Actually, he should answer a question about evolution

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm just curious about the answer.

So you believe in Darwinian evolution, common ancestry and an old earth?

If so, what sort of reality existed when life was at the stage of a primordial soup containing self-sustaining reactions?

The reason I asked is that if you think that only the objects of sensation exist, and that there is no "real sun", it seems that there can have been no "real universe" before life existed within it - unless you think non-living objects have sensations.

Looking forward to your answer, but merely out of interest. I will leave others to respond to your responses, should they see fit to do so.

[Rob Lister]

What the HECK are you talking about? Maybe a link would be nice or an introduction as to the subject matter.

[lifegazer]

I think he's talking to me, though I thought I was on ignore.
I'll respond shortly.

[Dagny]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
What the HECK are you talking about? Maybe a link would be nice or an introduction as to the subject matter.

I'm pretty sure he's just asking about Lifegazers opinion on the matter. A good way to get the gist of what's going on is to look at some threads lifegazer has started.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
What the HECK are you talking about? Maybe a link would be nice or an introduction as to the subject matter.

It's easy enough isn't it?

Lifegazer claims that only subjective experiences (and/or the "thing" experiencing them) exist. He claims there is no "real world". It follows that evolutionary theory must be wrong - and big bang theory must be wrong.

Premise 1: Only experiences exist
Premise 2: Only living things have experiences

Conclusion 1 : A Universe which does not (yet) contain conscious living things doesn't exist at all.
Conclusion 2 : Darwinism must be wrong, since there can be no world in which the first bio-chemical stages of evolution occurred. There can be no Universe which is between big bang and the start of evolution occuring, because there is nothing in it to have any experiences. The first Universe that can exist is the first one containing a concious living creature.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It's easy enough isn't it?

Lifegazer claims that only subjective experiences (and/or the "thing" experiencing them) exist. He claims there is no "real world". It follows that evolutionary theory must be wrong - and big bang theory must be wrong.

Premise 1: Only experiences exist
Premise 2: Only living things have experiences

Conclusion 1 : A Universe which does not (yet) contain conscious living things doesn't exist at all.
Conclusion 2 : Darwinism must be wrong, since there can be no world in which the first bio-chemical stages of evolution occurred. There can be no Universe which is between big bang and the start of evolution occuring, because there is nothing in it to have any experiences. The first Universe that can exist is the first one containing a concious living creature.

Well, if you don't mind my saying so, I think it is highly likely (99.999%) that you're being jerked around by a troll. Good luck. I'm out.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just a further clarification of the problem:

Before you can have anything as complicated as evolution happening you need a fair splattering of heavier elements. You need plenty of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen and these didn't appear until the first generation of stars approached the end of their lives. Before that, there was only hydrogen and helium. You also need iron and a few of the elements heavier than iron, and these are only formed in supernovae. Only then do you have the basic atomic ingredients required for evolution to get going somewhere. Eventually, a concious creature evolves and there are such things as subjective experiences.

Darren's theories imply that all of the above must be wrong, and that the Universe simply popped into existence one day at the same moment the first concious creatures were created.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Well, if you don't mind my saying so, I think it is highly likely (99.999%) that you're being jerked around by a troll.

Ha! I'm just bored. Thought I'd rattle his cage and see what happened. :)

[lifegazer]

The short answer is that I think everything boils-down to the evolution of experience.

I don't think anything exists other than the experience of it.

I might add more details at a later time. I'm going to bed shortly.

[Dagny]

Not to mention, why would any organisms have evolved eyes, ears or any sensory organ if there was nothing to sense? What would have been the advantage?

[kuroyume0161]

And if none of this actually exists without an experiencer, the Universe simply popped into existence now, no now, again now, wait, now. Maybe now.

When you boil all of the essence out of LG's philosophy, it's nihilistic solipsism. Not because this is what he wants it to be, but because that is what it ends up being.

Upchurch, I, and others argued this point to death concerning a certain 'paint can' scenario. In the end, the admittance was that the paint can that bonked you on the head didn't 'exist' (wasn't part of awareness) until it did so. In other words, nothing exists until it is sensed. Since this is possible, then it becomes impossible to determine when anything came into existence, therefore leading to classical 'last-Thursdayism' - all senses could be a timeless instant. To paraphrase 'The Matrix': "There is no Universe".

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dagny
Not to mention, why would any organisms have evolved eyes, ears or any sensory organ if there was nothing to sense? What would have been the advantage?

Exactly.

Lifegazer:

That answer was every bit as lame as I was expecting. What you are claiming implies that the Universe popped into existence not one moment before the first conscious creature. But if you are going to bypass the history of the Universe leading up to evolution and the early stages of evolution, then why bother with the later stages? You might just as well have outright biblical creationism 6000 years ago.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
What you are claiming implies that the Universe popped into existence not one moment before the first conscious creature. Contingent upon the fact that there is a God and, He is conscious. ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Contingent upon the fact that there is a God and, He is conscious. ;)

And it's turtles all the way down...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darat
And it's turtles all the way down... Yet what is consciousness, aside from that which speaks to us about the nature of all things? Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness predates our own existence? It certainly did before I arrived.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet what is consciousness, aside from that which speaks to us about the nature of all things?


What a strange way of putting it - as if my consciousness wasn’t "me".

Originally posted by Iacchus

Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness predates our own existence? It certainly did before I arrived.

Yes. However there is no evidence your consciousness predated your existence.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Contingent upon the fact that there is a God and, He is conscious. ;)

Yes. First there is a God, who is conscious. This God then creates concious creatures, from which point onwards a reality can exist. But there can be no reality prior to evolution and no reality where evolution is yet to reach the stage of conciousness. And having reached the above conclusion, one wonders why anyone would bother with evolution at all, since God might just have well have created humans when he created the first concious creatures.

There is no important difference between lifegazers claims and those of young earth creationists.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet what is consciousness, aside from that which speaks to us about the nature of all things? Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness predates our own existence? It certainly did before I arrived.


It did before I arrived too.

It's like this Iacchus: You can be an idealist and believe in evolution. You can even believe in a universe which existed before there was any life. But to do so you must believe that God has a special way of percieving the Universe which doesn't require brains or eyes. Instead He is just permanently aware of everything that is going on in the Universe. If you deny the above then you are left in the situation that lifegazer is in. But if he accepts it, then it means that all of his claims that there can be no world external to sensations of a world is incorrect because "the material world" just becomes "the world as God percieves it" rather than lifegazer's "non-existent". This is a classic example of where lifegazer's miserable failure to do his homework leaves him making arguments which are full of holes but don't actually need to be full of holes. But his ego is too big to listen anyone so he won't learn this.

[Dagny]

As cliche as I fell being a college student and quoting this, it reminds me of this subject:

"The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness. Although the two are identical twins, man, as a rule, views the prenatal abyss with more calm than the one he is heading for (at some forty-five hundred hearbeats and hour). I know, however, of a young chronophobic who experienced something like panic when looking for the fist time at homemade movies that had been taken a few weeks before his birth. He saw a world that was practically unchanged-- the same house, the same people-- and then realized that he did not exist there at all and that nobody mourned his absence." -V. Nabokov (Speak, Memory)

Lifegazer is much like Nabokov's "chronophobic", who is frightened of a world that existed without him...which results in a philosophy that states that reality does not exist without consiousness (and therefore, without him).

[davidsmith73]

I think you're all being a bit unfair to lifegazers philosophy.

If you adopt the view that consciousness and its contents are all that exist then, in order to answer Geoff's questions, all that you require is an explanation of "physical time" in terms of experience. This is an enormous task for the idealist indeed, but to appeal to such an example as pre-human history is to miss the entire point of idealism. Under idealism there is no experience independent passage of time. Human (or animal for that matter) bodies do not possess conscoius experiences. They are made from them to put it crudely. So its not meaningfull to conclude that the physical universe "popped into existence upon the creation of the first sentient being" if you're an idealist. On the contrary, the physical univserse is constantly "popping into existence" every time it is experienced.

As an interesting footnote, I read an article that expressed the views that even some physicists are now considering the view that the universe did not exist before we experienced it!

[Dagny]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


As an interesting footnote, I read an article that expressed the views that even some physicists are now considering the view that the universe did not exist before we experienced it!

Do you have a link? I'm amazed at this concept, and that anyone at all could believe it.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dagny
Do you have a link? I'm amazed at this concept, and that anyone at all could believe it.

It was about a year ago, in a popular science mag. I'll try to find it, if not something else with reference to it.

[Dagny]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I think you're all being a bit unfair to lifegazers philosophy.

If you adopt the view that consciousness and its contents are all that exist then, in order to answer Geoff's questions, all that you require is an explanation of "physical time" in terms of experience. This is an enormous task for the idealist indeed, but to appeal to such an example as pre-human history is to miss the entire point of idealism. Under idealism there is no experience independent passage of time. Human (or animal for that matter) bodies do not possess conscoius experiences. They are made from them to put it crudely. So its not meaningfull to conclude that the physical universe "popped into existence upon the creation of the first sentient being" if you're an idealist. On the contrary, the physical univserse is constantly "popping into existence" every time it is experienced.


I don't think I know what you mean by unfair. It seems that Lifegazer goes out of his way to make his philosophy known. You think it's unfair that anyone questions it?

Nor do I understand the argument you're making. Are you saying that by adhering to a certain philosophy, Lifegazer becomes exempt from logic and facts? I'd love clarification on this one....

[Z]

What David is saying, is that idealists are excempt from logic, facts, evidence, and reason. After all, these are materialist concepts; they depend upon an objective material reality, after all.

:rolleyes:

Of our present population, here's the ranking for... Well, I'll let you guess:

1: Iacchus (incoherent)
2: Lifegazer (coherent but illogical)
3: Ian (coherent and slightly logical, but offensive and unteachable)
4: David (coherent and inoffensive, but not overly logical. May or may not be teachable.)
5: hammegk (hit-and-run muckslinger)

:D

(Just pulling a few strings here....)

[Dagny]

Good to know.:biggrin:

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
As an interesting footnote, I read an article that expressed the views that even some physicists are now considering the view that the universe did not exist before we experienced it!

Well, first of all, its not new. Wheeler said it years back. And the question is, what didnt exist? the perception or mental representation? or its fundamental characteristics, beyond observations?

On the other side, you are far more educated and refined than Lifegazer, I dont see why you "defend" him. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darat
What a strange way of putting it - as if my consciousness wasn’t "me".

Yes. However there is no evidence your consciousness predated your existence. Oh, didn't anybody tell you consciousness was a collective experieince? It certainly is inside of my head -- especially when I dream! :D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, didn't anybody tell you consciousness was a collective experieince? It certainly is inside of my head -- especially when I dream! :D

Well then our consciousness are very different. Mine is singular.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The short answer is that I think everything boils-down to the evolution of experience.

I don't think anything exists other than the experience of it.How could experience evolve if nothing exists other than as experience? That would require it evolving in a non-existent universe, from non-experiencing and therefore non-existant precursors...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
:rolleyes:

Of our present population, here's the ranking for... Well, I'll let you guess:

1: Iacchus (incoherent) How do we acknowledge the physical without the mental? This is clearly evidence of dualism. And it's not my problem if I don't seem to fit in either camp.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darat
Well then our consciousness are very different. Mine is singular. The whole Universe is a collective experience.

[P.S.A.]

Oh, didn't anybody tell you consciousness was a collective experieince? It certainly is inside of my head -- especially when I dream!

Even when you aren't asleep too... You say all kinds of things which you later show no awareness of having ever said. Like, for instance, that you never, ever post in Lifegazer's threads... and then ran like a smacked red headed step child when you realised you'd just said something easily proven untrue. Like it's proven again now, in fact. But well done for trashing yet another of his threads! And you supposedly like him! With friends like that, eh? ;)

So on to that other broken minded prophet Lifegazer then; From multiple child like innocence to mutiple wounded pyschosis we go... Now, I have no idea what Lifegazer actually argued for with regards to evolution; but I can guarantee it's different from what he's argued for before. Because he's argued for two entirely different concepts of evolution within the very same thread before. I have a link to his last evolution thread as part of my saved proof that he had in fact declared himself at Godhood; And here it is.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53522&highlight=Lifegazer (Compare what he says there, to whatever he is claiming here)

Honestly, isn't it obvious by now that Lifegazer doesn't have a philosophy? He has the following;

1.) A desperate need to believe in God to salve the pain he feels, although the shape of that God doesn't matter.
2.) An alienated and at times outright evil personality with regards to reality and the people within it.
3.) An insane ego which he obsessive-compulsively has to keep feeding; he MUST "philosophise" to be seen as wise!
4.) Occasional let-ups from his illness during which everyone thinks they can see a reason to hope he's going to get better...
5.) But no way out of avoiding cycling back to step 1 again. So round and around you go.

Painful... so very, very painful. Which reminds me, I forget to reply to the PMs I got whilst I was away for the weekend. Some point soon, I promise!

[Dagny]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The whole Universe is a collective experience.

You're kidding right?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The whole Universe is a collective experience.

Again our experiences are very different, mine lead me to the conclusion that the universe just is.

[lifegazer]

My philosophy is not at-odds with evolution.

God.
Omnipotence: knowledge about the experiences It will create before It creates them. The ability to create experiences in such a fashion so as to give the impression of linear order in the world that is experienced.

The world is an experience happening within/upon awareness.
Knowledge of 'things' (and hence 'the universe' [of things]), is deduced/judged directly from the sensations that we experience. Thus a ball-shaped bright-yellow sensation is the experience we call 'The Sun'. This ball-shaped multi-coloured sensation upon which we appear to live, we call 'The Earth'. The sense of separation between those two experiences, we call 'space-time'.
The awareness that these different localities of sensed-light seem to be somehow "tied together", we explain with a label called 'gravity'.

That's how the world works. First the sensations - then the deduction of 'things' and 'forces' - where in fact, only [ordered] sensations are happening to us.

We don't see 'a Sun'. We experience a ball-shape of bright-yellow.
We don't see an Earth. We experience a ball-shape of many colours.
We don't see absolute space or absolute time. The Mind plays tricks upon itself to give the impression that there is tangible separation between different experiences within Itself.
And of course - if that wasn't enough - our dear Mister Einstein told us all that the space & time we experience is relative (subjective - not 'absolute').
Physics is the study of the world in the Mind, ladies & gents. That's the only world physics can study. Is it any wonder then that there are no absolutes in what we perceive?!!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Newton didn't make a mistake. His laws of motion relate to real objects separated by absolute space and absolute time. His work must be correct if there's a real world "out there" full of real objects all separated by definite space and definite time. Einstein's work has no relevance to "out there". His math only apply to the subjectified/relative world of the Mind. That's a fact... and it is only the failure, by science, to comprehend this, which has perpetuated the BS state of philosophical-affairs which we are currently living through. But not for very much longer.
Truth seeps through the cracks and spreads.
You are witness to the fertilisation of a revolution, if not yet it's birth.

And one more thing. If there's an "out there" and Newton's math apply to it, then bang goes the theory that what we perceive is a mirror of what's happening out there. Why? Because we perceive the relative, whilst out there must be the absolute.
And if what we perceive is shown not to be a mirror of "out there", the final conclusion is that our perceptions are purely the work of whatever it is that we are.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
We don't see 'a Sun'. We experience a ball-shape of bright-yellow.
We don't see an Earth. We experience a ball-shape of many colours.
And yet again you repeat this nonsense without even considering the other side of the argument - as though for a blind person the Sun simply did not exist.

Oh well, if you are going to be so closed minded and repeat your assertions verbatim without even reading my posts then I am done.

It is not possible to argue with a closed mind like yours. Good luck with the philosophy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
And yet again you repeat this nonsense without even considering the other side of the argument - as though for a blind person the Sun simply did not exist.

A blind person experiences the Sun in other ways. The sensation of heat, primarily.

Oh well, if you are going to be so closed minded and repeat your assertions verbatim without even reading my posts then I am done.

I can't answer everyone all the time mate. Tonight I had limited time and decided to invest it in the post above.

It is not possible to argue with a closed mind like yours. Good luck with the philosophy.
Okay, bye.

[kuroyume0161]

LG,

Might I suggest going to this page:

Victor J. Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos" Victor J. Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos" (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html)

As the book itself will not be published for another year, download the PDF's and peruse what is there so far.

You don't get it. You are sloppy, ignorant, and blind. This may seem like an ad hominem, but read on. You avoid taking into consideration every side of an issue and it hurts you in every circumstance. You would make a lousy strategist and chess player since you have not the capacity to think things through cursorily, let alone thoroughly.

You have much to learn. Noone is perfect in their knowledge, but at least we'll admit it and make attempts to correct the deficiency. You continue to strain all of your knowledge through your 'my philosophy is correct' filter and you never learn because of it. This is not gaining knowledge, it is ideological reenforcement.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A blind person experiences the Sun in other ways. The sensation of heat, primarily.

Then this:


We don't see 'a Sun'. We experience a ball-shape of bright-yellow.
We don't see an Earth. We experience a ball-shape of many colours.


is inaccurate and incorrect.

In other words, we experience the 'Sun' as all of the qualities and quantities attributed to it (nuclear fission/fusion, emission of a variety of EM energies, creating heat through that energy, glowing yellowish white, it's light containing a particular bands of EM spectrum correlating to the elements of which it is mainly constituted, and so on).

And this differs from an independent reality how?

Never mind. Don't answer as I've already gone through the response in my head that you will give.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darat
Well then our consciousness are very different. Mine is singular. "Singular" enough not to be able to "convey" your thoughts to anyone else? Perhaps what you mean is that your "soul" is unique and, that your consciousness is what you "share" with everyone else? ... those who are conscious that is.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Singular" enough not to be able to "convey" your thoughts to anyone else?


Singular as in one.

Originally posted by Iacchus

Perhaps what you mean is that your "soul" is unique and, that your consciousness is what you "share" with everyone else? ... those who are conscious that is.

No, I meant what I said.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Darat
Singular as in one.

No, I meant what I said. Well, perhaps then you should consider whether there's someone on the receiving end of what you have to say here? Obviously you're not just speaking to yourself. Or, are you? And why pray tell would two people speak on opposite ends of a telephone line if it weren't for the fact that they were both conscious? Indeed, why would a group of people gather together to watch the same movie or, tune in to the same TV channel to watch the president give a speach? Could it be because we all share the same or, a very similar experience? Hmm ... and what might this -- or, rather "any" -- experience entail? We are all sharing this thing called, "consciousness."

[Dagny]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, perhaps then you should consider whether there's someone on the receiving end of what you have to say here? Obviously you're not just speaking to yourself. Or, are you? And why pray tell would two people speak on opposite ends of a telephone line if it weren't for the fact that they were both conscious? Indeed, why would a group of people gather together to watch the same movie or, tune in to the same TV channel to watch the president give a speach? Could it be because we all share the same or, a very similar experience? Hmm ... and what might this -- or, rather "any" -- experience entail? We are all sharing this thing called, "consciousness."

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we all have consiousness, this disagreement is whether it's collective or singular.

And we don't all share the same experience. Synesthesia alone (there are other threads )that discuss synesthesia to some extent) is an example of how some people percieve the world in a completely novel way. Not only are synesthetes seperate from the rest of the population in this sense, they're also seperate from each other; every individual has their own color code, or set of shapes that they associate with music, and no two can agree on anything. Never mind schizophrenia.

I would agree that everyones experience is (fairly) similar (not the same) but NOT because it's collective; simply because there is an objective reality.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, perhaps then you should consider whether there's someone on the receiving end of what you have to say here? Obviously you're not just speaking to yourself. Or, are you? And why pray tell would two people speak on opposite ends of a telephone line if it weren't for the fact that they were both conscious? Indeed, why would a group of people gather together to watch the same movie or, tune in to the same TV channel to watch the president give a speach? Could it be because we all share the same or, a very similar experience? Hmm ... and what might this -- or, rather "any" -- experience entail? We are all sharing this thing called, "consciousness."

Again you are attempting to attribute ideas and opinions to me that I have not stated nor suggested and then asking questions about that.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet what is consciousness, aside from that which speaks to us about the nature of all things?


To which I prelied:

What a strange way of putting it - as if my consciousness wasn’t "me".


You also stated that:


Originally posted by Iacchus

Wouldn't it be fair to say that consciousness predates our own existence? It certainly did before I arrived.


To which I replied:


Yes. However there is no evidence your consciousness predated your existence.


And so on.

If you wish to discuss a point I brought up in response to your posts then I am happy to do so however I am not willing to respond to made up attributions.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dagny
I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that we all have consiousness, this disagreement is whether it's collective or singular. Do fish swim in schools or, swim in the same lake? We are all part of the environment, and the environment is a part of us. At which point do you delineate? There is nothing about the experience of life which is not collective.

Would you agree that consciousness is collective with a flock of birds? Or, consider the collective of cells within your own body. Indeed, it all can be coordinated via a single thought. If you decide to get up and move, your whole body -- individual cells and all -- is obligated to follow suit. The human body is a collective experience of individual cells.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dagny
I would agree that everyones experience is (fairly) similar (not the same) but NOT because it's collective; simply because there is an objective reality. Yet what is it about each and everyone of us that informs us about the same thing? ... albeit due to differing circumstances, we may interpret it differently? What "objective reality" would we have to refer to without consciousness? Doesn't that suggest to you that both are inextricably tied?

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet what is it about each and everyone of us that informs us about the same thing? ... albeit due to differing circumstances, we may interpret it differently? What "objective reality" would we have to refer to without consciousness? Doesn't that suggest to you that both are inextricably tied? That suggests that you believe that "objective reality" wouldn't exist without consciousness. Do you have any evidence at all to support this idea?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dagny
And we don't all share the same experience. Yes, without the means of filtering out unwanted signals from the environment, we would have no means of experiencing the uniqueness of self ... albeit the spirit of uniqueness -- God -- dwells in all things.

Synesthesia alone (there are other threads )that discuss synesthesia to some extent) is an example of how some people percieve the world in a completely novel way. Not only are synesthetes seperate from the rest of the population in this sense, they're also seperate from each other; every individual has their own color code, or set of shapes that they associate with music, and no two can agree on anything. Never mind schizophrenia. Indeed, these folks are merely picking up on different signals (consciously) within the environment.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery
That suggests that you believe that "objective reality" wouldn't exist without consciousness. Do you have any evidence at all to support this idea? If we took away the sun, would we still have the light of the sun -- which, is only the effect -- not the cause -- by which to see?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by wollery
That suggests that you believe that "objective reality" wouldn't exist without consciousness.
Perhaps that would depend on the definition of consciousness, one being, "between stimulus and response is a gap". If that gap is less than Planck Time, or occurs at light-speed communication -- what is Time to the sender-receiver-sender-receiver of that communication? :) :)

[Dagny]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, without the means of filtering out unwanted signals from the environment, we would have no means of experiencing the uniqueness of self ... albeit the spirit of uniqueness -- God -- dwells in all things.

Indeed, these folks are merely picking up on different signals (consciously) within the environment.

I would suggest you look up synesthesia, before starting into this with me.

"These" people (and I'm one of them) are not "picking up" different signals. Example: One type of synesthesia involves the association of words with color. I think letter A as red. My mother sees it as green. And there's no way you could convince either one of us that A is a different color, or that it lacks any. Why?
Because it's part of our (individual) perception of the world. My mother and I do not have the same experience, even though we are being presented with the same information (language).

[Dagny]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do fish swim in schools or, swim in the same lake? We are all part of the environment, and the environment is a part of us. At which point do you delineate? There is nothing about the experience of life which is not collective.

Would you agree that consciousness is collective with a flock of birds? Or, consider the collective of cells within your own body. Indeed, it all can be coordinated via a single thought. If you decide to get up and move, your whole body -- individual cells and all -- is obligated to follow suit. The human body is a collective experience of individual cells.

Wow, into group selection much? Or did you just learn the phrase "super organism".

No, a flock of birds do not share consiousness. Why would you assume they do? And lemmings don't all decide through their colletive experience to jump off cliffs to reduce their population.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up ants, bees and wasps.
And, what evidence do you have to support the idea that cells have consiousness or experience anything?

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If we took away the sun, would we still have the light of the sun -- which, is only the effect -- not the cause -- by which to see? That's a truly pathetic attempt Iacchus!

It is true that if you took away the Sun there would be no light, and our eyes would be unable to see. However, if you leave the Sun where it is and take away our eyes there would still be light, even though we would be unable to see it.

Similarly if you take away objective reality then there is nothing to be conscious, but if you take away consciousness (ie destroy all life) then the rest of objective reality may remain, there just wouldn't be anything concious to experience it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery
That's a truly pathetic attempt Iacchus!

It is true that if you took away the Sun there would be no light, and our eyes would be unable to see. However, if you leave the Sun where it is and take away our eyes there would still be light, even though we would be unable to see it.

Similarly if you take away objective reality then there is nothing to be conscious, but if you take away consciousness (ie destroy all life) then the rest of objective reality may remain, there just wouldn't be anything concious to experience it. Oh, I see ... ;) Indeed, what is it that allows us to see anything at all? Whether it's physical or, mental? Am merely stating that sunlight is inextricably tied to the sun, albeit the two may not necessarily be viewed as one and the same.