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.
True, but as I said, I pick and choose what is useful to me, and leave the rest. Methods, practices, communities, etc., can all be of value to me, even if I don't buy all of the metaphysics or other related beliefs.
True, but as I said, I pick and choose what is useful to me, and leave the rest. Methods, practices, communities, etc., can all be of value to me, even if I don't buy all of the metaphysics or other related beliefs.
= taking it out of context
con·text
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
the parts of something that precede and follow and clarify its meaning.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-18-2018 at 11:38 AM..
I get what Gaylenwoof is saying and it's really not taking anything out of context. It's choosing what works for you and ignoring what does not.
A person's spiritual journey is as vast as consciousness. Not all conscience is created equal and thus not all things will resonate the same for everyone.
Gaylen and Trans both have mentioned or wondered about, where on the "spectrum" or "progression" does "non life" phase into and become "life." it doesn't go from "non life" to "life" because back of it all is the "basic stuff" which is "life."
However the life can express in varying levels of complexity, ranging from for instance:
inanimate - rocks, minerals, periodic table of the elements
plant - vegetables, trees, plants, vegetation
animals - insects, animals, birds, rodents, reptiles, fish
humans - human beings
so they don't go from "non life" to "life" they go from "less complex" to "more complex" but it is all "life" because it is all made of the same basic "stuff." sentience and consciousness does not suddenly appear, because it has always been there.
also known as "the end is embedded in the beginning"
yup. I been saying this exact thing for years. Gaia was before me. "living earth" before that. Its all the same thing.
look at the human body as an example. There are clearly areas of non life. the cells are "alive" but not one thing in them is alive.
we classify a cell as "alive" because of the number of interactions we see in that volume. that many interactions leads to what we call life. 'generating waste", there is no reason a larger, more complex life form, can't reuse its waste in other systems within it. We would call it "artifacts", pieces of one thing, like a protein, being reused on another thing, like another protien.
rejection of that idea because one is afraid of the word "god" or being so afraid of religion they will do anything to run away is not totally rational.
I agree that the qualitative does NOT emerge from quantitative.
but rather that quantitative emerges from qualitative.
qualitative precedes quantitative
qualitative "gives rise to" quantitative
"back of" the quantitative is the qualitative
if the foundation or root then is qualitative,
then the basic stuff that makes up all the Universe is qualitative
if the basic stuff of all matter phases in and out of various forms (solid, liquid, gas, wave form, physical, non physical) then the foundation of that process is qualitative
also known as
thought precedes matter
thought gives rise to matter
actually the equation is thought + feeling + yearning -----> gives rise to matter
as you state here qualitative gives rise to quantitative
Here is a post from someone in another thread that addresses this and other areas being discussed in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
... And in the beginning there was word, and word was of god, and god was word?
What is a word? It is an idea. A design. A thought of something.
Human thinking is at the base of anything in the nature. Human thoughts give design templates for everything. Without human thinking, nature would have been an amorphous blob of Substance, not a Matter, organized into various patterns.
A human thought carries a seed, a design of a sort, in it. Thoughts do not disappear. They are as materail, as anything else, only at a different level of materiality. As it was said, they are made of stuff, dreams are made of.
Thoughts "rest" in the realm of the form plane of the physical world. Each bears mark of one that conceived that thought. Thought is "attached" to one that issued it. In this manner, it will be following the issuer through lives and lives, unless thought is resolved by one that issued it. Resolution is called "balancing" a thought.
Thought is resolved by its exteriorization, or manifestation, in a certain form, into material world. It can be exteriorized only in relationship to one, that issued that thought. Means of exteriorization are various. It can be an event, an "accident", an object, anything that somehow influences the thought issuer.
Through a thought exteriorization, one learns. There is no punishment, it is simple learn from experience principle.
That is what can be referred to as "karma". Otherwise, it is known as the Law of Thought:
Everything existing on the physical plane is an exteriorization of a thought which must be adjusted through the one who issued the thought, in accordance with his responsibility and at the conjunction of time, condition, and place.
A thought is a being created by the Conscious Light and desire; and which, when issued, has in it an aim, a potential design, and a balancing factor — which balancing factor, like the needle of a compass point, points to the final balance of the thought as a whole. The thought endures until the balancing factor has brought about an adjustment through the one who issued the thought. The balancing factor causes exteriorizations as long as the thought endures. Whenever the thought, moving in its courses, approaches the physical plane, it causes the one who issued it to be in place for an exteriorization of that thought. An exteriorization can happen only when there is a juncture of time, condition, and place. The laws which control the exteriorization do not always fit in with the intention and expectation of the persons concerned; and the exteriorization is then called an accident. An accident is a perceived physical part of a thought which is proceeding on its otherwise invisible course. The exteriorization makes visible that part of the thought which touches the physical plane and is not yet balanced. The demonstration is made on or through the person who is concerned with the accident.....
"as vast as consciousness". And what volume would you be placing on consciousness? Just how far out does your lucid dreaming take you?
Worry about yourself and use your consciousness to figure it out.
Think about it...how vast have we seen consciousness demonstrated in this world from every living species? If you don't understand then perhaps you need to expand your consciousness until you get it.
Worry about yourself and use your consciousness to figure it out.
Think about it...how vast have we seen consciousness demonstrated in this world from every living species? If you don't understand then perhaps you need to expand your consciousness until you get it.
hmmm, we have you claiming "every living species" have consciousness. interesting.
Do those species exchange information between them? and if they do, what mechanisms do they use? can they exchange "emotion" between themselves? between other species? and if so, could you give me an example of how they do it? whats the mechanism between sender and receiver?
please, start from any atoms within the organism and work your way up to us.
how about plants? do they express "consciousness"? How is that information exchanged between plants? between plants and animals?
Here is a post from someone in another thread that addresses this and other areas being discussed in this thread:
what you are really pointing to here traz, is that in the early universe the volume was small and the complexity was, well, unknown, so its infinite. That notion means it is a very real possibility that it was probably conscious. I mean we can ignore that, but we can't say its not valid.
I like make that notion more empirical because that means anybody, anywhere, can understand it. It basically becomes independent of social influences. It removes the shackles of regional religion. so i am going to do it with your 'gualia god thing."
so how do we do that?
We can limit that word "infinit" to a more manageable number and, in essence, make it empirical. The early universe was a small volume and had an unknown complexity. what does that mean? It means it had more complexity than anyone's "brain", or, indeed, more complexity then all the brains on this planet put together.
we can even make it a smaller volume, and more knowable to people. The notion still fits today in smaller volumes with in the universe. Again, meaning that most people can "see it" no matter where they grew up or what they believe.
the claim: There are smaller regions in space that have more complexity than humans. that's a safe bet, but still not totally empirical for most people. the universe seems to sterilize itself of hadron life.
shrink it once again, to let more people "see it". Shrink the above notions to 50 AU's. where are the interactions and how would we classify that region of space. And ask yourself. "does the net total of the interactions within that volume match life or non life?"
That just showed your qualia arose from a quantivite look. not the other way around. Now, they are both directly involved with the other. They are called "feedback loops". the more "quantitative" stuff interacting, in different ways, the more "qualia" it looks. that's the 'life basic stuff" you allowed to.
well, that/those statements are more valid than the "deny it" or the converse of it, "the early universe was less complex". I mean even the unified field had/will have potential differences ... Or we are not here.
we now toss in maddy's statement of "all living things have consciousness" and grey's "where ever the universe has a "nervous system".
Now i don't do "god", I only do "how the universe works". I can't really say what the whole universe is doing. But anybody can see the biosphere is "living". that "living" produces your qualia", the "qualia" didn't produce the "living". I take anybody and have them point their finger to that approach.
the qualia angle, the only thing I point my figure at is the "known" and seriously problematic "if's" you guys start your lines of logic at.
we say the same thing, but one is anchored in what we do know "quantitive" and the other is anchored in the unknown, "qualia".
we say the same thing, but one is anchored in what we do know "quantitive" and the other is anchored in the unknown, "qualia".
This is backwards. The word 'qualia' references that which we know directly and with absolute certainty. E.g., if you smash your thumb with a hammer, you know the pain directly and with absolute certainty. No one (I hope) can use any sort of logic to convince you that you are not really in pain. If you believe you are in pain, then you are in pain. Even if you are Neo and you are living in the Matrix, nothing changes. If you feel pain, then you feel pain. Period.
Even quantities, like the number 2, are ultimately only known because of the qualitative nature of your experience. Thinking about the number 2 is a qualitatively different experience that thinking about the number 3. This qualitative difference in our direct experience is the basis for how we know that 2 and 3 are different. If you feel the qualitative difference between what it is like to think of the number 2 and what it is like to think of the number 3, then no one (I hope) can use any sort of logic to convince you that 2 and 3 are "the same". You know directly and with absolute certainty that "thinking of the number 2" and "thinking of the number 3" are not the same experience. This is because these experiences are qualitatively different.
The only "unknown" related to qualia is the Hard Problem: "How do qualia emerge from purely objective, quantifiable facts?" Answer: They don't. The "objective quantifiable facts" are never "pure" because we can only know them qualitatively. "Objectivity" is really inter-subjectivity, and "quantities" are always already qualitative in their essence. The difference between 2 and 3 is the qualitative difference in how they are experienced.
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.
