yours.

As for your second issue, that of perception, you mangle a famous quote from Shakespeare (The actual quote being "would a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet?")

To that, I offer the following geeky answer:

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who don't. But what you don't seem to realize is that consciousness is only means we have by which to define existence. For without it, we wouldn't even know we were here. So in that sense it must have some "universal aspect" ... Perhaps like the sun in the sky?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But what you don't seem to realize is that consciousness is only means we have by which to define existence.


We do not define existence through consciousness, we experience it because of consciousness.


For without it, we wouldn't even know we were here.


Without it, we wouldn't be aware we were here, we may well know that we are here.


So in that sense it must have some "universal aspect"


You'd only like to believe it has some universal aspect.


... Perhaps like the sun in the sky?

The sun in the sky has no universal aspect. There are countless suns in countless skys

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Interesting statemnt, where is your evidence? If you have none, then it is just as valid for me to say, "No, we do not have the ability to tune in", or, "No, only the select few can tune in". Which statement is right, how do you decide which statement is right? Evidence of what? The fact that we all have the ability to "tune in" or, that we're all separate entities? Like I said, the fact that we're all separate (your evidence) does not deny anything.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Evidence of what? The fact that we all have the ability to "tune in" or, that we're all separate entities? Like I said, the fact that we're all separate (your evidence) does not deny anything.

Present evidence that we can tune in. All evidence we have now points to us being able to only receive information though our senses.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Actually, there is not "one thing", most critical thinkers try to create as many scenerios as possible to make sense of consciousness and then examine the merits of each. You however seem to be stuck on examining only one.You're either aware that you exist (consciously) or you don't.


Ok, there is one to consider. Now, lets take the evidence we have, and compare it to that. Lets see, everyone's consciousness, intelligence level, thinking process, etc is different, doesn't seem consistent with a universal consciousness...Damage to certain parts of the brain damage certain mental abilities, memory, recolection, speech, recognition, and can even effect our sense of self, again, doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. Ok...what about drug use, that effects the brain and sense of self, also doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. What about neurons, we seem to understand them very well, and there is no evidence for them being receptors.And yet if you were to look at the sun in the sky, everything which is living exists is in relation to it, and yet manifests itself differently.


All the evidence I have points away from a universal consciousness, what about you? Add to that that saying there is a universal consciousness does not explain *anything* about consciousness, which is what you set out to do.Did you know that the "evidence" can only be interpreted through consciousness?


the reason we agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is that we have all learned the concept of counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. We didn't all automatically know it through some universal consciousness, we learned it.No.


It means that we are capable of learning from the world around us.No, what we learn from the world is what we "interpret' through our consciousness.


Now, I have this other philosophy I've heard about that does match all the evidence we have, and even attempts to explain consciousness, care to hear about it? By all means start a new thread. Of course there's no guarantee I'll reply, but that's up to me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
You're either aware that you exist (consciously) or you don't.
Could someone draw a parse tree of this sentence for me?

And yet if you were to look at the sun in the sky, everything which is living exists is in relation to it, and yet manifests itself differently.
Iacchus, look man, no one has the vaguest notion what a sentence like this means.

Can you give us a succint summary of your philosophy?

~~ Paul

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're either aware that you exist (consciously) or you don't.


I'm talking about explainations for consciousness, you seem to be stuck on only one.


And yet if you were to look at the sun in the sky, everything which is living exists is in relation to it, and yet manifests itself differently.


You have not countered any evidence, nor provided any. You use the word "manifests" which, depending on your meaning, can be true or false. Certainly, from a purely physical form, the sun manifests itself identically to every living and non-living this. The manner in which we have understood the sun has changed over time. However, you need to explain how this is evidence for what you are saying.


Did you know that the "evidence" can only be interpreted through consciousness?


Actually, we are able to design machines that examine evidence, and make descisions based on that evidence. Other life does that too (for instance, ants). Also, you have failed to respond to my argument, but instead, stated something that is someone true, but still meaningless towards your argument.


No.


Explain why.


No, what we learn from the world is what we "interpret' through our consciousness.


Much information that we learn is never interpreted by our consciousness. Again though, your statement in no way supports your claims and does not in any way respond to my arguments.


By all means start a new thread. Of course there's no guarantee I'll reply, but that's up to me.

Just thought I'd mention materialism

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

(snipped)
Can you give us a succint summary of your philosophy?

~~ Paul

Good lord man! Don't you get it?? Iacchus says god exists. Everything he believes you should. Not because he knows everything, but because it's THE TRUTH. And then go galvanting through the fields awash in joy that there isn't just this world but others, that you can cavort spiritually with Elvis Presley and Ghandi and Jeffrey Dahmer. It's all good man; this Planet X we're all bound for...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Could someone draw a parse tree of this sentence for me?


Iacchus, look man, no one has the vaguest notion what a sentence like this means.

Can you give us a succint summary of your philosophy?

~~ Paul Okay, substitute "don't" with "aren't" in the first sentence, and drop the second "is" in the second sentence. There, does that help?

By the way, you spelled "succinct" incorrectly. :p

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Iacchus
(snipped)
By the way, you spelled "succinct" incorrectly. :p

Yeah. That makes Paul, one of the most articulate gentleman on this board, a stoopid head.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

We do not define existence through consciousness, we experience it because of consciousness.

Without it, we wouldn't be aware we were here, we may well know that we are here.

You'd only like to believe it has some universal aspect.

The sun in the sky has no universal aspect. There are countless suns in countless skys So what does waffling mean anyway? Does it have anything to do with the inability to separate "the principle" from "the facts," you know, as an intentional means of avoiding the issue?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Yeah. That makes Paul, one of the most articulate gentleman on this board, a stoopid head. Yeah, speech for yourself. ;)

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Um....

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
R&J, II. i. 85-86.

Sorry, sorry, sorry...I can't help myself sometimes

I had a feeling I was a little off on that one. In my defense, it was late at night and I didn't have my copy of "The Globe, The Complete Works of Shakespeare" handy. Thanks for the correction, Mercutio.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what does waffling mean anyway? Does it have anything to do with the inability to separate "the principle" from "the facts," you know, as an intentional means of avoiding the issue?

Another great response from Iacchus in which rather than responds, he claims that what he said was fact, and it is silly of me to challenge it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Isn't it interesting that we've had several new posters lately that come here, not to converse, but to teach? Most of whom have the same underlying premise: "Consciousness is everything."Wow! And isn't it interersting that this is the only means we have by which to tell?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is obviously not what I had in mind, but it's possible.

Okay. So we can define awareness as any awareness of an external stimulous.

How about Making Sense? How do we make Sense of the universe, and who judges when and under what conditions it Makes Sense?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But what you don't seem to realize is that consciousness is only means we have by which to define existence. For without it, we wouldn't even know we were here. So in that sense it must have some "universal aspect" ... Perhaps like the sun in the sky?

Just because something can be defined (existence) doesn't mean it must have a universal aspect, or even that it must exist.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Okay. So we can define awareness as any awareness of an external stimulous.

How about Making Sense? How do we make Sense of the universe, and who judges when and under what conditions it Makes Sense? How about the awarness of oneself, in relation to an external stimulous?

That would then define it as a "conscious entity" wouldn't it?

[Dancing David]

Here it is from this threadPerception by Shroud of Akron (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18232&highlight=two+boxes)

It is lenthy but addresses 1+1=2

Evildave

Yes, but we all need to have the same model of 1, +, = and 2.

"1+1=2" might be a particularly offensive curse on "Planet X". It certainly is getting to be one here on Earth, if only because of the annoying way some people keep referring back to it in order to simplify problems down to gibberish.

Part of the problem is the work our senses have evolved to do. We might have evolved truly cosmic senses that would make us intimitely aware of every force in the universe... but those probably aren't the kinds of senses that keep a large animal alive among all the other competing biology experiments on Earth.

Being too grossed-out by the microscopic critters in water to drink it in the desert would not be an especially helpful adaptation. Hearing every swish, crackle and chitter for a mile might distract from the big, slavering thing right near us.

We have senses and brain processing that simplifies (or dumbs down) the world to a point about on a par with the ability of what's left in our little brains to process that flow of information.

The ability to see friend and foe. Identify ripe fruit and dead plants from a distance. Hear "what's comming". Feel when damage is imminant or occurring. Smell and taste what might be "bad" to eat. Even communicate.

Every new kind of sense we could have would need to have a commensurate amount of processing to handle it. Would having a brain the size of a watermelon be a help or hindrance when something is chasing you to eat you?


Shroud of Akron:


Originally posted by evildave
Yes, but we all need to have the same model of 1, +, = and 2.

"1+1=2" might be a particularly offensive curse on "Planet X". It certainly is getting to be one here on Earth, if only because of the annoying way some people keep referring back to it in order to simplify problems down to gibberish.


i'm not talking about what we call something. if i have a box and i get another box, i now have box box. box+box=box box. what we call each unit is describing our perception, but the reality is that there are 2 boxes, the 2 merely designates one more than one. how could that reality possibly be inaccurate?
__________________


Evildave:
But box box is actually 10 boxes. If you use base 2, which is base 10, in base 2.

'2' is only a designation for a grouping of box box we have because we count, and do so in a radix higher than 1 or 2. How we codify information impacts how we perceive it.

Without a concept of "counting", which is grouping things by encoding them in groups, you have box, and perhaps "lotsa box" for however many boxes besides just "box" there are.

Perhaps a particular entity might (by their own convention) measure "box" by volume instead of unit quantity. In this case {box box box} = {box}, if the first set of boxes are smaller than the second.

Or we can take the grocery store's answer to "how many", apples are accounted by weight. In this case {apple apple} can routinely equal {apple apple apple}, if the first set of apples are heavier.

Or my favorite, if you take two panes of glass and carelessly throw them into a big box, how many do you get? If measured in WHOLE panes of glass, probably zero. If measured in unit pieces of glass, thousands. If measured by weight or volume, the original amount.

What you measure is impacted by your perception of what's important to measure. If you're supposed to be installing panes of glass, having the number of units in the box remain the same as the number of units that leave the box is important. If you are the one shipping the box, only the weight and volume of the box is important. If the glass is destined to be dumped, only its volume is important. If the glass is to be recycled, then only its purity and weight is important. To the animal you, the inherent danger of broken glass you've learned from experience is all that's important. Seeing that red stuff leak out and feeling pain is among the things you're evolved not to like.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet some form of consciousness is, or else how would we even know we exist? And if we can't even determine that, then what else is there to know?


A rose by any other name is not a rose? No, it doesn't stand to reason. And only goes to show that "universal axioms" do exist, and quite possibly a Universal Consciousess does as well.

Woah there Tex!

There is the fact that consiousness may exist, depending on the definition.
Universal axioms haven't a need to be proven because they are axiomatic. So where do you get universal consiousness from axioms, unless it is an axiom?

Isotropy does the same thing, but does not have a causal mechanism.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Here it is from this threadPerception by Shroud of Akron (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18232&highlight=two+boxes)

It is lenthy but addresses 1+1=2I'm not sure what you're telling me here?

But, when you have two identical objects, with no variance between them, you still get 1 object + 1 object = 2 objects.

If you try to explain it any other way is lame if you ask me.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what does waffling mean anyway? Does it have anything to do with the inability to separate "the principle" from "the facts," you know, as an intentional means of avoiding the issue?

No but that does seem to be why you avoid answering the question. ;)

Would you like to come to the Ivory Tower it has all the latest gadgets and the coolest popcorn machine...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Woah there Tex!

There is the fact that consiousness may exist, depending on the definition.
Universal axioms haven't a need to be proven because they are axiomatic. So where do you get universal consiousness from axioms, unless it is an axiom?

Isotropy does the same thing, but does not have a causal mechanism. No, I'm suggesting universal consciousness would be the means by which to "acknowledge" axioms.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm not sure what you're telling me here?

But, when you have two identical objects, with no variance between them, you still get 1 object + 1 object = 2 objects.

If you try to explain it any other way is lame if you ask me.

Ah, the Master of 'interpretation' does not understand that mathematics is a language, it is not a universal. I am very disappointed, I had thought from your sig line that you had actauly practised mystical arts.

There are no universal truths, especialy if they can only be assesed through human consiousness. I refer you to the teachings of the buddha, but I suppose that it is a universal truth that we may all look at the same things and come to different conclusions.

A philospher ought to know better than to even approach 'two identical' objects with a proverbial ten foot stick.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I'm suggesting universal consciousness would be the means by which to "acknowledge" axioms.

Um, that would not be possible, axioms are given, not subject to knowledge.

Remeber the process that leads to a belief in materialism? That is one of the aknowledged axioms that Idealism doesn't aknowledge.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Would you like to come to the Ivory Tower it has all the latest gadgets and the coolest popcorn machine...

we got a new popcorn machine? sweet!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Ah, the Master of 'interpretation' does not understand that mathematics is a language, it is not a universal. I am very disappointed, I had thought from your sig line that you had actauly practised mystical arts. No, it's the "principle" behind the symbol which makes it universal.


There are no universal truths ...Is that right? ;)


, especialy ...Especially? What do you mean especially? It's either yes or no.


if ...If? What do you mean if? It's either possible or it's not possible.


... they can only be assesed through human consiousness. Especially if? ... And when I refer to universal consciousness, what makes you think I'm referring to human beings specifically?


I refer you to the teachings of the buddha, but I suppose that it is a universal truth that we may all look at the same things and come to different conclusions.Yes but how could you, when you say such things don't exist?


A philospher ought to know better than to even approach 'two identical' objects with a proverbial ten foot stick. Yes, but the "principle" of it does exist, and one can ascertain that. ;)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by RussDill


we got a new popcorn machine? sweet!

Yeah. You can't put butter on the popcorn BEFORE the kernals pop. You have to do it after. It breaks the machine otherwise.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, it's the "principle" behind the symbol which makes it universal.

Or is the principle the symbol. I don't imagine running into the number two at a party. Are you saying that there are absolutes behind language?



Is that right? ;)

Of course it has to be a universal truth that there are no universal truths, which in violating itself is the exception to prove the rule. :P
How can there be universal truth, all we have is human truth, which is observational in nature.



Especially? What do you mean especially? It's either yes or no.

I don't know, it's somewhere in the fine print, I keep loosing the manual. I know when it is or I know where it is but it is indeterminate if I know where the manual and when the manual is.


If? What do you mean if? It's either possible or it's not possible.

Gosh another dichotomy, was there a sale or something? :)



Especially if? ... And when I refer to universal consciousness, what makes you think I'm referring to human beings specifically?

Oh, are you talking to the iceicles now?


Yes but how could you, when you say such things don't exist?

I am just chock full of contradictions! Which is another universal truth.


Yes, but the "principle" of it does exist, and one can ascertain that. ;)

No principles before five pm, please.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Or is the principle the symbol. I don't imagine running into the number two at a party. Are you saying that there are absolutes behind language?Is that anything like tripping over the law of physics? ;)


Of course it has to be a universal truth that there are no universal truths, which in violating itself is the exception to prove the rule. :P
How can there be universal truth, all we have is human truth, which is observational in nature.But what does human truth stem from? So, if there were no universal truths, how would the universe hold itself together? And why the need for a Universal Consciousness to recognize any of this is so?


I don't know, it's somewhere in the fine print, I keep loosing the manual. I know when it is or I know where it is but it is indeterminate if I know where the manual and when the manual is.Try looking in the glove box?


Oh, are you talking to the iceicles now?Hmm ... I cee. Huh? ... Icy?


I am just chock full of contradictions! Which is another universal truth.Another one?

[fishbob]

I wouldn't underestimate the power of the "collective unconscious" here. You mean nap time or what? The power of not thinking? Kind of like the 700 Club?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by fishbob
You mean nap time or what? The power of not thinking? Kind of like the 700 Club? Why do things occur en masse so to speak, without something "collectively" holding them together?

And yes, I suppose that could held true of certain "religious prayer meetings" (rpm's), which consciously doesn't seem to be tapped into anything.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why do things occur en masse so to speak, without something "collectively" holding them together?


Just because things seem to have a unifying "force" doesn't mean that they do. Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Just because things seem to have a unifying "force" doesn't mean that they do. Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate. Again, this is "your" assertion.

[Dancing David]

The Laws Of Physics do not exist!

They are an approximation of The Way Things Appear.

Until there is a test and theorem devised to test the ontology behind the LOP there is no way to discuss it scientificaly, it makes for great philosophy however!

TLOP are a figment of the human imagination! The universe acts the way it does, because it does. It does not require a unifying force, it could have a plurality of forces. One for each particle/wave.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The Laws Of Physics do not exist!

They are an approximation of The Way Things Appear.

Until there is a test and theorem devised to test the ontology behind the LOP there is no way to discuss it scientificaly, it makes for great philosophy however!

TLOP are a figment of the human imagination! The universe acts the way it does, because it does. It does not require a unifying force, it could have a plurality of forces. One for each particle/wave. Do you think the Universe will ever "change" its Mind? :D

Somehow I think we're pretty much stuck with the Universe we have. And yet that's not to say there aren't things about it that we don't understand. And, that to the degree that we "do" come to understand them, it will most likely affect a change in us. But, that doesn't mean the Universe is inconsistent or, has changed its rules.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Again, this is "your" assertion.

Really....we understand how ants work, how they communicate, act as a unit, now you are going to say no, you're wrong, they are all physcic? You're a loon.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you think the Universe will ever "change" its Mind? :D

Somehow I think we're pretty much stuck with the Universe we have. And yet that's not to say there aren't things about it that we don't understand. And, that to the degree that we "do" come to understand them, it will most likely affect a change in us. But, that doesn't mean the Universe is inconsistent or, has changed its rules.

The universe never changes its "underlying" rules, but the rules that apear to as can change. For instance, when the higgs field formed. The universe could conceivable undergo another one of these changes, but it would not end well with us, all matter would basically be destroyed, torn apart, or crushed.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Iacchus
.....I suppose that could held true of certain "religious prayer meetings"..... hold
Originally posted by Iacchus
.....Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate. separate

BillyJoe :cool:

[Iacchus]

Afraid you missed something there. The first quote is mine ...


.....I suppose that could held true of certain "religious prayer meetings"..... And the second quote is RussDill's ...


.....Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate.

[BillyJoe]

Yes, it seems we are all wrong.

I quoted your's first and then copied that to insert Russ' quote but forgot to change the name. I will change it so the heading makes sense.

[BillyJoe]

Oops, seems I can no longer edit it after 60 minutes. I could contact an administrator but I feel it's hardly worthwhile.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How about the awarness of oneself, in relation to an external stimulous?

That would then define it as a "conscious entity" wouldn't it?

Certainly. This would mean that apes are concious, as are humans and elephants and probably a lot of other species.

How about Making Sense? One person's sense is another person's madness...