The question I would really like to ask (Not another does god exist thread) - Page 2

Aepervius · 11th July 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by deaman

On the question of the christian god or any gods existence, the answer, for me, is I don't believe in such a being.

The real question that's been on my mind, for which I would appreciate people's opinions, is:

"Do you believe the Universe is conscious, cognizant, alive, aware?

No, neither there is a reason to believe that.

Navigator · 11th July 2012, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

No, neither there is a reason to believe that.

Since when does 'evolution' need any 'reason'?

Consciousness is that which needs reason.

Belief is not an option any more than unbelief.

dafydd · 12th July 2012, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by deaman

I guess because there seems to be some kind of intelligent organization, geared towards the process of rearranging and converting energy and matter.

Seems to be? Proof please.

Halfcentaur · 12th July 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Correct. A fractal is a perfect example of a Universe and evolution.

What makes a fractal happen?

Feedback loops.

westprog · 12th July 2012, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by deaman

On the question of the christian god or any gods existence, the answer, for me, is I don't believe in such a being.

The real question that's been on my mind, for which I would appreciate people's opinions, is:

"Do you believe the Universe is conscious, cognizant, alive, aware?

The universe contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is.

Lamuella · 12th July 2012, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

The universe contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is.

Not sure that I accept that "contains x" is the same as "is x".

WilsonG · 12th July 2012, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by deaman

On the question of the christian god or any gods existence, the answer, for me, is I don't believe in such a being.

The real question that's been on my mind, for which I would appreciate people's opinions, is:

"Do you believe the Universe is conscious, cognizant, alive, aware?

Are you certain the two questions are really different?

"Do you believe unfounded and/or incoherent proposition P, in the absence of any real evidence?"

tsig · 12th July 2012, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

The Universe has evolved and is a lot older than biological life forms which is the common description of 'what is intelligent life'...

From Science Fiction
Remember those things which floated around in the cosmos and crippled the Star Ship Enterprise?
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epsd-MOV.php

Took over the control of the ship?

These were intelligent - displaying signs of intelligence.

Now science fiction was prepared to explore the possibility of intelligence 'floating free' - still within a form of sorts - not a biological form yet still conscious.

We know so little about consciousness and are tied to parameters which force us to only understand that consciousness MUST have a biological instrument in order to 'be'.

There's a reason they call it fiction.

tsig · 12th July 2012, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Certainly not!

I KNOW it is.

Originally Posted by Navigator

1st: There is no 'argument' there is no 'right or wrong answer' to the question.

2nd: You need to observe the Universe. It is one thing. We are somewhere within the story of its continuing evolution....we cannot pin-point the exact location of what part of its evolution it is up to because of our limitations of perception and we don't even know that it will end.

As far as consciousness goes in accordance with the human being, it is fair to say that each individual is evolving its consciousness and understanding. For sure if there is no continuation of that individual experience after that human experience expires then the evolution of that personal experience ends.

Otherwise it will be business as usual.

In terms of the evolution of the collective human experience, well...some folk are seriously doubting any human institution will be able to extend that reality anywhere near as long as the Earths Sun will shine.

Yet scientifically speaking - there should be no reason WHY it cannot be so.

Humm...

tsig · 12th July 2012, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Since when does 'evolution' need any 'reason'?

Consciousness is that which needs reason.

Belief is not an option any more than unbelief.

Pseudo profundities.

tsig · 12th July 2012, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

The universe contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is.

A ship contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is.

KlLLUMINATI · 12th July 2012, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Sure, it would be if it were. Wouldn't if it weren't. Nothing to add there, as usual, I see.

Edit to add, you say ther'es no right or wrong answer to the question. I was always under the impression that if you make something up which is not the case, it is "wrong." Your perspective on this is interesting indeed, though it also explains a lot.

You didn't even answer the question yet you criticize mine.........sad really

MattusMaximus · 12th July 2012, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

The Universe has evolved and is a lot older than biological life forms which is the common description of 'what is intelligent life'...

From Science Fiction
Remember those things which floated around in the cosmos and crippled the Star Ship Enterprise?
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epsd-MOV.php

Took over the control of the ship?

These were intelligent - displaying signs of intelligence.

Now science fiction was prepared to explore the possibility of intelligence 'floating free' - still within a form of sorts - not a biological form yet still conscious.

We know so little about consciousness and are tied to parameters which force us to only understand that consciousness MUST have a biological instrument in order to 'be'.

Key word there, Navigator. You know, just in case you missed it.

bruto · 12th July 2012, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

You didn't even answer the question yet you criticize mine.........sad really

Sorry I accidentally bundled responses to both you and Navigator in the same post. The post of yours that I was responding to in the first sentence contained no question at all.

KlLLUMINATI · 12th July 2012, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

Sorry I accidentally bundled responses to both you and Navigator in the same post. The post of yours that I was responding to in the first sentence contained no question at all.

the OP question is what I mean

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Feedback loops.

What makes feedback loops happen?

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Humm...

Exactly!

Navigator · 12th July 2012, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Key word there, Navigator. You know, just in case you missed it.

Thanks MattusMaximus!

Fiction always seems to come before fact in relation to invention brought into reality.

My point that you skimmed was that science fiction can explore or boldly go where scientists could go but are not likely to go.

The best that is done is to give a little consideration, enough to find some evidence that points to the possibility that things of the conscious can be explained - and assigned to the 'junk' pile.

The business of science - what science can do to ensure profit and growth in the market...that is the only REAL science of value and focus.

While profit and the market are considered priority in those systems which use such methodology, as far as something which will save humanity from parasitical charlatans...well THAT is fiction.

Science which supports fiction to that degree is more a device of illusion than anything truthful.

But anyway...is their life on Mars, does anyone know? Shall we pass the hat around so we might help fund finding out?

Mudcat · 13th July 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

There's a reason they call it fiction.

I wouldn't be so quick to call it fiction now. So far we have explored, by my conservative estimate, 0% of the universe. And the only form of life we have experience with shares the same planet as we do.

So we know precisely nothing.

Non-corporeal lifeforms and space born lifeforms could very well exist in reality (if pressed and my life depended on it I would say inside of a nebulae).

At the very least it's a hypothesis, although not a very likely one.

dafydd · 13th July 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

What makes feedback loops happen?

Feedback makes it happen. I do a lot of it with my guitar and amp.

Manopolus · 13th July 2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Human imagination can definitively understand what it might like to be a rock.

I have read even that 'Lucifer' was once one of those 'cloud entities' which I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread to do with 'Star Trek'...
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epsd-MOV.php

...and it decided to see what it was like to be a planet...so it went into the Earth and from that experience was able to manifest biological instruments it could experience through using a form of 'evolution' as its template - the material was readily available.

"From the dust you did come"

Hmm.... tastes like word salad, but OK.

I suppose you could say that the laws of physics are one huge mental process inside the mind of GOD and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong -- but you'd rather be using a romanticized metaphor. When speaking on such things, the definitions involved in language get a bit skewed. Language, like science separates and classifies. Such a notion defies the normal rules of separation to the degree that it defies language itself.

Since we humans tend to like that sort of thing, it can be popular in literature and religion, but it tells us nothing from a more practical point of view.

Let me ask you this: How do we identify a thought process that doesn't use some form of linguistic symbolism, if such a thing exists? Are we as humans capable of understanding such a thing? Thought without words is easy... you simply use diagrams, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about, exactly. Said diagrams are still abstract representations of the outside world in much the same way that words are.

Since the symbolic tools we use to think are the exact same tools we use to communicate, does that not make humanity one huge organism? Again, it's nothing more than a romantic metaphor, since it suspends and defies the normal use of language. Such things appeal to the emotive parts of our brains, because that's where we "know" that there is more to consciousness than mere thought.

Halfcentaur · 13th July 2012, 01:53 PM

Only a part of your body is conscious, and there are parts of your body you are unaware of, lacking any nerves.

I see no reason to suppose the universe would need an all encompassing awareness to be considered aware. The fact that we are a piece of the universe and aware in that sense means we are a part of the universe that is aware of itself. This is a special thought to me I wish theists could share.

psionl0 · 13th July 2012, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI

the cosmos/universe may be a organism

If this were so then the universe would exist on a very different time scale to ours. It would take billions of years to "fire a synapse" in the universal "brain" (sending information from one part of the universe to another).

westprog · 14th July 2012, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Lamuella

Not sure that I accept that "contains x" is the same as "is x".

It depends on the property, and the definition. We could say that a greenhouse doesn't perform respiration, but that respiration goes on inside the greenhouse. The property is present, but not inherent.

I haven't strong enough feelings to insist upon the point.

Puppycow · 14th July 2012, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Only a part of your body is conscious, and there are parts of your body you are unaware of, lacking any nerves.

I see no reason to suppose the universe would need an all encompassing awareness to be considered aware. The fact that we are a piece of the universe and aware in that sense means we are a part of the universe that is aware of itself. This is a special thought to me I wish theists could share.

This is similar to my own thoughts on this question.

We are the universe becoming aware of itself.

True, a rock is not alive or aware, but neither is our hair or our fingernails.

Navigator · 14th July 2012, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Manopolus

Hmm.... tastes like word salad, but OK.

I suppose you could say that the laws of physics are one huge mental process inside the mind of GOD and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong -- but you'd rather be using a romanticized metaphor. When speaking on such things, the definitions involved in language get a bit skewed. Language, like science separates and classifies. Such a notion defies the normal rules of separation to the degree that it defies language itself.

Since we humans tend to like that sort of thing, it can be popular in literature and religion, but it tells us nothing from a more practical point of view.

Let me ask you this: How do we identify a thought process that doesn't use some form of linguistic symbolism, if such a thing exists? Are we as humans capable of understanding such a thing? Thought without words is easy... you simply use diagrams, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about, exactly. Said diagrams are still abstract representations of the outside world in much the same way that words are.

Since the symbolic tools we use to think are the exact same tools we use to communicate, does that not make humanity one huge organism? Again, it's nothing more than a romantic metaphor, since it suspends and defies the normal use of language. Such things appeal to the emotive parts of our brains, because that's where we "know" that there is more to consciousness than mere thought.

Lets say that (using language - and I agree too that visuals are a form of language) the concept of human beings being a collective one huge organism - in fact take it further and say the whole of life on earth is.

We would not be able to clearly understand what that is - we could kinda grasp it and sort of give it the nod - but we would find it difficult to express in any known language enough to describe it in detail....but we have more information now to make that connection.

Emotive parts of the brains - are these any less relevant? Are they a curse which needs to be cut away?
Well they are used by some as the primary area of reasoning perhaps - but this is no different from discarding that same area altogether when reasoning.

Use the whole brain.

I don't think that understanding that humanity and even more so - all life on earth is connected as one entity.

I know some are repelled by that thought and label such as 'romance' but many astronauts for example come back from seeing a different perspective and tend to use such type language when presenting their experience to the rest of the world.

There is no reason why such language cannot be used - and might be the most appropriate in terms of redefining old concepts which are based in notions of competitive behavior and brute force as tribal/social controller mechanisms.

Another thing seen by those who have witnessed it - the Earth looks nothing much like the Atlas. The Atlas is parading as the real thing but is the product of the romance. Even taught to us as 'the way things are'.

And why is this 'the way things are' and what can we do about changing 'the way things are' by redefining 'the way things are' to align with 'the way things really are'?

The real thing IS One Thing.

bruto · 14th July 2012, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Lets say that (using language - and I agree too that visuals are a form of language) the concept of human beings being a collective one huge organism - in fact take it further and say the whole of life on earth is.

We would not be able to clearly understand what that is - we could kinda grasp it and sort of give it the nod - but we would find it difficult to express in any known language enough to describe it in detail....but we have more information now to make that connection.

Emotive parts of the brains - are these any less relevant? Are they a curse which needs to be cut away?
Well they are used by some as the primary area of reasoning perhaps - but this is no different from discarding that same area altogether when reasoning.

Use the whole brain.

I don't think that understanding that humanity and even more so - all life on earth is connected as one entity.

I know some are repelled by that thought and label such as 'romance' but many astronauts for example come back from seeing a different perspective and tend to use such type language when presenting their experience to the rest of the world.

There is no reason why such language cannot be used - and might be the most appropriate in terms of redefining old concepts which are based in notions of competitive behavior and brute force as tribal/social controller mechanisms.

Another thing seen by those who have witnessed it - the Earth looks nothing much like the Atlas. The Atlas is parading as the real thing but is the product of the romance. Even taught to us as 'the way things are'.

And why is this 'the way things are' and what can we do about changing 'the way things are' by redefining 'the way things are' to align with 'the way things really are'?

The real thing IS One Thing.

I never ran into an Atlas that claimed to be anything but maps. If you didn't misapprehend, you had a woefully bad education.

Navigator · 14th July 2012, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I never ran into an Atlas that claimed to be anything but maps. If you didn't misapprehend, you had a woefully bad education.

Here - check the links and re-read the post.

http://www.theworldmapsphotos.com/wp...-Atlas-Map.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Hemisphere.jpg

Halfcentaur · 14th July 2012, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Navigator

What makes feedback loops happen?

All kinds of things. It could be that a grain of sand can only rest against other grains of sand in so many ways under the effects of gravity due to the shape of their edges, while we have lot's of grains of sand happening for the reason grains of sand happen.

It could be that only certain animals can capture and kill specific animals in their environment.

Certain things branch under specific stimulation, and the emergent system that governs that branching isn't dictated, it just happens. When it happens enough times what we call emergent order takes place, all by itself.

You're just welcoming the infinite regress by acting as if this question is going to take you back to the "source". You expect a source because the human mind is only able to make sense of so much without resorting to abstract symbolic equation to keep going.

Halfcentaur · 14th July 2012, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

If this were so then the universe would exist on a very different time scale to ours. It would take billions of years to "fire a synapse" in the universal "brain" (sending information from one part of the universe to another).

When i was a child I used to imagine that a life form the size of a solar system would take centuries just to move it's limb. Then I thought about very small organisms smaller than me. It made me wonder if perception of time is relative to size, was I moving in slow motion to the house fly? If universes are infinitely regressing within and progressing without like a super fractal, size also seems relative.

I think calling the universe an organism is nothing more than a metaphor.
But maybe if bacteria in my gut were self aware they'd say the same thing about me.

Halfcentaur · 14th July 2012, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This is similar to my own thoughts on this question.

We are the universe becoming aware of itself.

True, a rock is not alive or aware, but neither is our hair or our fingernails.

Indeed. It's localized, but we still think of it as all encompassing concerning our identity. Those are "my" fingernails. Those are "my" planets?

No they're mine!

Tricky · 14th July 2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I think calling the universe an organism is nothing more than a metaphor.

Of course. The word "organism" is a human construct, and it has very strict definitions. The universe doesn't fit in quite a few of the requirements for being an organism.

Halfcentaur · 14th July 2012, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Of course. The word "organism" is a human construct, and it has very strict definitions. The universe doesn't fit in quite a few of the requirements for being an organism.

Why does talking like this make some people feel so profoundly profound I wonder though, "navigating" such cosmic word play

bruto · 15th July 2012, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Navigator

Here - check the links and re-read the post.

http://www.theworldmapsphotos.com/wp...-Atlas-Map.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Hemisphere.jpg

I see maps. I don't see anything on those posts that suggests the perpetrator of those maps thinks "this is the world as it is." This is a way of looking at the world as it is, within our limited ability to put that on a page. It lets us see some aspects of the world, selected by the mapmaker. One shows a convenient view of national boundaries (obviously a human construct and arbitrary, but real in effect). Another shows a particular part of the surface, with that part emphasized, cloud cover and airflow being the apparent emphasis. The projections and thus the proportions are radically different, both involving an obvious and well known compromise as one cannot project the surface of the earth on a flat page. The centering is also different. Both, by convention, put the North Pole at the top, and both, their purpose demanding such, take their view from somewhere near the equator. No Atlas worth bothering with would show, for example, the South Pole from an equatorial point of view, though. Neither map, as far as I can see, claims this is the world as it is, or that this is the only way to see the world. One even includes the word "map" in its URL title. In fact, your ability to find these two examples and post them together shows better than anything the contrary fact: every map shows what the mapmaker intends, and impacts no other map.

What do you see?

I really can't figure out what axe you're grinding here.

11th July 2012, 11:05 PM	#41
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,735	Originally Posted by deaman On the question of the christian god or any gods existence, the answer, for me, is I don't believe in such a being. The real question that's been on my mind, for which I would appreciate people's opinions, is: "Do you believe the Universe is conscious, cognizant, alive, aware? No, neither there is a reason to believe that.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

11th July 2012, 11:27 PM	#42
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Aepervius No, neither there is a reason to believe that. Since when does 'evolution' need any 'reason'? Consciousness is that which needs reason. Belief is not an option any more than unbelief.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 01:47 AM	#43
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by deaman I guess because there seems to be some kind of intelligent organization, geared towards the process of rearranging and converting energy and matter. Seems to be? Proof please.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

12th July 2012, 02:06 AM	#44
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Originally Posted by Navigator Correct. A fractal is a perfect example of a Universe and evolution. What makes a fractal happen? Feedback loops.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937

12th July 2012, 03:31 AM	#45
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by deaman On the question of the christian god or any gods existence, the answer, for me, is I don't believe in such a being. The real question that's been on my mind, for which I would appreciate people's opinions, is: "Do you believe the Universe is conscious, cognizant, alive, aware? The universe contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

12th July 2012, 04:36 AM	#46
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480	Originally Posted by westprog The universe contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is. Not sure that I accept that "contains x" is the same as "is x".
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480

12th July 2012, 04:58 AM	#47
WilsonG Student Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 32	Originally Posted by deaman On the question of the christian god or any gods existence, the answer, for me, is I don't believe in such a being. The real question that's been on my mind, for which I would appreciate people's opinions, is: "Do you believe the Universe is conscious, cognizant, alive, aware? Are you certain the two questions are really different? "Do you believe unfounded and/or incoherent proposition P, in the absence of any real evidence?"
WilsonG Student Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 32

12th July 2012, 05:02 AM	#48
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,671	Originally Posted by Navigator The Universe has evolved and is a lot older than biological life forms which is the common description of 'what is intelligent life'... From Science Fiction Remember those things which floated around in the cosmos and crippled the Star Ship Enterprise? http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epsd-MOV.php Took over the control of the ship? These were intelligent - displaying signs of intelligence. Now science fiction was prepared to explore the possibility of intelligence 'floating free' - still within a form of sorts - not a biological form yet still conscious. We know so little about consciousness and are tied to parameters which force us to only understand that consciousness MUST have a biological instrument in order to 'be'. There's a reason they call it fiction.

12th July 2012, 05:04 AM	#49
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,671	Originally Posted by Navigator Certainly not! I KNOW it is. Originally Posted by Navigator 1st: There is no 'argument' there is no 'right or wrong answer' to the question. 2nd: You need to observe the Universe. It is one thing. We are somewhere within the story of its continuing evolution....we cannot pin-point the exact location of what part of its evolution it is up to because of our limitations of perception and we don't even know that it will end. As far as consciousness goes in accordance with the human being, it is fair to say that each individual is evolving its consciousness and understanding. For sure if there is no continuation of that individual experience after that human experience expires then the evolution of that personal experience ends. Otherwise it will be business as usual. In terms of the evolution of the collective human experience, well...some folk are seriously doubting any human institution will be able to extend that reality anywhere near as long as the Earths Sun will shine. Yet scientifically speaking - there should be no reason WHY it cannot be so. Humm...

12th July 2012, 05:08 AM	#50
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,671	Originally Posted by Navigator Since when does 'evolution' need any 'reason'? Consciousness is that which needs reason. Belief is not an option any more than unbelief. Pseudo profundities.

12th July 2012, 05:12 AM	#51
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,671	Originally Posted by westprog The universe contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is. A ship contains conscious, cognizant, living, aware entities, and therefore it is.

12th July 2012, 05:13 AM	#52
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by bruto Sure, it would be if it were. Wouldn't if it weren't. Nothing to add there, as usual, I see. Edit to add, you say ther'es no right or wrong answer to the question. I was always under the impression that if you make something up which is not the case, it is "wrong." Your perspective on this is interesting indeed, though it also explains a lot. You didn't even answer the question yet you criticize mine.........sad really

12th July 2012, 07:39 AM	#53
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Navigator The Universe has evolved and is a lot older than biological life forms which is the common description of 'what is intelligent life'... From Science Fiction Remember those things which floated around in the cosmos and crippled the Star Ship Enterprise? http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epsd-MOV.php Took over the control of the ship? These were intelligent - displaying signs of intelligence. Now science fiction was prepared to explore the possibility of intelligence 'floating free' - still within a form of sorts - not a biological form yet still conscious. We know so little about consciousness and are tied to parameters which force us to only understand that consciousness MUST have a biological instrument in order to 'be'. Key word there, Navigator. You know, just in case you missed it.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 12th July 2012 at 07:42 AM.

12th July 2012, 08:02 PM	#54
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI You didn't even answer the question yet you criticize mine.........sad really Sorry I accidentally bundled responses to both you and Navigator in the same post. The post of yours that I was responding to in the first sentence contained no question at all.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

12th July 2012, 08:07 PM	#55
KlLLUMINATI Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 477	Originally Posted by bruto Sorry I accidentally bundled responses to both you and Navigator in the same post. The post of yours that I was responding to in the first sentence contained no question at all. the OP question is what I mean

12th July 2012, 08:43 PM	#56
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur Feedback loops. What makes feedback loops happen?
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 08:44 PM	#57
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by tsig Humm... Exactly!
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

12th July 2012, 08:57 PM	#58
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Key word there, Navigator. You know, just in case you missed it. Thanks MattusMaximus! Fiction always seems to come before fact in relation to invention brought into reality. My point that you skimmed was that science fiction can explore or boldly go where scientists could go but are not likely to go. The best that is done is to give a little consideration, enough to find some evidence that points to the possibility that things of the conscious can be explained - and assigned to the 'junk' pile. The business of science - what science can do to ensure profit and growth in the market...that is the only REAL science of value and focus. While profit and the market are considered priority in those systems which use such methodology, as far as something which will save humanity from parasitical charlatans...well THAT is fiction. Science which supports fiction to that degree is more a device of illusion than anything truthful. But anyway...is their life on Mars, does anyone know? Shall we pass the hat around so we might help fund finding out?
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες Last edited by Navigator; 12th July 2012 at 09:04 PM.

13th July 2012, 11:05 AM	#59
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,679	Originally Posted by tsig There's a reason they call it fiction. I wouldn't be so quick to call it fiction now. So far we have explored, by my conservative estimate, 0% of the universe. And the only form of life we have experience with shares the same planet as we do. So we know precisely nothing. Non-corporeal lifeforms and space born lifeforms could very well exist in reality (if pressed and my life depended on it I would say inside of a nebulae). At the very least it's a hypothesis, although not a very likely one.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

13th July 2012, 11:51 AM	#60
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,444	Originally Posted by Navigator What makes feedback loops happen? Feedback makes it happen. I do a lot of it with my guitar and amp.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

13th July 2012, 01:34 PM	#61
Manopolus Metaphorical Anomaly Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Linn, Kansas (a.k.a. Dead center of Nowhere) Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by Navigator Human imagination can definitively understand what it might like to be a rock. I have read even that 'Lucifer' was once one of those 'cloud entities' which I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread to do with 'Star Trek'... http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/epsd-MOV.php ...and it decided to see what it was like to be a planet...so it went into the Earth and from that experience was able to manifest biological instruments it could experience through using a form of 'evolution' as its template - the material was readily available. "From the dust you did come" Hmm.... tastes like word salad, but OK. I suppose you could say that the laws of physics are one huge mental process inside the mind of GOD and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong -- but you'd rather be using a romanticized metaphor. When speaking on such things, the definitions involved in language get a bit skewed. Language, like science separates and classifies. Such a notion defies the normal rules of separation to the degree that it defies language itself. Since we humans tend to like that sort of thing, it can be popular in literature and religion, but it tells us nothing from a more practical point of view. Let me ask you this: How do we identify a thought process that doesn't use some form of linguistic symbolism, if such a thing exists? Are we as humans capable of understanding such a thing? Thought without words is easy... you simply use diagrams, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about, exactly. Said diagrams are still abstract representations of the outside world in much the same way that words are. Since the symbolic tools we use to think are the exact same tools we use to communicate, does that not make humanity one huge organism? Again, it's nothing more than a romantic metaphor, since it suspends and defies the normal use of language. Such things appeal to the emotive parts of our brains, because that's where we "know" that there is more to consciousness than mere thought.
	Last edited by Manopolus; 13th July 2012 at 02:03 PM.

13th July 2012, 01:53 PM	#62
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Only a part of your body is conscious, and there are parts of your body you are unaware of, lacking any nerves. I see no reason to suppose the universe would need an all encompassing awareness to be considered aware. The fact that we are a piece of the universe and aware in that sense means we are a part of the universe that is aware of itself. This is a special thought to me I wish theists could share.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937

13th July 2012, 10:14 PM	#63
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,760	Originally Posted by KlLLUMINATI the cosmos/universe may be a organism If this were so then the universe would exist on a very different time scale to ours. It would take billions of years to "fire a synapse" in the universal "brain" (sending information from one part of the universe to another).

14th July 2012, 04:05 AM	#64
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Lamuella Not sure that I accept that "contains x" is the same as "is x". It depends on the property, and the definition. We could say that a greenhouse doesn't perform respiration, but that respiration goes on inside the greenhouse. The property is present, but not inherent. I haven't strong enough feelings to insist upon the point.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

14th July 2012, 07:08 AM	#65
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,709	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur Only a part of your body is conscious, and there are parts of your body you are unaware of, lacking any nerves. I see no reason to suppose the universe would need an all encompassing awareness to be considered aware. The fact that we are a piece of the universe and aware in that sense means we are a part of the universe that is aware of itself. This is a special thought to me I wish theists could share. This is similar to my own thoughts on this question. We are the universe becoming aware of itself. True, a rock is not alive or aware, but neither is our hair or our fingernails.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

14th July 2012, 04:06 PM	#66
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by Manopolus Hmm.... tastes like word salad, but OK. I suppose you could say that the laws of physics are one huge mental process inside the mind of GOD and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong -- but you'd rather be using a romanticized metaphor. When speaking on such things, the definitions involved in language get a bit skewed. Language, like science separates and classifies. Such a notion defies the normal rules of separation to the degree that it defies language itself. Since we humans tend to like that sort of thing, it can be popular in literature and religion, but it tells us nothing from a more practical point of view. Let me ask you this: How do we identify a thought process that doesn't use some form of linguistic symbolism, if such a thing exists? Are we as humans capable of understanding such a thing? Thought without words is easy... you simply use diagrams, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about, exactly. Said diagrams are still abstract representations of the outside world in much the same way that words are. Since the symbolic tools we use to think are the exact same tools we use to communicate, does that not make humanity one huge organism? Again, it's nothing more than a romantic metaphor, since it suspends and defies the normal use of language. Such things appeal to the emotive parts of our brains, because that's where we "know" that there is more to consciousness than mere thought. Lets say that (using language - and I agree too that visuals are a form of language) the concept of human beings being a collective one huge organism - in fact take it further and say the whole of life on earth is. We would not be able to clearly understand what that is - we could kinda grasp it and sort of give it the nod - but we would find it difficult to express in any known language enough to describe it in detail....but we have more information now to make that connection. Emotive parts of the brains - are these any less relevant? Are they a curse which needs to be cut away? Well they are used by some as the primary area of reasoning perhaps - but this is no different from discarding that same area altogether when reasoning. Use the whole brain. I don't think that understanding that humanity and even more so - all life on earth is connected as one entity. I know some are repelled by that thought and label such as 'romance' but many astronauts for example come back from seeing a different perspective and tend to use such type language when presenting their experience to the rest of the world. There is no reason why such language cannot be used - and might be the most appropriate in terms of redefining old concepts which are based in notions of competitive behavior and brute force as tribal/social controller mechanisms. Another thing seen by those who have witnessed it - the Earth looks nothing much like the Atlas. The Atlas is parading as the real thing but is the product of the romance. Even taught to us as 'the way things are'. And why is this 'the way things are' and what can we do about changing 'the way things are' by redefining 'the way things are' to align with 'the way things really are'? The real thing IS One Thing.
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

14th July 2012, 09:07 PM	#67
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	Originally Posted by Navigator Lets say that (using language - and I agree too that visuals are a form of language) the concept of human beings being a collective one huge organism - in fact take it further and say the whole of life on earth is. We would not be able to clearly understand what that is - we could kinda grasp it and sort of give it the nod - but we would find it difficult to express in any known language enough to describe it in detail....but we have more information now to make that connection. Emotive parts of the brains - are these any less relevant? Are they a curse which needs to be cut away? Well they are used by some as the primary area of reasoning perhaps - but this is no different from discarding that same area altogether when reasoning. Use the whole brain. I don't think that understanding that humanity and even more so - all life on earth is connected as one entity. I know some are repelled by that thought and label such as 'romance' but many astronauts for example come back from seeing a different perspective and tend to use such type language when presenting their experience to the rest of the world. There is no reason why such language cannot be used - and might be the most appropriate in terms of redefining old concepts which are based in notions of competitive behavior and brute force as tribal/social controller mechanisms. Another thing seen by those who have witnessed it - the Earth looks nothing much like the Atlas. The Atlas is parading as the real thing but is the product of the romance. Even taught to us as 'the way things are'. And why is this 'the way things are' and what can we do about changing 'the way things are' by redefining 'the way things are' to align with 'the way things really are'? The real thing IS One Thing. I never ran into an Atlas that claimed to be anything but maps. If you didn't misapprehend, you had a woefully bad education.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

14th July 2012, 10:08 PM	#68
Navigator Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,034	Originally Posted by bruto I never ran into an Atlas that claimed to be anything but maps. If you didn't misapprehend, you had a woefully bad education. Here - check the links and re-read the post. http://www.theworldmapsphotos.com/wp...-Atlas-Map.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Hemisphere.jpg
	__________________ "I have walked a mile in your shoes and discovered what your problem is...your feet are too small" ~σκεπτικιστής ακραίες

14th July 2012, 10:41 PM	#69
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Originally Posted by Navigator What makes feedback loops happen? All kinds of things. It could be that a grain of sand can only rest against other grains of sand in so many ways under the effects of gravity due to the shape of their edges, while we have lot's of grains of sand happening for the reason grains of sand happen. It could be that only certain animals can capture and kill specific animals in their environment. Certain things branch under specific stimulation, and the emergent system that governs that branching isn't dictated, it just happens. When it happens enough times what we call emergent order takes place, all by itself. You're just welcoming the infinite regress by acting as if this question is going to take you back to the "source". You expect a source because the human mind is only able to make sense of so much without resorting to abstract symbolic equation to keep going.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Last edited by Halfcentaur; 14th July 2012 at 10:49 PM.

14th July 2012, 10:46 PM	#70
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Originally Posted by psionl0 If this were so then the universe would exist on a very different time scale to ours. It would take billions of years to "fire a synapse" in the universal "brain" (sending information from one part of the universe to another). When i was a child I used to imagine that a life form the size of a solar system would take centuries just to move it's limb. Then I thought about very small organisms smaller than me. It made me wonder if perception of time is relative to size, was I moving in slow motion to the house fly? If universes are infinitely regressing within and progressing without like a super fractal, size also seems relative. I think calling the universe an organism is nothing more than a metaphor. But maybe if bacteria in my gut were self aware they'd say the same thing about me.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Last edited by Halfcentaur; 14th July 2012 at 10:51 PM.

14th July 2012, 10:48 PM	#71
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Originally Posted by Puppycow This is similar to my own thoughts on this question. We are the universe becoming aware of itself. True, a rock is not alive or aware, but neither is our hair or our fingernails. Indeed. It's localized, but we still think of it as all encompassing concerning our identity. Those are "my" fingernails. Those are "my" planets? No they're mine!
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937

14th July 2012, 10:50 PM	#72
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,345	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur I think calling the universe an organism is nothing more than a metaphor. Of course. The word "organism" is a human construct, and it has very strict definitions. The universe doesn't fit in quite a few of the requirements for being an organism.

14th July 2012, 10:53 PM	#73
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937	Originally Posted by Tricky Of course. The word "organism" is a human construct, and it has very strict definitions. The universe doesn't fit in quite a few of the requirements for being an organism. Why does talking like this make some people feel so profoundly profound I wonder though, "navigating" such cosmic word play
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,937

15th July 2012, 06:40 AM	#74
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,181	Originally Posted by Navigator Here - check the links and re-read the post. http://www.theworldmapsphotos.com/wp...-Atlas-Map.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Hemisphere.jpg I see maps. I don't see anything on those posts that suggests the perpetrator of those maps thinks "this is the world as it is." This is a way of looking at the world as it is, within our limited ability to put that on a page. It lets us see some aspects of the world, selected by the mapmaker. One shows a convenient view of national boundaries (obviously a human construct and arbitrary, but real in effect). Another shows a particular part of the surface, with that part emphasized, cloud cover and airflow being the apparent emphasis. The projections and thus the proportions are radically different, both involving an obvious and well known compromise as one cannot project the surface of the earth on a flat page. The centering is also different. Both, by convention, put the North Pole at the top, and both, their purpose demanding such, take their view from somewhere near the equator. No Atlas worth bothering with would show, for example, the South Pole from an equatorial point of view, though. Neither map, as far as I can see, claims this is the world as it is, or that this is the only way to see the world. One even includes the word "map" in its URL title. In fact, your ability to find these two examples and post them together shows better than anything the contrary fact: every map shows what the mapmaker intends, and impacts no other map. What do you see? I really can't figure out what axe you're grinding here.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)