badpuppy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material? And immaterial. Let's not forget that little bit of fact. When was the last time you saw a thought laying on the table, or an idea, or a value, or a like, or a dislike? Those are real, last I experienced any of them. How about an apple? Have you ever seen one in nature? No... I don't mean the fruit the word apple represents, but an a-p-p-l-e as something that objectively exists outside of your mind as a real material object. That doesn't exist in the so-called *real* world. Yet, as I typed the word, and you read it, that string of letters came out of my mind and into yours, evoking an experience that was real. You saw a fruit in your mind, and experienced that fruit - that fruit that was not physical. It was not material, yet fully real for you. You experienced it. And why react negatively to people who would expect that reasonable people who live in the exact same world should conclude the same? It seems perfectly natural to me. :[ It seems reasonable to me that we all recognize that not everything in life can be explained or understood by examining it a material, like understanding intentions, desires, dreams, hopes, etc. It seems perfectly reasonable to me - reasonableness, another non-material reality. Do you react negatively to those who can't see the world as strictly material or reducible to the material? re: thoughts lying on a table. I keep all my thoughts stacked in neat color-coded boxes in my closet. It makes them easier to organize and reshuffle. Periodically I go through and burn the stupid ones in a bonfire in my backyard. Sometimes the neighbors come over and bring their own discarded thoughts. We roast marshmallows afterward. Oh, and hopes and dreams are special thoughts, so I keep those in a lock box in the attic. I thought everybody did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material? And immaterial. Let's not forget that little bit of fact. When was the last time you saw a thought laying on the table, or an idea, or a value, or a like, or a dislike? Those are real, last I experienced any of them. How about an apple? Have you ever seen one in nature? No... I don't mean the fruit the word apple represents, but an a-p-p-l-e as something that objectively exists outside of your mind as a real material object. That doesn't exist in the so-called *real* world. Yet, as I typed the word, and you read it, that string of letters came out of my mind and into yours, evoking an experience that was real. You saw a fruit in your mind, and experienced that fruit - that fruit that was not physical. It was not material, yet fully real for you. You experienced it. Apples qua apples? More like apples and oranges. And how does my own thought exist outside my mind if I'm the one thinking it? Thought: One dry, decadent morning, an apple slept lazily above Newton, dreaming of oranges. The old man muttered a word and the apple jerked, twisting in midair, suddenly awakened to the sun, and the oranges burst to nothing. "Her mind is her brain. The brain is a biological machine for thinking. If it wasn't for the merely technical problem of understanding how it works, we could make one out of -- beer cans. It would be the size of a stadium but it would sit there, going, 'I think, therefore, I am.'" And why react negatively to people who would expect that reasonable people who live in the exact same world should conclude the same? It seems perfectly natural to me. :[ It seems reasonable to me that we all recognize that not everything in life can be explained or understood by examining it a material, like understanding intentions, desires, dreams, hopes, etc. It seems perfectly reasonable to me - reasonableness, another non-material reality. Do you react negatively to those who can't see the world as strictly material or reducible to the material? I guess it depends. I react negatively when people cite ghosts when the temperature in the room drops or when the cat bolts under the bed; when people pray to a god and then interpret what happens next as the answer; when people say that everything happens for a reason; and when constantine thinks he sees a cross in the clouds and decides an entire empire should convert. These are the kinds of things I'm not even ok with hearing at anything more than a polite distance of, say, brief acquaintance. Otherwise, I may be prone to an involuntary eye roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 re: thoughts lying on a table. I keep all my thoughts stacked in neat color-coded boxes in my closet. It makes them easier to organize and reshuffle. Periodically I go through and burn the stupid ones in a bonfire in my backyard. Sometimes the neighbors come over and bring their own discarded thoughts. We roast marshmallows afterward. Oh man, there's way too many thoughts, how big is your closet? I keep mine in cardboard boxes with the tops open so I can walk by and glace at what's inside, so I know which box to dig through. I keep them in a big warehouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 "Her mind is her brain. The brain is a biological machine for thinking. If it wasn't for the merely technical problem of understanding how it works, we could make one out of -- beer cans. It would be the size of a stadium but it would sit there, going, 'I think, therefore, I am.'" I don't believe the mind is the brain and I also don't believe you can prove it. It's merely an assertion from your materialistic assumption. I eagerly await your beer can brain. Please let me know when it is ready and I can have a rational conversation with it and observe its emotional state. I guess it depends. I react negatively when people cite ghosts when the temperature in the room drops or when the cat bolts under the bed; when people pray to a god and then interpret what happens next as the answer; when people say that everything happens for a reason; and when constantine thinks he sees a cross in the clouds and decides an entire empire should convert. These are the kinds of things I'm not even ok with hearing at anything more than a polite distance of, say, brief acquaintance. Otherwise, I may be prone to an involuntary eye roll. I don't believe in ghosts. I also can't say that I really appreciate my view being reduced to "ghosts". Great philosophers have asked these questions. Some have come to the POV I have, others have come to other POV's, including the materialistic assumption, but to behave as if it's childish to hold a different point of view about a question that has been seriously considered by philosophers throughout the ages indicates to me that for all the science you may know, you don't seem to have supplemented it with much philosophical understanding, which seems a little unbalanced to me. I also don't "pray" to "god". Materialists think everything happens for a reason. It's called determinism. My name isn't Constantine. I don't believe he saw a cross in those clouds, anyway. I think it's far more likely he saw a brilliant way to control and terrorize people and used it. Oh dear! Not an eye roll. I'm sorry you must suffer so. eye rolling can be such a bother. Maybe sarcasm isn't helpful here, but you aren't the only one who gets frustrated by these sorts of exchanges. The difference is... my issue isn't your materialism, it's your smug certainty that you are "right". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badpuppy Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 re: thoughts lying on a table. I keep all my thoughts stacked in neat color-coded boxes in my closet. It makes them easier to organize and reshuffle. Periodically I go through and burn the stupid ones in a bonfire in my backyard. Sometimes the neighbors come over and bring their own discarded thoughts. We roast marshmallows afterward. Oh man, there's way too many thoughts, how big is your closet? I keep mine in cardboard boxes with the tops open so I can walk by and glace at what's inside, so I know which box to dig through. I keep them in a big warehouse. My closet is endless. It's a magic closet. But a warehouse is a good idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 "Her mind is her brain. The brain is a biological machine for thinking. If it wasn't for the merely technical problem of understanding how it works, we could make one out of -- beer cans. It would be the size of a stadium but it would sit there, going, 'I think, therefore, I am.'" I don't believe the mind is the brain and I also don't believe you can prove it. It's merely an assertion from your materialistic assumption. I eagerly await your beer can brain. Please let me know when it is ready and I can have a rational conversation with it and observe its emotional state. I guess it depends. I react negatively when people cite ghosts when the temperature in the room drops or when the cat bolts under the bed; when people pray to a god and then interpret what happens next as the answer; when people say that everything happens for a reason; and when constantine thinks he sees a cross in the clouds and decides an entire empire should convert. These are the kinds of things I'm not even ok with hearing at anything more than a polite distance of, say, brief acquaintance. Otherwise, I may be prone to an involuntary eye roll. I don't believe in ghosts. I also can't say that I really appreciate my view being reduced to "ghosts". Great philosophers have asked these questions. Some have come to the POV I have, others have come to other POV's, including the materialistic assumption, but to behave as if it's childish to hold a different point of view about a question that has been seriously considered by philosophers throughout the ages indicates to me that for all the science you may know, you don't seem to have supplemented it with much philosophical understanding, which seems a little unbalanced to me. I also don't "pray" to "god". Materialists think everything happens for a reason. It's called determinism. My name isn't Constantine. I don't believe he saw a cross in those clouds, anyway. I think it's far more likely he saw a brilliant way to control and terrorize people and used it. Oh dear! Not an eye roll. I'm sorry you must suffer so. eye rolling can be such a bother. Maybe sarcasm isn't helpful here, but you aren't the only one who gets frustrated by these sorts of exchanges. The difference is... my issue isn't your materialism, it's your smug certainty that you are "right". None of my response was directed at you, I was just responding to Antlerman. I happen to know a woman who believes in ghosts and is always mentioning them. The other stuff is my personal experiences with people and ideas. You see? It's not about you. At all. As with the dreaming apple, all you have to do is cut open the brain to watch the mind burst into nothing. Dependency = my point. Once again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yrth Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I don't believe in ghosts. I also can't say that I really appreciate my view being reduced to "ghosts". How dare you take that superior tone of voice toward the ghost hypothesis. Don't you have any assumptions of your own? What makes your silly beliefs superior to theirs?! Just respect their beliefs, goddammit! When you get going on this subject, bp, what I hear is a defense of Christianity. "You can't prove life-is-a-dream/god isn't true / doesn't exist, so that makes you arrogant to think that you're right." That has 0 mileage with me, ok, in all its forms, not just when deployed in defense of the christian religion. That idea can go fuck itself in a back room, its caused so much wasted time and suffering I really won't mind its passing. Imo, Spinoza should have stuck to grinding glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 How many mysteries need natural solutions before we can all safely conclude that the most reasonable, objective characterization of the world is that it's material? And immaterial. Let's not forget that little bit of fact. When was the last time you saw a thought laying on the table, or an idea, or a value, or a like, or a dislike? Those are real, last I experienced any of them. How about an apple? Have you ever seen one in nature? No... I don't mean the fruit the word apple represents, but an a-p-p-l-e as something that objectively exists outside of your mind as a real material object. That doesn't exist in the so-called *real* world. Yet, as I typed the word, and you read it, that string of letters came out of my mind and into yours, evoking an experience that was real. You saw a fruit in your mind, and experienced that fruit - that fruit that was not physical. It was not material, yet fully real for you. You experienced it. Apples qua apples? More like apples and oranges. And how does my own thought exist outside my mind if I'm the one thinking it? What does this have to do with what I illustrated? You don't follow this? No wonder you think mind=brain. How is what I am saying suggest your thought literally exists outside your mind, in the sense of some disembodied entity? I'm talking about the non-material nature of the domain of mind. That symbolic reality you experience is not physical. When was the last time you saw a value walking around outside in the physical world? "Her mind is her brain. The brain is a biological machine for thinking. If it wasn't for the merely technical problem of understanding how it works, we could make one out of -- beer cans. It would be the size of a stadium but it would sit there, going, 'I think, therefore, I am.'" Bald assertions. 'The mind is her brain' is your opinion, nothing more. An opinion, in my opinion, that falls flat facing the facts. Yes, of course the brain is a biological machine for thinking. No dispute. But the domain of mind is not physical. It is not biological. It is a mental reality that can only be understood within the mental domain itself. You can no more understand Hamlet through science than you can know me by studying my brain. You have to engage your mind in interpretation of mind. You ask how your thought exists outside yours? Through the use of non-physical symbolism, taking your thought and putting it into my head. Exactly what is happening through the use of all these letters in what I am typing from my mind to yours. Of course, how well that is received and interpreted is a factor of knowledge, history, understanding, language abilities, and a very, very long list of factors. Clearly what I said before failed to enter your mind a successfully as I hoped. BTW, Is your body atoms? The mind is brain in the same way the body is atoms. You don't understand your body through looking at atoms, do you?? And why react negatively to people who would expect that reasonable people who live in the exact same world should conclude the same? It seems perfectly natural to me. :[ It seems reasonable to me that we all recognize that not everything in life can be explained or understood by examining it a material, like understanding intentions, desires, dreams, hopes, etc. It seems perfectly reasonable to me - reasonableness, another non-material reality. Do you react negatively to those who can't see the world as strictly material or reducible to the material? I guess it depends. I react negatively when people cite ghosts when the temperature in the room drops or when the cat bolts under the bed; when people pray to a god and then interpret what happens next as the answer; when people say that everything happens for a reason; and when constantine thinks he sees a cross in the clouds and decides an entire empire should convert. These are the kinds of things I'm not even ok with hearing at anything more than a polite distance of, say, brief acquaintance. Otherwise, I may be prone to an involuntary eye roll. What on earth does anything I am saying have to do with ghosts? Nothing. Strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 And immaterial. Let's not forget that little bit of fact. When was the last time you saw a thought laying on the table, or an idea, or a value, or a like, or a dislike? Those are real, last I experienced any of them. The problem with many is they run with this and end up equivocating. Ideas are immaterial -- magic too is outside the material world, magic or something like might exist. YOU don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 And immaterial. Let's not forget that little bit of fact. When was the last time you saw a thought laying on the table, or an idea, or a value, or a like, or a dislike? Those are real, last I experienced any of them. The problem with many is they run with this and end up equivocating. Ideas are immaterial -- magic too is outside the material world, magic or something like might exist. YOU don't know. The problem with many as well is that they take this and say that since magic is immaterial, so therefore only the material is real. It doesn't change the fact that the mental-phenomenal world is not material. What needs to happen is a realitist discussion, not a reductionistic one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The problem with many as well is that they take this and say that magic since is immaterial, so therefore only the material is real. Maybe, but I don't know a single scientist who would deny the validity of psychology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 My answer: process, not just matter. State of matter is not enough, but it's matter and process together. Process requires matter though. So my understanding here is that "reductionist" and "materialists" tries to answer everything in components of matter. Therefore, process is constantly overlooked. I have problem seeing "mind" to exist outside and independent of matter. If that was true, then there a many medical conditions that shouldn't exist, yet they do, alzheimer's, short-term memory loss, aphasia, behavior of split-brain patients, and much more. People change behavior and personality from chemical changes or injuries to their brains. Memories lost. Old memories triggered with stimuli. All of it points to a direct connection between the brain and the mind. So the most natural explanation is that "mind" emerges from "brain." The only other explanation I could see, and to incorporate a "spirit" or "soul" mind outside the body, would be if the brain is merely a radio for the "mind" that exists somewhere else. Let's say our "mind" is part of the akashic record. And our physical brain is only a receiver/transmitter between that "mind" and this physical world. This still means that we should be able to reproduce a brain, just another mind-radio, of any kind of matter or composition (tube radios and silicon based radios both work for the same purpose), and restore a person's mind/memory/experience/personality. One way of proving this hypothesis would be to create a virtual brain. And if this was true, then "ghosts" would be just mind-radio-signals that are lost in the "ether." One problem though, how does a "mind" collect itself into just one mind, why not an infinite multitude of minds all fighting for the same brain? Are each brain "tuned" to our own private and personal frequency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The problem with many as well is that they take this and say that magic since is immaterial, so therefore only the material is real. Maybe, but I don't know a single scientist who would deny the validity of psychology. It depends on the scientist, whether or not they themselves are actually materialists. Determinism for instance negates the domain of the mental, reducing it to mere brain function. Even though most scientists themselves aren't as overtly Postivistic as in the past (that's not to say it's still not popular with the masses as is evidenced in this thread), there is still a subtle reductionism that places the mental sphere in an inferior level to the physical sciences. So-called "soft sciences" are the bane of the "hard sciences". Hard-core empericists look down their noses as things like psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Much like saying "mind is brain". Reductionism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 The problem with many as well is that they take this and say that magic since is immaterial, so therefore only the material is real. Maybe, but I don't know a single scientist who would deny the validity of psychology. Determinism for instance negates the domain of the mental, reducing it to mere brain function. Actually, no. Determinism does not reduce it to matter and/or physical components only. I think you're mixing up materialism and determinism. Determinism most definitely includes the sequence of events as well, at least in chaos theory. Even though most scientists themselves aren't as overtly Postivistic as in the past (that's not to say it's still not popular with the masses as is evidenced in this thread), there is still a subtle reductionism that places the mental sphere in an inferior level to the physical sciences. So-called "soft sciences" are the bane of the "hard sciences". Hard-core empericists look down their noses as things like psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Much like saying "mind is brain". Reductionism. And there are plenty of scientists who combine and see the interlinking effects between biology, physics, chemistry, psychology, sociology, and even economics. I will look for some book titles later today, to give some examples of the new fields of research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Even though most scientists themselves aren't as overtly Postivistic as in the past (that's not to say it's still not popular with the masses as is evidenced in this thread), there is still a subtle reductionism that places the mental sphere in an inferior level to the physical sciences. So-called "soft sciences" are the bane of the "hard sciences". Hard-core empericists look down their noses as things like psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. Much like saying "mind is brain". Reductionism. And there are plenty of scientists who combine and see the interlinking effects between biology, physics, chemistry, psychology, sociology, and even economics. I will look for some book titles later today, to give some examples of the new fields of research. My fuller quote did say it depends on the scientist. I know there are many who do as you point out. I'm qualifying this as your hard-core empericist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So my understanding here is that "reductionist" and "materialists" tries to answer everything in components of matter. But is that really true or is that just a strawman of mainstream scientists? I think they all recognize process as well as the validity of human/animal psychology and words like materialism are on par with the the way creationists bandy the noun evolutionist. What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 My fuller quote did say it depends on the scientist. I know there are many who do as you point out. I'm qualifying this as your hard-core empericist. I missed your fuller quote. My point is, you said, "What needs to happen is a realitist discussion, not a reductionistic one" earlier, and my answer is "it's starting to happening." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So my understanding here is that "reductionist" and "materialists" tries to answer everything in components of matter. But is that really true or is that just a strawman of mainstream scientists? My "definition" there is a conclusion of the discussion in this thread, but personally, I believe it is an oversimplification and a labeling of scientists. I think they all recognize process as well as the validity of human/animal psychology and words like materialism are on par with the the way creationists bandy the noun evolutionist. I believe so too. My "agreement" there was just to connect to the consensus was in this thread. I'm sure there are plenty of vulgar materialists and hard-core reductionists, but I don't think it's true of all of them, or even many of them. I'm trying to bring in a little compassion and tolerance towards scientists in general in this thread. There's obviously a very strong aversion towards "scientists" and that they are in denial of the "bigger" picture of things. What am I missing? Not much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 My fuller quote did say it depends on the scientist. I know there are many who do as you point out. I'm qualifying this as your hard-core empericist. I missed your fuller quote. My point is, you said, "What needs to happen is a realitist discussion, not a reductionistic one" earlier, and my answer is "it's starting to happening." I agree, amongst scientists. In discussions like this however, in the popluar domains, materialism is still the popular belief. Systems theory, the complexity sciences, etc are still however in their own ways reductionistic. They are about analyzing everything in behaviorist means or component interactions, or components themselves. It is the subjective mind analyizing the objective world. Any science that looks at behavior for instance is analyizing the surfaces. That same method cannot be used to understand mind as mind. It frankly is the easier task to anaylyize the surface features, rather than the internal landscapes. And to be certain, those internal landscapes impact the external, and vise versa. I guess I'm making a distinction between a gross reductionism which reduces everything down to the individual components - atomism in another word, and a subtle reductionsism which reduces the world to processes and systems theory. It's still the external half only using subjective mind to understand objective reality. My point is there is also subjective reality, and mind to mind creates and entire domain in and of itself that cannot be pentrated using the tools of sensibilia, which is in fact what the emperic-analytic sciences do. Once that is established and recognized, then we can address higher domains, such as your "non-local consciousness" that OM suggested at the outset of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Cool, I'm understanding your position more now Hans. Still wildy confused with AM's position, but that's also par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Cool, I'm understanding your position more now Hans. Still wildy confused with AM's position, but that's also par for the course. Hopefully my last post sheds a little more light. It's a start for discussion at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Cool, I'm understanding your position more now Hans. Still wildy confused with AM's position, but that's also par for the course. Hopefully my last post sheds a little more light. It's a start for discussion at least. The big picture of science makes sense to me, but I can get lost in the mechanics. Sometimes I just have to follow along until the lightbulb turns on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 My fuller quote did say it depends on the scientist. I know there are many who do as you point out. I'm qualifying this as your hard-core empericist. I missed your fuller quote. My point is, you said, "What needs to happen is a realitist discussion, not a reductionistic one" earlier, and my answer is "it's starting to happening." I agree, amongst scientists. In discussions like this however, in the popluar domains, materialism is still the popular belief. YES. I think you're right. I was thinking about that also when I was away from the keyboard. The magazines and news media distort many research results. We had some examples mentioned when I took one of the anthropology classes. Systems theory, the complexity sciences, etc are still however in their own ways reductionistic. They are about analyzing everything in behaviorist means or component interactions, or components themselves. It is the subjective mind analyizing the objective world. Any science that looks at behavior for instance is analyizing the surfaces. That same method cannot be used to understand mind as mind. It frankly is the easier task to anaylyize the surface features, rather than the internal landscapes. And to be certain, those internal landscapes impact the external, and vise versa. Here's the kicker though. When you analyze how they analyze things, you are also using reductionism. You, yourself, have the risk of falling into the "reduction" trap when you look at how science works and forget to look at a wider picture. Some parts of science must be based on reducing the problem. It's like cooking. When you heat the food, you will lose mass. A red-wine reduction sauce is... a reduction of volume (and mass). For science to work, you must break it to parts and consider parts by themselves, and then together, and see it from many different perspectives. That is how science works. How else should it work? Guess, and then conclude from feelings? Every thought you have is a reduction of reality. We all do it, all the time, with everything. That's how this dialogue works at this very moment. I guess I'm making a distinction between a gross reductionism which reduces everything down to the individual components - atomism in another word, and a subtle reductionsism which reduces the world to processes and systems theory. It's still the external half only using subjective mind to understand objective reality. My point is there is also subjective reality, and mind to mind creates and entire domain in and of itself that cannot be pentrated using the tools of sensibilia, which is in fact what the emperic-analytic sciences do. I'm not sure I understood the last part you said, but I think I know what you meant to say. The complaint against reductionism and materialism is that they would be based on the idea that only the physical parts are important and the "networking" is not. And if that's what they stand for, then yes, then they fail. But I think a lot of people have small variations on how they define those words. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what they include or exclude in their definitions. Once that is established and recognized, then we can address higher domains, such as your "non-local consciousness" that OM suggested at the outset of this thread. Right. There's one thing that I heard some years ago, and I think I've mentioned it before (perhaps in this thread), that since consciousness did arise in this universe, we can at least conclude that the potential for consciousness is a existing property of the universe itself. Not that the universe is conscious, but that the universe contains the potential to bring forth conscious beings. With that in mind, we can't know what other kinds of consciousness are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Cool, I'm understanding your position more now Hans. Still wildy confused with AM's position, but that's also par for the course. Thank you. I think AM and I probably have a very close position, but we're just using different language to communicate it. The same with Legion. You and I have very similar way of expressing ourselves, that's why we tend to "get" each other faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 For science to work, you must break it to parts and consider parts by themselves, and then together, and see it from many different perspectives. That is how science works. How else should it work? Guess, and then conclude from feelings? That is a pretty good summary of my own thoughts on this issue. I think AM and I probably have a very close position, but we're just using different language to communicate it. The same with Legion. I've suspected as much also, though my left brain often hears alarm bells when AM in particular is expressing his thoughts in his language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts