It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If There Were No Consciousness What Would Be The Point Of Material Existence?

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?


To expand on that, according to current quantum theory, without an observer, the universe technically would not exist. As without an observer to collapse the wave function, the "universe" would simply exist as a wave of probability until something/someone finally observes it.


What if the observers that "observe" everything are no long with us, and have been replaced by damaged lifeforms that keep up the charade until someone finds the way back to the first wave.

Or better yet, do not care that everything is slowly degrading, and so have even destroyed the ability of the observers to turn away, a total delusion across every plain, if you may.

This looks like hell, and it is very real , and could easily become all that remains, forever slowly worsening, all because the original programming has been damaged.
Are we the damaged life forms in that scenario? Cause, hey, I resemble that remark....er, resent.




posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: ImaFungi

Interesting, that the most important thing in the universe is being conscious of the universe.

The very thing that some wish to eliminate.



But equally the most important thing is non conscious stuff... A ying yang of sorts. Consciousness needs non conscious stuff, to be made of, and to make with...to be conscious of. And the risky and sketchy statement; non 'consciousness' 'needs' consciousness, because via consciousness is the only way to ever have existing 'point', meaning, purpose, function, knowing, doing,... being.
So the Creator had to create to have something to ponder.


You assume there is a creator. I necessarily, do not.
That's OK. I'll wait for you to catch up. But seriously, do you then feel that something emerged from nothing? Or what exactly?


Believing in a creator has nothing to do with whether or not there is a creator. I can know and do everything you can do, believing in a creator or not, so what is there to catch up to, where are you, what does your belief do for you? Its possible I know much more about reality than you, so, shall you catch up to me there? I have considered the existence of God since I was very young and still do. I dont necessarily think God exists, you dont either. Or you can say you do, but you cant write a single undefeatable statement as to why your conclusion is supported, but I dont need to lemme guess, to know that that is all the more power to you, because you are playing the great game of, you win, you win.

And to answers your question, something emerging from nothing...no, I believe I stated in this thread already what I believe, but here it is again.

1) Something exists. (undeniably true)

2) Somethingness cannot be created or destroyed. (undeniably true)

3) Therefore, Something/somethingness has always existed, and always will.

4) Therefore, it is highly likely, that the primal nature of quantity/energy/substance/stuff/something/somethingness existing, predates, by necessity, the existence of consciousness.

A God could not 'exist' before 'stuff/somethingness' existed. And there are a lot of other claims against an eternally existing God, like the fact it is a very bad contradiction to suppose that its memory in the past is eternal, because the paradox would be that it could never not remember a time it could not remember infinite memories prior to that moment and infinite memories prior to that, ad infinitum, which just defeats itself as a supposition.

I do believe in the abstract nature of the absolute. That is to say, in an abstract way, the totality of all things that have occurred, and all things to come, and all things that did not occur but were possible to occur, as in potential, can totally be compared to one another, in the highest framed perspective, of the totality of all possible information. It is possible that this is the 2354646345235th time a universe like system has existed, and it is possible that over the course of the eternal history of somethingness existing, intelligences formulated, and comprehended the nature of the absolute, a turned themselves immortal somehow, and created this universe or preside over this universe...or something... but they would not be 'the ultimate primal creator of reality', because there is no such thing of that, I am almost sure of.
edit on 2-1-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: ImaFungi

true
so consciousness created matter to observe it.




That would make you feel better about everything wouldnt it? What else can you imagine that would make you feel better about things, have at it, enjoy.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MissSmartypants

JUst yesterday I watched something on Discovery science where this woman has made a formula to calculate the consciousness of anything! It was a show about whether the ocean is alive.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: ImaFungi

Interesting, that the most important thing in the universe is being conscious of the universe.

The very thing that some wish to eliminate.



But equally the most important thing is non conscious stuff... A ying yang of sorts. Consciousness needs non conscious stuff, to be made of, and to make with...to be conscious of. And the risky and sketchy statement; non 'consciousness' 'needs' consciousness, because via consciousness is the only way to ever have existing 'point', meaning, purpose, function, knowing, doing,... being.
So the Creator had to create to have something to ponder.


You assume there is a creator. I necessarily, do not.
That's OK. I'll wait for you to catch up. But seriously, do you then feel that something emerged from nothing? Or what exactly?


Believing in a creator has nothing to do with whether or not there is a creator. I can know and do everything you can do, believing in a creator or not, so what is there to catch up to, where are you, what does your belief do for you? Its possible I know much more about reality than you, so, shall you catch up to me there? I have considered the existence of God since I was very young and still do. I dont necessarily think God exists, you dont either. Or you can say you do, but you cant write a single undefeatable statement as to why your conclusion is supported, but I dont need to lemme guess, to know that that is all the more power to you, because you are playing the great game of, you win, you win.

And to answers your question, something emerging from nothing...no, I believe I stated in this thread already what I believe, but here it is again.

1) Something exists. (undeniably true)

2) Somethingness cannot be created or destroyed. (undeniably true)

3) Therefore, Something/somethingness has always existed, and always will.

4) Therefore, it is highly likely, that the primal nature of quantity/energy/substance/stuff/something/somethingness existing, predates, by necessity, the existence of consciousness.

A God could not 'exist' before 'stuff/somethingness' existed. And there are a lot of other claims against an eternally existing God, like the fact it is a very bad contradiction to suppose that its memory in the past is eternal, because the paradox would be that it could never not remember a time it could not remember infinite memories prior to that moment and infinite memories prior to that, ad infinitum, which just defeats itself as a supposition.

I do believe in the abstract nature of the absolute. That is to say, in an abstract way, the totality of all things that have occurred, and all things to come, and all things that did not occur but were possible to occur, as in potential, can totally be compared to one another, in the highest framed perspective, of the totality of all possible information. It is possible that this is the 2354646345235th time a universe like system has existed, and it is possible that over the course of the eternal history of somethingness existing, intelligences formulated, and comprehended the nature of the absolute, a turned themselves immortal somehow, and created this universe or preside over this universe...or something... but they would not be 'the ultimate primal creator of reality', because there is no such thing of that, I am almost sure of.
Whether one believes in a Creator or not, if one is truly honest with themselves, "almost sure" is as close as we can come. And sorry about the "I'll wait for you to catch up" remark, but its part of the MissSmartypants persona. Your posts have been most informative and you've given me a lot to think about. I appreciate your input. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

i dont understand, why would it make me feel better



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: QueenofWeird

To me, you cannot rule out consciousness in anything until you determine from where consciousness derives and how it is "delivered" (for lack of a better term) to an object.

The day that we would even know how to test for something like that (let alone, develop a test for it in a practical sense) is going to be one of the most interesting days in scientific history. Not to mention religious history.

The most intriguing thing to me is that Buddhism stands alone as the nonreligious religion. BUddhism is a stand alone set of teachings that can dovetail with just about any religion as a "modifier" of sorts. And the thoughts of buddhist thinkers on the subject of consciousness really seem to be relevant because of it.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: QueenofWeird

I suppose the question as to what can be or could be conscious, would depend on the absolute minimum prerequisites of consciousness.

What are the absolute prerequisites?

In our own case, we would say at a minimum, life is a prerequisite...but then we ought to really properly define what qualifies as life, not necessarily for Human / animal kinds of life, but what possible other life systems there could be in the cosmos.

To go back to the question of whether or not the ocean could have consciousness, we could argue that the ocean is a collection of sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, single celled organisms, micro organisms and macro organisms.

Which, when you think about it, is exactly what a Human being is too. IOW, we are not a single entity, but many different organisms working mostly in harmony, that is described by ourselves as 'Human beings'.

We have consciousness (as we comprehend it), and are multi-organismic in nature, just as an ocean is.

If the ocean, or more specifically the multitude of organisms that contribute to the oceanic system, does posses consciousness...would it necessarily follow that it would be the same kind of consciousness as ours or what we think of as it?

Would we recognise 'foreign consciousness' if we were exposed to it, if it were of a different sort to our own?

Maybe not, seeing as we only gauge other systems in comparison to our own familiar Human orientated ones...so it is quite possible the ocean, or indeed any other multi-organismic 'thing' may indeed have a type of consciousness, one that may be completely unrecognisable to us, but present all the same.




edit on 2-1-2015 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

like plants



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Sure...why not.

Like a rock too perhaps.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Being purposeful and that statistically significant would be for me a measure of consciousness.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
youtu.be...



i didnt watch this yet, btw
edit on 023131p://bFriday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
FOUND IT! YEAH!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: QueenofWeird

ty



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: QueenofWeird

I suppose the question as to what can be or could be conscious, would depend on the absolute minimum prerequisites of consciousness.

What are the absolute prerequisites?

In our own case, we would say at a minimum, life is a prerequisite...but then we ought to really properly define what qualifies as life, not necessarily for Human / animal kinds of life, but what possible other life systems there could be in the cosmos.

To go back to the question of whether or not the ocean could have consciousness, we could argue that the ocean is a collection of sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, single celled organisms, micro organisms and macro organisms.

Which, when you think about it, is exactly what a Human being is too. IOW, we are not a single entity, but many different organisms working mostly in harmony, that is described by ourselves as 'Human beings'.

We have consciousness (as we comprehend it), and are multi-organismic in nature, just as an ocean is.

If the ocean, or more specifically the multitude of organisms that contribute to the oceanic system, does posses consciousness...would it necessarily follow that it would be the same kind of consciousness as ours or what we think of as it?

Would we recognise 'foreign consciousness' if we were exposed to it, if it were of a different sort to our own?

Maybe not, seeing as we only gauge other systems in comparison to our own familiar Human orientated ones...so it is quite possible the ocean, or indeed any other multi-organismic 'thing' may indeed have a type of consciousness, one that may be completely unrecognisable to us, but present all the same.



As I postulated earlier it may be that perhaps during the big bang when two quantum particles collided into each other and caused some sort of subsequent reaction...could this be a type of proto-awareness?



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: QueenofWeird

To me, you cannot rule out consciousness in anything until you determine from where consciousness derives and how it is "delivered" (for lack of a better term) to an object.

The day that we would even know how to test for something like that (let alone, develop a test for it in a practical sense) is going to be one of the most interesting days in scientific history. Not to mention religious history.

The most intriguing thing to me is that Buddhism stands alone as the nonreligious religion. BUddhism is a stand alone set of teachings that can dovetail with just about any religion as a "modifier" of sorts. And the thoughts of buddhist thinkers on the subject of consciousness really seem to be relevant because of it.
And yet Buddhism promotes the practice of prayer. I'm not sure if prayer was to be used as a way to change our way of viewing the world or if it was intended to initiate change outside of ourselves.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: QueenofWeird

To me, you cannot rule out consciousness in anything until you determine from where consciousness derives and how it is "delivered" (for lack of a better term) to an object.

The day that we would even know how to test for something like that (let alone, develop a test for it in a practical sense) is going to be one of the most interesting days in scientific history. Not to mention religious history.

The most intriguing thing to me is that Buddhism stands alone as the nonreligious religion. BUddhism is a stand alone set of teachings that can dovetail with just about any religion as a "modifier" of sorts. And the thoughts of buddhist thinkers on the subject of consciousness really seem to be relevant because of it.


Buddhism gets the literal shaft when it's called a religion, it's a science of investigation into the nature of the mind, external world, and the whole universe. There is nothing to believe and even though it gets labeled atheistic, it actually states that the existence or non-existence of a god or gods is moot to our present moment, god doesn't exist until you bring the concept of god into the present moment with conscious thought to do so, which means god is a thought form and has no power in and of itself whatsoever... that a particular god only has the power that those that believe in such a being carries out in the gods name... otherwise god is blind, deaf, dumb and immobile, until those believing in a god, gives god eyes, ears, intelligence and mobility through our own eyes, ears, intelligence and legs... that's the only time a god shows up... is when someone consciously brings a god into the moment.

Imagine your reality takes place in this tiny reply box that after hitting reply becomes a post. Now If I didn't type in god at all when I made this post then no god would exist in that posts reality. As soon as I type god in and hit reply now a god exists. The idea that there is a god or not, means logically and rationally that god is a concept. If god were not a concept then there would be no question or doubt to gods existence would there be? instead we would have debates based on a concept of why a god acts the way it does towards us, when you get a room full of people that dragged god there with them via their own legs then that hive mind can have the debate of why god acts the way god does towards them because to them god exists, I step in and the conceptual debate of the hive falls apart because existence of a god does not matter, because we can forge our own posts or lives including or excluding any god we desire too.

God is merely a concept and idea, and the belief in the concept or idea of a god begs to question well what does this god want for us? So now the idea has more to ponder more to develop as a concept, and as soon as people start believing in the ideas and concepts they have attributed to this god, then they will externalize this mental phantasmic concept, saying it acts on the world at large, and that it is the cause for this that and the other, then of course it is and does... but only can through the individual neophytes belief and body in the name of that god as a vessel for it. If one person does this, it's considered abnormal or crazy, if a whole herd of people do this... it is a religion and "acceptable" behavior if they are the majority.

If god is merely a cause for being and we it's effects, then the opposite must be true... god is an effect of our cause for being. This in and of itself becomes a circular argument but is ultimately moot, unless one walks the life they feel this conceptual god wants and interacts with others in their gods name. This is clearly seen in the concept of krishna, another "creator" god... you are mean to be a vessel for this god and only do what pleases it, in turn giving up your own free will to do so... of course simply believing in the god is not enough to give the god a voice or legs... one can believe in it but keep free will for themselves, doing and acting however they want with some other arch-type like a devil as an excuse for their behavior of not acting as a vessel to carry a god.

Whether a god does or does not exist, is really moot in the world. The concept of god(s) exist, and people give these various gods mouths, ears, and legs which causes effects in the world based on these conceptual god(s). So, a gods existing is moot people think they exist and since this belief affects all of us and the world through their belief... then we might as well say god exists as long as people give this concept of gods legs and arms to carry out the gods ideals and agendas into the world. Of course the problem is, when the ideals of these gods clash with the ideals of other gods or mans own when acting in the world in the gods or owns own behalf.

If we accept a god as a cause then we accept all the effects we see in the world, by or for this god too... then the concept of that god brings peace and war to the world at the same time. If we label nature or science as a reason for being, then we look at the effects of things and try to attribute the cause to whatever is directly effecting it as the cause for this effect, this is a concept as well, but in both belief systems the cause for observed effects is different. The thing that keeps us flying off the planet some attribute to god, some attribute to other gods, some attribute it to gravity, and some attribute it to both a god and gravity a cake and eat it too situation. It is still moot as far as concepts go... whether we attribute not flying off the planet to god, gravity or both, makes no difference... I could say rainbows keep us from flying off the planet as a concept it is just as valid a concept as saying a god or gravity or both causes us to stay put, it wont make any difference... as we will still not fly off the planet no matter what concept or attributes we give it.

The fact is we will not fly off the planet, unless something occurs or we create something that causes us to. So the argument is it a gods doing, gravity's doing, both or neither is moot... because the reality is we will not fly off, that is a known unquestionable effect, the cause for not flying off however is questionable and causes many debates and arguments based on ones choice of belief in the cause. The reality is we will not fly off period, and all the reasons why we may give for this not occurring, does not prevent us from flying off one iota no matter the what why we wish to give it. It just is the case, it is a safe assumption based on experience... "I won't fly off the planet, so nothing to be scared of, alright then... what am I going to do for dinner?" someone else: "Um hey guy... don't you want to know why you don't fly off the planet?" guy: "Is it going to affect my having of dinner?" person: "nope" guy: "then what does it matter? I have dinner to attend to" person: "but it's about god and gravity" guy: "what does a god and gravity have to do with dinner? I eat to survive" Person: "nothing I suppose, but it could be something to ponder when eating" Guy: "no thanks, I would rather enjoy the effort the chef put into flavoring the meal by savoring over it, instead of savioring over it." Person: "you should thank science or god for being able to eat." guy: "what for? the chef made it and I lift the fork"



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: ImaFungi

i dont understand, why would it make me feel better



There is no other reason for you to 'believe' what you stated, other than it makes you feel better. There is no evidence or logical argument that can be made that supports what you stated, other than the fact, that it makes you feel better.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MissSmartypants

All "religions" have the side meant for the initiates, and the side meant for the profane. Prayer is a very typical action of the profane, where one barters with/bargains with their deity in hopes of gaining a special favor.

Prayer is intended as a meditative device. It is intended to help focus the inner self.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?

Way I look at it everything is animate, even the atoms which make us up. However, there're varying amounts of animate. The right mix of animate expresses itself as life. Consciousness is the label we give to our kind of animate. Yet in the strictest sense I believe all things are animate and made of similar materials and processes. So I suppose my view is somewhat compatible with the one given in Colors Of The Wind by Vanessa Williams.

This is hte line of the song which makes me nod:

But I know every rock and tree and creature
Has a life, has a spirit, has a name


I'm not religious about it or fanatical. I don't worship nature. I just feel that all things share common ingredients and patterns. Yes we do not act like rocks because we're lifeforms, but I don't draw hard divisions between life and non-life. It's useful to categorize to identify, but I don't abide to substance dualism - I see no division between mind and physical.
edit on 2-1-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join