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.
What about consciousness? I’m going to assume we don’t really know?
yup.
we don't know. but all we have is what we have. Little pieces of the universe making larger pieces that end up processing information at such a rate it looks conscious.
the question becomes how much of the universe is conscious. its empirical that animal brains are the smallest volumes we can address.
then we look at ants. ants really are a huge clue in whats going on. where is the colony's "consciousness" does each ant know its part of the whole?
imagine brains cells as self contain "ants"? the more complex the protein the less it needs to rely on a fluid like water to "bump" into resources. it can reach out and go get resources when it has to move around in a less dense fluid.
your body is akin to a whole bunch of ants connected to each other reaching out for resources.
well? look around us. is this whole mess consciousness? Its empirical, large portions of it are. we just have to look at the connections between the pieces that make it up.
I would say no also. they don't fit what we see as life. there just isn't the complexity vs volume ratio in the individual pieces. Also, when we compare (measure) them to things we call alive they don't match up best with them.
when I say we are in a system of life I am referring to the hierarchy of structure that we see. little pieces of the universe make "atoms", then molecules, then life, then what?
The evidence points to us as just a middle rung in this hierarchy. I just don't think it has omni powers. or dies, wakes up, and flys away for our sins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
yup.
we don't know. but all we have is what we have. Little pieces of the universe making larger pieces that end up processing information at such a rate it looks conscious.
the question becomes how much of the universe is conscious. its empirical that animal brains are the smallest volumes we can address.
then we look at ants. ants really are a huge clue in whats going on. where is the colony's "consciousness" does each ant know its part of the whole?
imagine brains cells as self contain "ants"? the more complex the protein the less it needs to rely on a fluid like water to "bump" into resources. it can reach out and go get resources when it has to move around in a less dense fluid.
your body is akin to a whole bunch of ants connected to each other reaching out for resources.
well? look around us. is this whole mess consciousness? Its empirical, large portions of it are. we just have to look at the connections between the pieces that make it up.
In the context of separate things, the fallacy holds. In the context of ONENESS, it does not. There is no "primarily" in the context of ONENESS because there is no separateness. You want to understand the context of ONENESS but insist on doing it in the context of separate things. We see separate things because we are inside the living ONENESS that is REALITY. We see the guts and processes from the inside that comprise the ONENESS that we cannot see from the outside. That is why I analogized it to YOU in my previous post that you brushed aside.
Again, I'm not following...
Is it possible for YOU to see an automobile in such a way that is shares all the attributes of every component part? That it, like its tires is mostly rubber? That it, like it's seats is made of leather, that it, like it's engine is hot, or like its refrigerant is cold? Can these perceptions be empirically verified? Can I sample the hood of the car and find that it is, like it's upholstery, leather?
Or is this perspective something theoretical, that you and I being "inside" can't ever achieve but that you speculate must exist?
You seem to be arguing that the fallacy of composition is applicable is some conditions but not others. What are those conditions and why?
I'm struggling because honestly you just seem to be making things up now. Can you rephrase this without the mystically capitalized "Oneness"? Maybe expand upon this...
By "ONENESS", do you mean that we should assume that there are not component parts to anything? That reality is one atomic whole that cannot be analyzed, evaluated, or dealt with at a partial level?
Furthermore, if this "ONENESS" perspective prevents me from understanding a car, a stock market, interpersonal relationships, or really any other system we encounter everyday, why use it? What good is it?
what i am saying is the car is the property of that mixture in that state. the car is the property of matter. Its not separate from it.
Of course.
But the fallacy in question is arguing that every attribute of every component is absolutely true for a system that incorporates that component. Clearly that isn't true because a car is not the same percentage rubber as the tire. It seems like a common sense statement, but Mystic is adamant that it is not true...
I'm not saying that a thing made up of other things does not retain or is not affected by the attributes of its constituent entities, I am saying that just because there exist Americans who are pedophiles does not make all America as a whole a pedophile. Mystic is arguing that if you use the "ONENESS", America as a whole is a pedophile. And I cannot get him to explain how he comes to this conclusion...
If you agree with him, though, maybe you can explain it.
But the fallacy in question is arguing that every attribute of every component is absolutely true for a system that incorporates that component. Clearly that isn't true because a car is not the same percentage rubber as the tire. It seems like a common sense statement, but Mystic is adamant that it is not true...
I'm not saying that a thing made up of other things does not retain or is not affected by the attributes of its constituent entities, I am saying that just because there exist Americans who are pedophiles does not make all America as a whole a pedophile. Mystic is arguing that if you use the "ONENESS", America as a whole is a pedophile. And I cannot get him to explain how he comes to this conclusion...
If you agree with him, though, maybe you can explain it.
-NoCapo
well, lets be honest here NoCap, there is a possibility, as slim as it may be, that I misunderstood. but please, keep it between us.
Is it possible for YOU to see an automobile in such a way that is shares all the attributes of every component part? That it, like its tires is mostly rubber? That it, like it's seats is made of leather, that it, like it's engine is hot, or like its refrigerant is cold? Can these perceptions be empirically verified? Can I sample the hood of the car and find that it is, like it's upholstery, leather?
Of course NOT! That works in the context of separate things NOT in the context of ONENESS.
Quote:
Or is this perspective something theoretical, that you and I being "inside" can't ever achieve but that you speculate must exist?
It requires that you be capable of engaging in thought experiments. Imagine that you are one cell of your body and that you are sentient. You are trying to figure out what you are part of. You see all sort of different things and it is just too confusing because the real YOU that you are just one cell of is ALL the separate things you see. Do you see the situation from that perspective?
Quote:
You seem to be arguing that the fallacy of composition is applicable is some conditions but not others. What are those conditions and why?
I'm struggling because honestly you just seem to be making things up now. Can you rephrase this without the mystically capitalized "Oneness"? Maybe expand upon this...
By "ONENESS", do you mean that we should assume that there are not component parts to anything? That reality is one atomic whole that cannot be analyzed, evaluated, or dealt with at a partial level?
Furthermore, if this "ONENESS" perspective prevents me from understanding a car, a stock market, interpersonal relationships, or really any other system we encounter every day, why use it? What good is it?
-NoCapo
The separate things perspective would enable your one sentient cell to analyze and understand the many parts and biota that comprise the real YOU so that is what you call useful. But it would NOT enable you to understand what the real YOU actually IS because each of the separate things is different. To place it in the context of the OP, we can answer the questions from inside God as they apply to the separate things but we cannot answer the questions about God because God is the ONENESS.
The open or closed system talk was in reference to the universe. Some posters are always referencing their knoqwledge of how the universe works. Is asked for an hypothesis on whether or notthe universe is thought to be open or closed. Open is open to new life forms/chemicals/pamspermia. Closed is like a shell.
Arach said there's no way for anyone to know but that doesn't preclude someone from explaining how the universe works.
Well, that's how it works. Have you a closed mind or an open mind? Such is the universe.
And no matter what reference you put it in, Open is still Open and Closed is still Closed.
But the universe is just as Open or Closed as your mind. It opens for some things and it closes for other things. You open or you close as you desire as Mr. Consciousness. But you seem to be unaware of Mr. SubC, Mr. Universe, and his same right for the discretion he allows you. To decide for yourself.
forms/chemicals/pamspermia, is Exxon or Monsanto in charge? I was pretty comfortable with the old life forms which is beginning to make sense since they are the ones they are killing off, and doing a pretty good job of it, for these new life forms, unknown and unpredictable and healthcare is a meat grinder?
now lets look at dude dying waking up and flying away for our sins.
open and close is pointless in that discussion because its unknown. But lets analyze the dude died, woke up, and flew away for ours sins in both systems if you like.
Literally, Jesus died because of our sins...as in, for our sins. Except for their sin, he would not have died that way. And metaphorically, I can understand he woke up and flew away, leaving his body in the sands of time. And ready to be reborn as he wishes. Consciousness. A coming and a going.
Now let me examine a completely literal version of what you said. Jesus woke up and flew away? How did he do that? Did he flap his arms as a bird? Was it like a big hoover vacuum cleaner sucked him up? Did his body particularize like he was beamed up? Need I keep going on? I need answers.
I dunno.
I dunno.
I dunno.
I dunno what it is I believe exactly?
Then why would you think that?
Truth, that's the point. And no, I can't believe what you don't know what it is exactly that I am to believe.
Tell people what you know. And they will open or close their system...unfortunately, most people don't ask you or themselves any questions or whys.
And what is it that makes one iota which way you believe that? What reward? What penalty? You should be searching for truth. If you want to inherit the kingdom of God, you know the answer Jesus gave us.
Exercise your senses, what seems true to you? That is all the book is asking. Be honest. Ask Questions.
What can you believe or not believe? You really need to be honest with yourself, that way you don't lie to God. He doesn't expect us to know everything.
And I will admit, No, I cannot even imagine that really happening literally...other than Sinners killed Christ and he died because of their sins. He didn't die for sin, but in a way he did. For had they not sinned, he would not have died.
Yet because of Christ, I know God. And I do my best to turn away from sin. He forgave us for our sins. But still, sin remains, Christ forgives you, but you will still die a sinners death. Forgiven, but the penalty for sin remains.
What really matters? What are you looking for? What should we be seeking first? The kingdom of God?
well, you know how to do that...grow some good morals. What does it matter if I don't believe flesh and blood does not float [?] or what? and flew [like Superman?] where exactly? How could that happen? was it like booster rockets?
Don't give me magic.
It is not even reasonable. Am I saying it did not happen? No. I'm saying I don't believe it.
Does it seem reasonable to you?
Give yourself the details why you would believe that literally, I see no reason.
Just exercising the mind, Arac. Maybe I should have read further before posting this.
Point is, it doesn't really matter which way you think...we don't know. That's a fact.
God knows, tell him the truth of what you really think. That's what he is seeking. He is the God of truth. Let him reason with you.
But if you're just doing this for fun: Carry on
After posting such a long post...I'm going to retire for now, it wasn't necessary.
-
Literally, Jesus died because of our sins...as in, for our sins. Except for their sin, he would not have died that way. And metaphorically, I can understand he woke up and flew away, leaving his body in the sands of time. And ready to be reborn as he wishes. Consciousness. A coming and a going.
Now let me examine a completely literal version of what you said. Jesus woke up and flew away? How did he do that? Did he flap his arms as a bird? Was it like a big hoover vacuum cleaner sucked him up? Did his body particularize like he was beamed up? Need I keep going on? I need answers.
I dunno.
I dunno.
I dunno.
I dunno what it is I believe exactly?
Then why would you think that?
Truth, that's the point. And no, I can't believe what you don't know what it is exactly that I am to believe.
Tell people what you know. And they will open or close their system...unfortunately, most people don't ask you or themselves any questions or whys.
And what is it that makes one iota which way you believe that? What reward? What penalty? You should be searching for truth. If you want to inherit the kingdom of God, you know the answer Jesus gave us.
Exercise your senses, what seems true to you? That is all the book is asking. Be honest. Ask Questions.
What can you believe or not believe? You really need to be honest with yourself, that way you don't lie to God. He doesn't expect us to know everything.
And I will admit, No, I cannot even imagine that really happening literally...other than Sinners killed Christ and he died because of their sins. He didn't die for sin, but in a way he did. For had they not sinned, he would not have died.
Yet because of Christ, I know God. And I do my best to turn away from sin. He forgave us for our sins. But still, sin remains, Christ forgives you, but you will still die a sinners death. Forgiven, but the penalty for sin remains.
What really matters? What are you looking for? What should we be seeking first? The kingdom of God?
well, you know how to do that...grow some good morals. What does it matter if I don't believe flesh and blood does not float [?] or what? and flew [like Superman?] where exactly? How could that happen? was it like booster rockets?
Don't give me magic.
It is not even reasonable. Am I saying it did not happen? No. I'm saying I don't believe it.
Does it seem reasonable to you?
Give yourself the details why you would believe that literally, I see no reason.
Just exercising the mind, Arac. Maybe I should have read further before posting this.
Point is, it doesn't really matter which way you think...we don't know. That's a fact.
God knows, tell him the truth of what you really think. That's what he is seeking. He is the God of truth. Let him reason with you.
But if you're just doing this for fun: Carry on
After posting such a long post...I'm going to retire for now, it wasn't necessary.
-
yup.
he did not die, wake up, and fly away.
why can I say this without knowing if the system is open or closed? or how based on me not knowing a whole (or is that Hole) lot?
because I offer a counter claim, one of many, that offers an explanation, mechanism, makes predictions, and, most importantly, is repeatable by any people anywhere? location or time.
claims that have mechanisms, make predictions, and are repeatable are more valid than those that don't.
But the fallacy in question is arguing that every attribute of every component is absolutely true for a system that incorporates that component. Clearly that isn't true because a car is not the same percentage rubber as the tire. It seems like a common sense statement, but Mystic is adamant that it is not true...
I am saying that just because there exist Americans who are pedophiles does not make all America as a whole a pedophile. Mystic is arguing that if you use the "ONENESS", America as a whole is a pedophile. And I cannot get him to explain how he comes to this conclusion...
If you agree with him, though, maybe you can explain it.
-NoCapo
I can't follow your thinking in the first paragraph...maybe in days...or weeks...but...
Consider your body as America or the Universe or God.
If you are a pedophile, your whole body is a pedophile.
Your hands is a pedophile, your legs are guilty, your eyeballs are guilty...otherwise there is no oneness.
Just my thought on that one question.
-
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.
