Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The term "universal" refers to similarities - i.e., what is in common, or shared, by many things. Two different squares can be wildly different, but what they have in common is that they are both squares (i.e., 4 sides that are, FAPP, of equal length; 4 angles that are, FAPP, 90 degrees, etc. The key idea of "FAPP" ("for all practical purposes") is functionality. The gears in a Swiss watch are not absolutely perfect replicas of each other. At the atomic level you will find significant differences. Nevertheless, they function perfectly in the watch. What all of these gears have in common is that they are all gears. Sure there are graduated dissimilarities on micro-levels, but that is irrelevant. They are all gears because they all function as gears and are interchangeable for this purpose. They are all, FAPP, the same. Each one counts as a particular instantiation of a universal functional "type" - namely the type we identify as "gear".
When I say that "I" (this qualitative feeling of "being me") is a universal, I am saying that this qualitative feeling serves, FAPP, the same basic function is each and every organism that senses itself more or less as an "I". Just as there are many types of gears with many variations, there can be many types of "I"s with many variations, but what makes all of these instantiations of "I" the same (i.e., what makes them all count as individual instantiations of the universal "I") is that they all serve FAPP the same functions within numerically distinct organisms.
you are, clearly, alluding to a conscious system. do you believe we are in a conscious system? or are you implying something else?
I agree
Bias and double standards prevent accurate and thorough examination and consideration of the data. They also prevent rational discussion. They also prevent learning.
yeah, you can see they don't care the truth and explaining how it works.
Trans and maddy feel very strongly that some information is not proper for public consumption. They think they know whats best; so we see the running away behind the disguise that I am not "talking" to them.
for example, you and I are on opposing sides of the god thing. That does not effect me stating that it is far more reasonable to classify the biosphere as "alive". (quotes only for pointing out its a word) then anything else.
That classification will validate some of grays claims, it will offer a talking point as to why I think your description is just a misunderstanding, and help people find a more reasonable presentation for their place in this universe without a literal religion or eastern budhist notion of "for the sake of now".
trans will not address the claim because he is on the opposite side of you. He doesn't want to give one once of credence to you.
maddy doesn't feel that statement is "safe" for public consumption. yeah; yuppers, I know people like taht.
gayland is a tag along.
what does the biosphere match best with ... non life, virus, life?
trans tows the party line with 'natural". maddy tows the line by just flat out running away like her boy nozzie. they both cry for help from the "gang' instead of addressing the validity of the claim.
When I suggest that qualia are fundamental, most scientists would either agree, or they would say that it is not a scientific issue, but rather, a philosophical one. The only ones who will complain are the philosophical materialists - most of whom are philosophers, not scientists. And the materialists who are scientists are not materialists as scientists, they are materialists as philosophers.
the second question I have for you gay ...
Do the interactions of the biosphere, as a whole, match best with what we classify ...
non-life (any thing you want, I use parts of a cell)
virus (self explanatory)
life (use the simplest: a cell; keep in mind the notion of "complexity verse volume)
Put these three things on a meter stick. non life at one end, virus in the middle, and cell on the other end", slide back and fourth until you feel it matches. record and take it to others.
it offers you a real mechanism gay ... can you tell me why you refuse to answer the question?
unless I missed it.
...
what does the biosphere match best with ... non life, virus, life?...
what would you answer tzap?
I agree with Gaylens presentation of a unified whole "potential" from which everything that is "actual" emerges.
My observation is that some say "nature just is" in the same way some say "god just is". It is the bedrock foundation before which and beyond which they are unwilling or unable to go.
There is no super natural. There are just additional laws and principles and processes that some do not (yet) understand or accept or grasp.
Science is moving in the direction of "discovering" and "proving" what many in other fields have known and used all along. A better wod is science validates what others already know and use. For instance Gaylen's discussion of unified field of potential. And Matadora's science article on beliefs creating reality. And what science calls the placebo effect.
Nozz comments on how remarkable the placebo effect is. It is worthwhile and logical to then take the next steps from "this is remarkable" (another way of saying "its a miracle") to how can we explore further and better understand this process, and set about consciously using the mechanism in a way that is consistent and effective rather than haphazard or intermittent.
Nozz who is the most thorough and appears to know the most among us of what the placebo studies show, points out results improve when there is more confidence and trust and when more time is spent and there is a stronger or greater emotional connection.
The principle or law can be stated as thought and feeling affect and change physical reality. Trans made the astute and accurate leap to if it changes and affects reality then it also creates reality.
I agree with that.
I don't know if I answered your question arach. My view is that there is a life force that flows through everything. This life force is the same as the unified whole, the potential from which everything in physical reality emerges.
The more we understand and recognize the principles and process, then the more effectively and responsibly we can alter and effect change in our reality
To do so a person has to look beyond mere physical and chemical and mechanical components. Science is starting to move in that direction. It is starting to recognize how thoughts and feelings and beliefs affect and change physical reality.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-02-2017 at 11:11 AM..
How? They exhibit the 7 characteristics of a living organism.
Can we apply these characteristics to a cell? Sure we can!
1. Living things are composed of cells:
Single-cell organisms have everything they need to be self-sufficient.
In multi-cellular organisms, specialization increases until only certain cells only do certain things.
2. Living things have different levels of organization:
Living things must be able to organize simple substances into complex ones. Do cells do this? Sure they can!
3. Living things use energy:
Do cells use energy? Sure they can!
4. Living things respond to their environment.
Do cells do this? Of course they do!
5. Living things grow.
Do cells grow? Of course they do!
6. Living things reproduce.
Do cells undergo mitosis? Of course they do!
7. Living things adapt to their environment.
Are cells able to sense and respond to stimuli around
them such as light, temperature, water, gravity and chemical substances? Of course they do!
***We know why cells are alive***.
It does not seem likely that the consciousness that we possess in our limited human form is going to continue on after death.
If consciousness has the ability to continue after death then what is holding this consciousness as a prisoner in a living creature? This consciousness should be able to leave the living creature anytime it pleases and traverse the Universe in exploration mode. Why does it attache to this limited life form called human when instead it can be out there exploring the grand complex and mysterious Cosmos?
Perhaps along it's journey it finds a much more interesting place to exist and never returns to the creature it came from.
Why does consciousness remain in people who are in locked in a vegetative state? Surly a consciousness involved in that situation would want to be free. What's stopping it?
Surly if conscious has the ability to continue on after life then it must have other traveling and freedom tricks up it's sleeve.
Or simply it's that consciousness was born out of neural complexity...all living organisms on Earth evolved with a neural pathway regardless of how simple or complex the organism is. When we die energy is released via the breakdown of the molecules and dissipates back into the Universe...that is if you are cremated...or if you allow yourself to be buried naturally...then the energy content that you acquired during your lifetime of eating the plants and animals on Earth can be returned to Earth via natural decomposition...thus you return to Earth the energy you consumed. Thus the cycle of life.
Why is is so difficult for people to accept that our consciousness did not exist before we were born? Who can honestly say that you recall your consciousness out there in the Universe saying...why am I not confined in a human body on planet Earth? Where am I if I am not in a human body on Earth? Yikes I had better find a fetus to inhabit!
I agree
Bias and double standards prevent accurate and thorough examination and consideration of the data. They also prevent rational discussion. They also prevent learning.
Which is what you constantly demonstrate with your bias towards science and understanding of the knowledge obtained from science.
If you can name any other process that is better at obtaining the nature of reality or of getting us known facts about the Universe then by all means be our guest and present it.
If you can't name one and you have no improvements or suggestions to offer, then I suggest that get over your biases towards science.
Science is moving in the direction of "discovering" and "proving" what many in other fields have known and used all along.
Can you name one thing that science is now "discovering" that other fields have known and used all along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
A better wod is science validates what others already know and use. For instance Gaylen's discussion of unified field of potential.
Better said is that you don't know, what you don't know. Science is not out there to validate what others already know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
And Matadora's science article on beliefs creating reality. And what science calls the placebo effect.
It's not that science is now discovering...it's that funding for some of this research is non-existent. Research = work. People holding PhD's can't survive taking a job where they don't get paid because there is no funding for their particular research.
Or it's that the sensitivity of the measuring devices required were crude in the past or were not yet developed. The more advancements made in technology the better the tools for research and discovery. This is why science is always revising and improving the knowledge it acquires...it's all due to advancements in technology.
Can you name one thing that science is now "discovering" that other fields have known and used all along?
Better said is that you don't know, what you don't know. Science is not out there to validate what others already know.
It's not that science is now discovering...it's that funding for some of this research is non-existent. Research = work. People holding PhD's can't survive taking a job where they don't get paid because there is no funding for their particular research.
one thing?
that we are all connected at the most fundamental levels. That all life on this planet are intertwined and indeed, better describe as one thing instead of isolated pieces.
the last 15 years sealed that conclusion as looking like the most valid.
but some people have to tow the atheist line. deny, avoid, minimize, and whatever it takes.
you are, clearly, alluding to a conscious system. do you believe we are in a conscious system? or are you implying something else?
I do not believe that Reality, as such, is a conscious system. Individual organisms are conscious, but Reality is not, so far as I know, conscious, as such. I do compare the fundamental "essential nature" of Reality, metaphorically, to a "sleeping brain" (I think it is, functionally speaking, a good comparison), but I don't take this idea literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Do the interactions of the biosphere, as a whole, match best with what we classify ...
non-life (any thing you want, I use parts of a cell)
virus (self explanatory)
life (use the simplest: a cell; keep in mind the notion of "complexity verse volume)
I really just don't know if I would classify the biosphere as "alive" exactly, in the sense of a single organism - but I think it is plausible to do so. There are enough large-scale feedback loops and global-scale cycles to make me say that the biosphere is, essentially, an organism in some loose sense of the term. I would probably compare the biosphere to a slime mold. The individual cells of the slime mold can work together like a single organism to an amazing extent, but it's individual cells can also survive more or less individually (unlike, say, a neuron or kidney cell, which dies fairly quickly outside of a living body). I see the internet as, perhaps, functioning as an evolving "nervous system" for the biosphere, but I'm not sure how much to take that literally, vs. metaphorically. I'm curious to see how that works out over time.
How? They exhibit the 7 characteristics of a living organism.
Can we apply these characteristics to a cell? Sure we can!
1. Living things are composed of cells:
Single-cell organisms have everything they need to be self-sufficient.
In multi-cellular organisms, specialization increases until only certain cells only do certain things.
2. Living things have different levels of organization:
Living things must be able to organize simple substances into complex ones. Do cells do this? Sure they can!
3. Living things use energy:
Do cells use energy? Sure they can!
4. Living things respond to their environment.
Do cells do this? Of course they do!
5. Living things grow.
Do cells grow? Of course they do!
6. Living things reproduce.
Do cells undergo mitosis? Of course they do!
7. Living things adapt to their environment.
Are cells able to sense and respond to stimuli around
them such as light, temperature, water, gravity and chemical substances? Of course they do!
***We know why cells are alive***.
It does not seem likely that the consciousness that we possess in our limited human form is going to continue on after death.
If consciousness has the ability to continue after death then what is holding this consciousness as a prisoner in a living creature? This consciousness should be able to leave the living creature anytime it pleases and traverse the Universe in exploration mode. Why does it attache to this limited life form called human when instead it can be out there exploring the grand complex and mysterious Cosmos?
Perhaps along it's journey it finds a much more interesting place to exist and never returns to the creature it came from.
Why does consciousness remain in people who are in locked in a vegetative state? Surly a consciousness involved in that situation would want to be free. What's stopping it?
Surly if conscious has the ability to continue on after life then it must have other traveling and freedom tricks up it's sleeve.
Or simply it's that consciousness was born out of neural complexity...all living organisms on Earth evolved with a neural pathway regardless of how simple or complex the organism is. When we die energy is released via the breakdown of the molecules and dissipates back into the Universe...that is if you are cremated...or if you allow yourself to be buried naturally...then the energy content that you acquired during your lifetime of eating the plants and animals on Earth can be returned to Earth via natural decomposition...thus you return to Earth the energy you consumed. Thus the cycle of life.
Why is is so difficult for people to accept that our consciousness did not exist before we were born? Who can honestly say that you recall your consciousness out there in the Universe saying...why am I not confined in a human body on planet Earth? Where am I if I am not in a human body on Earth? Yikes I had better find a fetus to inhabit!
yeah, I am the one that starts with the negative remarks. you started with this kind of stuff the very first time I met you. tossing out 'oh yeah, I have a astrophysicists brother and ..." and you still got the physics wrong. it was funny.
I meant we don't know why they live ... as in, 'grand design" or purpose. but they are alive.
meanie.
all the stuff you posted is review, so pump in into somebody else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
