No, I have a definition of consciousness and you don't.Perfection said:
I'll get to your other point later tonight.Nice post Taliesin, much clearer than mine.
The Meaning of Life? (Really)
- Thread starter Prince_Imrahil
- Start date
I'll get to your other point later tonight.Nice post Taliesin, much clearer than mine.
Perfection
The Great Head.
The fact that I haven't put down a complete definition doesn't make my argument invalid. You definition is weird and defies common usage.Birdjaguar said:No, I have a definition of consciousness and you don't.
Consciousness should involve thinking and modeling out of reality within ones mind not simple reactions.
I contend that any definition of conciousness that makes rocks concious is a stupid definition!
So we get back to the purpose of life and how “rock consciousness” fits into that picture. Consciousness was embedded into matter at creation (big bang?) and over the life of the universe it has evolved to higher and more complex levels of awareness. The evolution of life brought about greater sense of “individuality” than had been present before. And that individuality took shape as cellular life and multi-cellular life changed over millions of years. But buried in each of those cells is the most basic of stimulus response awareness that preceded the appearance of cells. In fact life is totally dependent upon such simple molecular and atomic “awareness” to function at new higher levels of thought and awareness. I know you don’t like my definition of consciousness as this kind of awareness, but in the absence of a better definition, it will have to do. 
Life’s purpose is the experience of finite (limited) consciousness as the path to experiencing the single consciousness of “god alone is” at which point the separateness of creation disappears. The stimulus response awareness of inanimate matter, such as rocks, is just part of the process like that found in plants and animals. This process is at work throughout the universe, everywhere, all the time. The universe and everything in it is driven to experience the oneness of existence. We are all seekers looking for the peace, unity and love that is veiled by our ego and separateness.
Life’s purpose is the experience of finite (limited) consciousness as the path to experiencing the single consciousness of “god alone is” at which point the separateness of creation disappears. The stimulus response awareness of inanimate matter, such as rocks, is just part of the process like that found in plants and animals. This process is at work throughout the universe, everywhere, all the time. The universe and everything in it is driven to experience the oneness of existence. We are all seekers looking for the peace, unity and love that is veiled by our ego and separateness.
No, your arguement is not invalid, just difficult to talk about without a better description. I fully expect that you are churning all this around and will come up with something. But as Taliesin pointed out so eloquently, it may be a struggle. My definition goes go against common usage, but it also doesn't fall into the traps that traditional definitions do. It is different and that is why you find it distasteful. Think of it as a new type of food. Slimy and likely to cause a gag reflex at first, but over time if you keep trying, you will grow to appreciate it's simple elegance.Perfection said:
Why is that? That would appear to me to be the kind of "a little lower than the angels" thinking that stems from thinking humans are something innately special and more important than the rest of things. Not everyone is as intellectual or as talented as you, be careful not to remake the world in your image.Perfection said:
I am not making rocks conscious like humans are, I'm saying that inanimate matter has a level of "awareness" that is different from human awareness more in degree than in kind. After all stimulus response is at the very basis of our higher level of consciousness.Perfection said:
Perfection
The Great Head.
Birdjaguar said:So we get back to the purpose of life and how “rock consciousness” fits into that picture. Consciousness was embedded into matter at creation (big bang?) and over the life of the universe it has evolved to higher and more complex levels of awareness. The evolution of life brought about greater sense of “individuality” than had been present before. And that individuality took shape as cellular life and multi-cellular life changed over millions of years. But buried in each of those cells is the most basic of stimulus response awareness that preceded the appearance of cells. In fact life is totally dependent upon such simple molecular and atomic “awareness” to function at new higher levels of thought and awareness. I know you don’t like my definition of consciousness as this kind of awareness, but in the absence of a better definition, it will have to do.
Life’s purpose is the experience of finite (limited) consciousness as the path to experiencing the single consciousness of “god alone is” at which point the separateness of creation disappears. The stimulus response awareness of inanimate matter, such as rocks, is just part of the process like that found in plants and animals. This process is at work throughout the universe, everywhere, all the time. The universe and everything in it is driven to experience the oneness of existence. We are all seekers looking for the peace, unity and love that is veiled by our ego and separateness.
Somthing like this Birdjag?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3289434&postcount=15
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Taliesin said:
Imagine a lump of pure Uranium-235. Additional U-235 atoms are added one at a time. At a certain point, the reaction will go critical. A tiny change really can lead to a drastically different outcome. The brain could, for all we know, be like that with regard to consciousness. (Except we know that the brain is anisotropic, unlike the chunk of U-235. But never mind that, the point remains that highly nonlinear processes, where a tiny change makes a huge difference, are possible.)
On the other hand, consider baldness. I'm bald, but that doesn't mean that there are no hairs on my head. Now if I start using Rogaine in a tiny patch, and gradually make the patch bigger, does there have to be some magic number of hairs that makes me not bald? Don't be ridiculous. The fact that some people are borderline cases doesn't remove the clearcut difference between me and the guy in the next room. Dusk and dawn happen, but the difference between night and day is like, well, the difference between night and day.
Yeah Yeah Yeah, pick out the one throw away sentence in the post and ignore the rest. I should know better by now.Perfection said:
But the amount of light is the only difference. For those things for which light is not important, they are the same.Ayatollah So said:Dusk and dawn happen, but the difference between night and day is like, well, the difference between night and day.
@Ayatollah: Your baldness argument is easily met by taking even a moderately nominalist position. If "bald" is a word we use to describe various people who lack hair to some degree (and I think it is), rather than an intrinsic trait, then obviously the cutoff point is merely conventional or personal. But I don't think you want to say that "consciousness" is just a word that conventionally separates us from the statues which adoring nations will one day carve in our images.
I like your other metaphor, though, especially since it causes problems for Birdjaguar but not for me.
I like your other metaphor, though, especially since it causes problems for Birdjaguar but not for me.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Birdjaguar
Your 'gaia universe theory' (or whatever you'd call it) sounds nice and all, but what is it based on aside from philisophical speculation?
Your 'gaia universe theory' (or whatever you'd call it) sounds nice and all, but what is it based on aside from philisophical speculation?
Taliesin said:I like your other metaphor, though, especially since it causes problems for Birdjaguar but not for me.
The appearance of a "night and day" difference between day and night is because of constraints on our senses and a dependence upon visible light. If we could see in radio waves day and night might disappear.
One end of my consciousness scale appears to be very different from the other. The awareness and ability to respond is different as you move along it, but that is due to the layers of filters around the entities. For example let's say a virus has ten layers of "stuff" separating it from exeriencing Reality as it actually is. Fish 8. Dogs 6 and people 3. The "night and day" difference between viruses and people is all about adding or taking away layers of limitations much like day and night are differentiated by the amount of light available. More light illuminates a tree differently than less light, but the tree is still the same.
Whew!
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Taliesin said:
I don't buy the apparent implication: that there are two classes of truths, and that the fact of my baldness is one of the lesser kind. To your moderate nominalism, I prefer a position you can feel free to call "realism on the cheap." With the somewhat arguable exception of tautologies, all truths involve both word and world. "Snow is white" is true iff snow is white; note the bidirectionality of the iff. Likewise "the speed of light is greater than the speed of sound" is true iff the speed of light is greater than the speed of sound, and "Paul is bald" is true iff Paul is bald. There's no invidious distinction to be drawn.
To understand whether a statement is true you need to know (in a rough and ready way) what the words mean. This goes equally for the most "purely objective" statement and the most "conventional" statement you can muster.
