You are the god particle!!, page 10

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by sirnex
It's called reading comprehension. I do not agree with the OP in any way, shape or form.

It's called hypocrite. You failed reading comprehension so bad that you don't even know that you agree with the OP in many ways. It's actually funny you don't even realize it...

Originally posted by sirnex
His assertion is that life is the 'higgs boson' and that without life there would be no universe.

Ok think about that DEEPER than you are now... because you are failing...

Now think about it.... if the Higgs Boson exists and it does give mass to all matter, then without it, the universe would not exist the way it does now, and probably wouldn't exist at all.

So logically, without the Higgs Boson, our life, and plant life, and all life wouldn't exist. Neither would the universe as we know it because nothing would have mass, and the universe probably wouldn't have come into being without mass.

So when he says Higgs Boson = Life... technically, it does. However, MANY things equal life, not just the Higgs Boson.

Then when he said "without life, the universe wouldn't exist", I can interpret that many ways.. However the most simple way is the best...

Life has many definitions. It is safe to say that without life and its many definitions the universe probably wouldn't even exist "as we know it". Go ahead and click the link to the definition of life, and image the universe existing without each definition.

Originally posted by sirnex
I've disagreed with that assertion due to the logical fallacy element of his argumentation.

It really isn't a logical fallacy, but it can be viewed as one if your mind lacks the ability to see that far. You lack the ability to see the connections.... it's very sad.

Originally posted by sirnex
There is no logic in there at all. His logic goes something like this:

An orange is a sphere

A ball is a sphere

The sun is a sphere

Therefore the ball is both an orange and a sun and this should be evident due to:

orange < ball > sun : What is in the middle? The ball is in the middle, so the ball is both!

See, no logic, just stupidity.

The OP has said nothing like that... you are just exaggerating the definition of a fallacy that you read on the internet. You are actually insulting yourself by admitting you don't understand what he is saying.

From what I have gathered, the OP has been trying to explain our place in this universe, and explain it from the macrocosm and microcosm perspective. Do you know anything about such perspective? It surely seems like you dont...

Macrocosm and microcosm is an ancient Greek schema of seeing the same patterns reproduced in all levels of the cosmos, from the largest scale (macrocosm or universe-level) all the way down to the smallest scale (microcosm or sub-sub-atomic or even metaphysical-level).

It seems you missed the point.. and was more focused on denying something that obviously is too complex for you to fathom.

Either that or you are an atheist with his head in the dark hole located in the rear.

Originally posted by sirnex

Anyway, let me ask you some questions:

Are you a part of the Universe?

Are you conscious?

Just a simple yes or no will do.

You will garner no yes or no answer as your attempting a correlation proves causation argument. That is a logical fallacy as is explained with the above example.

You can't even answer simple yes or no questions..... that is pathetic.

Then you lie and call it a "correlation proves causation argument" because you lack the mental ability to understand the universe and your place in it.

It is really simple logic.... REALLY....

Are you a part of the universe? Yes you are. You can't deny it... you are a small part of the entire universe....

Do you have consciousness? Yes, you do (I hope). I believe I do.. I fit the definition of conscious...

Do you know what that means? The universe is conscious. This is not any type of correlation, this is pure FACT. I am small part of the universe, and I am conscious, that means a small part of the universe is conscious! Go figure, I just proved it....... and you will probably deny it.

Yeah, I just proved the universe is conscious..... funny. I might be the first person in history to connect those dots.....

I'd like to see you deny that you are a part of the universe, and you are conscious, that will be funny.

reply to post by ALLis0NE

---

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Do you have consciousness? Yes, you do (I hope). I believe I do.. I fit the definition of conscious...

Do you know what that means? The universe is conscious. This is not any type of correlation, this is pure FACT. I am small part of the universe, and I am conscious, that means a small part of the universe is conscious! Go figure, I just proved it....... and you will probably deny it.

Even if your mind is conscious, it doesn't mean that your arm is such. The universe as a whole is hardly conscious. I agree that the parts of it may be. I would rephrase your statement: "The universe is partially consciuous". You seem to admit that in the later part of the quote above.

Please define conscious and consciousness? Are they awareness? Self-awereness perhaps?

This table is part of universe, but I can hardly find it conscious. The rocks, soil, water, the space; which all together constitute the main part of the visible universe - are hardly conscious.

-v

reply to post by 13579

---

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by v01i0

---

lol sheesh god complex says the person with the star of david in his avatar

Umm star of david. Where? The symbol in my avatar is called Enneagram. This is Star of David.

I hope that your knowledge about Higgs Boson exceeds your knowledge about the symbols and mathematics:

Originally posted by 13579
Now if we take into account we are made from the "99.9999" space what is the 1.1111 %?

-v

[edit on 17-12-2009 by v01i0]

Even some quantum physicists are willing to concede that the universe is probably magical. That what is holding the entire creation together is some immeasurable thought--right down to e tiniest detected sub atomic particles.Check this out; www.youtube.com...

reply to post by v01i0

---

Even if your mind is conscious, it doesn't mean that your arm is such.

hahaha wooooowzor1!!!!!

that blew my mind it really did hahaha

reply to post by v01i0

---

join the bottom of you avatar kid..

Point is .. and let me say this again so the people who can not get the heads round what im saying...

YOU WAS CREATED "FACT"

LIFE WAS CREATED "FACT"

YOU LIVE ON A PLANET "FACT"

THE UNIVERSE HAS NO SHAPE "FACT"

YOU ARE MADE FROM ATOMS / SMALLER "FACT"

YOUR BODY HAS BOTH SCALE AND AWARENESS OF ITS SELF

Now what part of you are the THING that connects them?

is your mindset that only HUMANS connect with this "matter problem"???

LIFE is not RESTRICTED to being HUMAN its gives rise to EVERY LIVING THING ON THIS PLANET

SO WHAT IS LIFE?

WHAT MAKES LIFE SPECIAL???

because without this FORCE we call LIFE "do not confuse with living"

THERE IS NO UNIVERSE TO OBSERVE

once you are DEAD you do not OBSERVE OUR UNIVERSE THE SAME WAY SOMEONE DOES WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE "FACT"

So what is the LOGICAL OUTCOME?

BEING ALIVE GIVES RISE TO THINGS LIKE INFINITY

why is INFINITY IMPORTANT? because ITS YOUR OWN REFLECTION

HOW CAN YOU MESURE A LIFETIME IF YOUR THE ONE OBSERVING IT? if that was the CASE you woul PREDICT YOUR OWN DEATH

SUPPER SMALL < a human is made from both > SUPPER BIG

WE CONNECT THE DOTS / LIFE connects the DOTS

LIFE is the GOD PARTICAL and WE was created BY life SO we are THE GOD PARTICAL

did that help?

that was for sirex and his pall who lack LOGIC

thank you for the rest who took the time to read and understand what it WAS i was pointing out.

and all my evidence is based on FACTS not THEORY

reply to post by ALLis0NE

---

correct and by us observing it we create mass..

quantom physics 101.

reply to post by sirnex

---

His assertion is that life is the 'higgs boson' and that without life there would be no universe.

Ok let me try again... /me bangs head on a wall...

If life was not in the known universe how would you know there was a universe?

are you really that dens?

LIFE is the observer, you know like the little electron? once viwed changes just like when we view electons they change?

THATS HOW WE GOT QUANTOM PHYSICS

im telling YOU once LIFE was or created "beings" THAT IS WHEN MASS CAME INTO BEING

You can not have one without the other..

If you was dead would you argue there was a universe?

the only reason MATTER IS HERE is because YOU make it SO

without YOU there is no MATTER unless you know something i DONT.



[edit on 17-12-2009 by 13579]


<<<<<<<<<<< YOU CREATE MATTER BY THE VERY OBSERVATION OF IT >>>>>>>>>



[edit on 17-12-2009 by 13579]

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by ALLis0NE

---

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Do you have consciousness? Yes, you do (I hope). I believe I do.. I fit the definition of conscious...

Do you know what that means? The universe is conscious. This is not any type of correlation, this is pure FACT. I am small part of the universe, and I am conscious, that means a small part of the universe is conscious! Go figure, I just proved it....... and you will probably deny it.

Even if your mind is conscious, it doesn't mean that your arm is such. The universe as a whole is hardly conscious. I agree that the parts of it may be. I would rephrase your statement: "The universe is partially consciuous". You seem to admit that in the later part of the quote above.

Please define conscious and consciousness? Are they awareness? Self-awereness perhaps?

This table is part of universe, but I can hardly find it conscious. The rocks, soil, water, the space; which all together constitute the main part of the visible universe - are hardly conscious.

-v

let me state your underlying flaw in thinking ?

step by step..

This table is part of universe, but I can hardly find it conscious.

no you are.

2

The rocks, soil, water, the space; which all together constitute the main part of the visible universe

to whome is it visible? or to what? YOU ..

3

Even if your mind is conscious, it doesn't mean that your arm is such

Yet you controll your arms.

and for the last lesson

Please define conscious and consciousness? Are they awareness? Self-awereness perhaps?

go look in the mirror...

iether you are totaly devoid of logic or you are a robot from mars, im trying to work it out but right now ill say robot from mars.

your answers are pathetic not just because they are wrong but you ignore your basic instinct as a human being

for ever being told what is right applying your dogmatic view on life as you seem fit as if its a part of your natuarl being to know what is right.

let me tell you something... the people who said the world was flat got it wrong the people who said the center of the universe was the world were wrong.

tell me something.. do you think people who happend to change the world by not thinking the way you do have gone away?

sorry my friend. I know your happy in your little bubble. but people like me have no bubble and take life as a gift and want to understand it and share it with others NOT for fame OR ego just because we think its the RIGHT THING to do.

you ego may get in the way but mine does not.

OP, I'm worried about this statement made in THIS Wiki article:

The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role: it gives mass to every elementary particle which has mass, including the Higgs boson itself.[/] In particular, the acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry, which scientists often refer to as the Higgs mechanism.

Am I reading this wrong or does it say that it's another element that gives the HB it's mass. If that's so, then the HB is not what gives matter mass.

reply to post by nunya13

---

its wrong in the assesrtion that we have found higs boson in a physical "partcal form"

cant base nothing on a property that is in its essance not been proven by science

oh and space is not in fact a vacum

it has STUFF IN IT..

; )

so yes the wiki artical is wrong and has been posted by a twit

reply to post by ALLis0NE

---

It's called hypocrite. You failed reading comprehension so bad that you don't even know that you agree with the OP in many ways. It's actually funny you don't even realize it...

Ah OK, He says life is the force carrier of mass and I disagree and state that it's the Higgs Boson, but really I mean life then huh?

You have to be kidding.

I'm not comprehending what I read??!!

He says one thing and I say another and yet of your own opinion it's invariably the same thing despite the two concepts being woefully dissimilar?

So when he says Higgs Boson = Life... technically, it does. However, MANY things equal life, not just the Higgs Boson.

He isn't saying that thanks to the higgs boson that there is life, he is saying that LIFE IS the higgs boson through the act of observing mass to exist and that without life's act of observing such mass there would be no mass or universe period.

Life has many definitions. It is safe to say that without life and its many definitions the universe probably wouldn't even exist "as we know it". Go ahead and click the link to the definition of life, and image the universe existing without each definition.

Ah, OK... He's talking about:

21. effervescence or sparkle, as of wines.

Now I get it!

It really isn't a logical fallacy, but it can be viewed as one if your mind lacks the ability to see that far. You lack the ability to see the connections.... it's very sad.

You said it yourself.. *connections*.

Correlation does not imply causation, hence it is a logical fallacy.

From what I have gathered, the OP has been trying to explain our place in this universe, and explain it from the macrocosm and microcosm perspective. Do you know anything about such perspective? It surely seems like you dont...

Perhaps I should have further elaborated the example of his logic by concluding that because the ball is in the middle, the ball thus makes sphere's.

He isn't talking about a place in the universe in regards to scalability. He explicitly says LIFE IS THE HIGGS BOSON.

It seems you missed the point.. and was more focused on denying something that obviously is too complex for you to fathom.

Scalability is not the issue at all. His argument is this:

super small < humans > super massive

What is in the middles?

We are, so we are both super small and super massive, thus we created mass by observing mass.

Correlation does not imply causation, pretty simple concept. You whine about complex concepts when a simple concept alludes your ability to grasp. Amazing!

Either that or you are an atheist with his head in the dark hole located in the rear.

Atheist? Since when was this a discussion about God Mr. Straw Man?

Do you know what that means? The universe is conscious. This is not any type of correlation, this is pure FACT. I am small part of the universe, and I am conscious, that means a small part of the universe is conscious! Go figure, I just proved it....... and you will probably deny it.

So under your own beliefs and opinions, a fresh steaming pile of crap has about as much consciousness as you do? Now we can agree on something!

Psst, if you haven't heard, correlation does not imply causation.

Yeah, I just proved the universe is conscious..... funny. I might be the first person in history to connect those dots.....

You made no such proof. You made an unfounded statement.

I'd like to see you deny that you are a part of the universe, and you are conscious, that will be funny.

I'm not denying either case nor have I in any of my arguments. Please quote me on it rather than misrepresent my stance.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude correlation proves causation.

reply to post by 13579

---

YOU WAS CREATED "FACT"

LIFE WAS CREATED "FACT"

Please explain the usage of the word 'created' and how your applying it to the discussion. Created as arose by naturalistic phenomena or created as in conscious sentience created life.

YOU LIVE ON A PLANET "FACT"

What does this have to do with the higgs boson?

THE UNIVERSE HAS NO SHAPE "FACT"

This is an opinion, not a fact unless you can produce evidence for such an opinion.

YOU ARE MADE FROM ATOMS / SMALLER "FACT"

YOUR BODY HAS BOTH SCALE AND AWARENESS OF ITS SELF

Inability to understand physics, chemistry and biology. Yet oh so much smarter than I.

WHAT MAKES LIFE SPECIAL???

Narcissism. You are about as special as a fresh steaming pile of dog crap. Don't confuse that comparison as an insult, it's just simply a FACT once we over look the narcissistic based argumentation.

because without this FORCE we call LIFE "do not confuse with living"

THERE IS NO UNIVERSE TO OBSERVE

Er, so in order for the universe to be called a universe there has to be sentient life in which to call it a universe. What if an Alien species calls it a cookie, is ti now a cookie too? Ill thought out usage of semantics, good job.

once you are DEAD you do not OBSERVE OUR UNIVERSE THE SAME WAY SOMEONE DOES WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE "FACT"

What is your point?

So what is the LOGICAL OUTCOME?

BEING ALIVE GIVES RISE TO THINGS LIKE INFINITY

why is INFINITY IMPORTANT? because ITS YOUR OWN REFLECTION

Where are you drawing this conclusion from?

SUPPER SMALL < a human is made from both > SUPPER BIG

WE CONNECT THE DOTS / LIFE connects the DOTS

A steaming pile of dog crap is equally applicable here.

LIFE is the GOD PARTICAL and WE was created BY life SO we are THE GOD PARTICAL

Based upon what? Correlation proves causation?

There is no such thing as a God Particle, and please learn to spell and form sentences. Perhaps this is the problem we're having. Your misunderstanding of physics and the English language.

and all my evidence is based on FACTS not THEORY

You've presented no facts at all. Not even the thing's quoted in the OP are considered facts. Very, very infantile understanding of science you have.

reply to post by 13579

---

If life was not in the known universe how would you know there was a universe? are you really that dens?

I'm surprised I'm even going to answer this considering you can't even spell dense. I mean come on now... it was one extra letter and yet I'm the DENSE one? Use a spell checker please.

Correlation does not imply causation.

LIFE is the observer, you know like the little electron? once viwed changes just like when we view electons they change?

You need to reread the observer effect, life is not the observer at all.

THATS HOW WE GOT QUANTOM PHYSICS

*Quantum* .... It's spelled quantum. And no, that isn't how the theory was developed.

im telling YOU once LIFE was or created "beings" THAT IS WHEN MASS CAME INTO BEING

I don't care what your telling me as it's obvious what your telling me is BS and wrong. You clearly haven't a damn clue what your on about. It's theorized that in the beginning of the early universe, there was no mass at all period and yet the universe existed just fine without mass. This is according to the current standard model. Mass arose according to the standard model before atoms could coalesce into stars, planets and life.

*Without mass itself, there would be no chance for life to develop at all* Yet physics of the early universe does allow for a mass-less universe.

You can not have one without the other..

No fooling huh! Yet your saying mass arose AFTER life. How the hell did life arise without mass?

If you was dead would you argue there was a universe?

If I were dead, there would be no me to argue at all, so the question is moot and meaningless. Unless your implying correlation proves causation, in which case you haven't a lick of logic in your bones.

the only reason MATTER IS HERE is because YOU make it SO

without YOU there is no MATTER unless you know something i DONT.

Oh, no I know nothing according to you. Your obviously of superior intellect with your inability to form coherent sentences, misspellings, logical fallacies, misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Clearly a superior person than myself! Gosh I just feel so inadequate here.

Originally posted by nunya13
OP, I'm worried about this statement made in THIS Wiki article:

The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role: it gives mass to every elementary particle which has mass, including the Higgs boson itself. In particular, the acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry, which scientists often refer to as the Higgs mechanism.

Am I reading this wrong or does it say that it's another element that gives the HB it's mass. If that's so, then the HB is not what gives matter mass.

This is one of the greatest thing's about science. There are a plethora of theories for every aspect of reality and everything contained within it. The OP is under the impression that whatever he reads is the only explanation and that explanation can be used in a factual based argument by coupling it with a correlation proves causation argument.

I'm giving you a star for looking that up. Nothing shameful in learning new information, your already one leg up compared to the OP. Congrats!

[edit on 17-12-2009 by sirnex]

reply to post by nostra-thomas_00

---

But to connect the god particle with consciousness is an interesting concept, and it gels with the idea of YOU being your own god, self-lord and master, and creator of your world/universe with every decision and thought that you make.

It isn't an interesting concept because there is no such thing as a God Particle. This isn't a scientific term at all, nor has ever been proposed by science. It's a sensationalized MEDIA term to over emphasize the importance of the higgs boson. I already quoted this above, so please take the time to read it so we can deny ignorance, the main tenet of what ATS is all about.

The power of consciousness and the power of the self still isn't completely understood, people are doing amazing things every day, stretching the limits of human capability. There's a lot of potential to learn and do new things, especially in the early formative stages of development (on a biological level, think babies; on a cellular level, think stem cells).

The fact that we don't KNOW what consciousness is or if it really even exists in the manner that we *think* it exists is very tantamount to the issue at hand. Using a correlation proves causation based argument doesn't make something true at all. It's called a logical fallacy. Just because we decide to remain ignorant of certain things doesn't mean our opinions are decidedly more valid. Wishful thinking is wishful thinking, it isn't truth at all.

No amount of back patting is going to make the OP any more correct in his assertions. Evidence has already been put forth that refutes every aspect of that assertion. Ignore as much as you'd like that evidence, but if you so choose to ignore that evidence, then you choose to come off as ignorant to the issue at hand. Again, the 'God Particle' does not exist, there is no such scientific term used to describe this.

reply to post by 13579

---

To adress your primative thoughts.

Yes, "time" is not a thing. We are not hyperdimensional beings, we experiance only a third dimension of a reality. Some scientists argue that time is the fourth dimension. Though, through what I have studied, I have come to a different conclusion. As we move from one dimensional, to two dimensional, to three etc, we must introduce a new directional element or coordinate if you will. If you were living in the fourth dimension as a being, you would look like a very long human string, one end of you would be an embryo, and the opposite would be an old man - and inbetween every possible combination and permutation of cells probable within the element that you are found in. Time would not be a "thing" because you would experiance life and death at the very same time. Very much like a photon does. I believe "time" has an incorrect definition. I concer that time is the function of dimensional reality, in a certain dimensional reality or plane, in which all matter experiance an infinity.

To adress your misunderstandings.

I will assume that you are an imaginative or visual learner. Imagine yourself on a planet billions of lightyears away from Earth. The force of gravity will act upon you differently, *still same universal constant but will be irregulated because of environment* and you will not experiance time quite the same way as you would on Earth, because of the planet's position in the system, rotation velocity, orbit and so fourth. Now, you are a scientist conducting an experiment. You will be heating an unidentified metal A, until it reaches it's boiling point. Now, at the formation of the reality that you are experiencing, a few constants and rules were set fourth before everything around you was formed and evolved into what is is now. I.e. stars, planets. solar systems, sentinent life. These constants/forces/rules will control what exactly happens to unidentified metal A. Now, you put a heat or energy source to the metal, and it will eventually reach its boiling point. How is boiling point reached? Well, when the vapour pressure of the liquid metal reaches the environmental pressure surrounding the liquid, it begins to boil. Now assuming that this planet you are on is an Earth-Like planet, the atmospheric pressure directly effected the outcome of your experiment. (environmental pressure surrounding the liquid) So what caused the atmospheric pressure on your planet? We will conclude, just like the Earth, the Coriolis Effect (Rotation of the Planet). Now what caused the Earth to rotate? Well, stars and planets form as a result of the gravatational collapse of accreting material (Which creates a spiral effect, hence why we are rotating). So now, we are back to gravity. Gravity is a foundation of reality. As I expressed in an earlier post. SCALE is a derivative of the foundations of reality at any instantaneous "time." (See my definition of "time") Now, Gravity caused the formation and rotation of the planet, its SCALE or planetary size at a certain instantaneous "time" is regulated by the fundamental force of gravity! Which means, the SCALE of the planet, regulates the SCALE of the Coriolis Effect, which regulates the SCALE of Atmospheric Pressure which regulates the SCALAR Boiling Point of the Unidentified metal A. They are all regulated by the fundamental force of gravity, and the SCALE changes at every instantaneous point in "time," usually by factors which we cannot fathom, because they are so infinitesmal!

I hope that cleared up a few things, for everyone.

Originally posted by v01i0
Even if your mind is conscious, it doesn't mean that your arm is such.

With that logic that would mean YOU are NOT conscious.

You can separate your body into a million different parts and claim that no one part is conscious with your logic.

That is like saying your frontal lobe is not conscious because by itself it doesn't have consciousness.

As soon as you start seeing your body parts as separate from you, then you have lost your way. No one part of your body is responsible for consciousness, it is your body as a whole that is responsible for consciousness. When you loose parts of your body, you loose small parts of your consciousness and awareness.

Just because you can lose your arm and still be conscious doesn't mean your arm doesn't improve your consciousness, or help support your consciousness, or give you higher consciousness, or is a part of your consciousness. Without one of your arms you are less able to touch and sense things compared to when you had both of your arms. So your arms are an extension of your consciousness and awareness. Your arms are a part of your consciousness, so it is equally true that your arm IS conscious, not by itself, but as a whole.

A man can loose parts of his brain and still be conscious but that doesn't mean those missing parts don't improve, support, or cause part of his consciousness, and make him more conscious. Usually when there are missing parts of a brain, that brain is lacking it's full potential, it's full ability to be conscious, so there is a direct link between that missing part and consciousness. That means parts of your brain are a part of your consciousness, so it is equally true that those parts are conscious, not by itself, but as a whole.

So you are wrong, the different parts of your body are directly linked to different parts of your consciousness.

With your logic, you are basically saying that your keyboard and mouse are not a part of your computer. That is like saying your hard drive is not a part of your computer simply because when you take it out your computer still turns on.

It is the computer parts as a whole that make a computer. Just like your body parts as a whole that make your consciousness.

Originally posted by v01i0
The universe as a whole is hardly conscious. I agree that the parts of it may be. I would rephrase your statement: "The universe is partially consciuous". You seem to admit that in the later part of the quote above.

I personally believe that the universe as a whole is conscious, and I have arrived at that belief through philosophical logic by myself. Many religions have done the same thing long before me.

I agree, and you agree, that PARTS of the universe are conscious. You can't deny that.

However, the universe as a whole is ONE object. To us it appears to be made of separate objects, but it really is not. Separation is an illusion. So even if a small part of this ONE object is conscious, that would mean the entire thing is conscious, because it is only ONE thing.

This might not be the best analogy but, what you are basically saying is that only parts of a guitar make sounds, but not the guitar as a whole. It may sound true at first, but it is not entirely true, and even laughable.

On an acoustic guitar for example, yes, the strings seem to be the only part of the guitar that make a sound. However the base of the guitar helps make the sound louder and more defined. The shape of the guitar, especially it's length, is responsible for adding a larger variety of sounds. The tuning knobs alone don't make sounds, but they too add even more variety of sounds to the guitar. So every part of the guitar has an important part of making the total sound of the guitar. So the guitar as a whole does make sound, not just the parts.

The same is true with the universe. Even though it appears that only parts of the universe create what we know as consciousness, it is the other parts of the universe that help define and support consciousness. The planets and stars help support life, and with out them consciousness as we know it would probably not exist. The elements and particles in the universe also help create consciousness, and without them consciousness wouldn't exist. The large variety of molecules and substances also help support consciousness, and the senses that consciousness needs for awareness. So every part of the universe has an important part of making the total existence of consciousness in the universe. So the universe as a whole does have consciousness, not just the parts. The universe is ONE object.

What you are doing is dividing "consciousness" into parts and claiming that only part of it is "conscious" and the other part not. You would be correct and wrong at the same time. Yes only part of "consciousness" is "conscious", but without the "ness" you don't have "consciousness".

Ok that might be too advanced... I can try another analogy:

What am doing is pointing at a car and saying "Look it is a car!". What you are doing is saying, "No, it isn't a car. Only the chassis, the engine, the transmission, the wheels, and the steering and power controls are the car, because that is all a car really is. The rest is not a car, it is a bumper, a door, a light, a seat, a radio, etc...". That sounds really intelligent and really dumb at the same time, because it has the illusion of being true, but is not fully true. The parts of the car as a whole is what makes it a car.

So to say only parts of the universe are conscious but the not universe as a whole, as ONE object, is intelligent and dumb at the same time. That is like saying ATS is not a conspiracy website because only parts of it have conspiracies, and not the rest.

Originally posted by v01i0
Please define conscious and consciousness? Are they awareness? Self-awereness perhaps?

Consciousness, is many things. It has many parts. Because of that, many objects have the ability to be "partially conscious" or "totally conscious".

However the universe is ONE object which contains totally conscious things within it, so the universe CAN be considered "conscious".

Originally posted by v01i0
This table is part of universe, but I can hardly find it conscious. The rocks, soil, water, the space; which all together constitute the main part of the visible universe - are hardly conscious.

-v

To me that is like saying;

"The wheel is part of the car, but I can hardly find it drivable. The chassis, the brakes, the radiator, the interior space; which all together constitute the main part of the car - are hardly drivable."

Sounds pretty funky huh?

Now let me tell you something...

When doctors do an MRI scan of the human brain, they see electromagnetic interactions which they claim are responsible for our thoughts and our consciousness. Even though they don't yet understand exactly how these electromagnetic interactions can form thoughts, ideas, and opinions, they still believe that they are responsible.

Those same electromagnetic interactions are responsible for our every day lives. All atoms are electromagnetic. A table, a rock, soil, water, is all electromagnetic and are involved in electromagnetic interactions. You got wind going from place to place, doing it's job and cooling areas, and pushing clouds of water which is electromagnetic. You got electron transfer (static electricity) going on with almost every substance. You got lightning. You got all life which is electromagnetic... Light is electromagnetic, and it travels throughout the universe. There is probably no location in the universe that doesn't have electromagnetic light.

You got all this energy transferring from place to place in this universe, and to humans it seems all pointless and random, just like MRI scans of active brains.

So who is to say the entire universe and all of its energy interactions doesn't equal one large brain? Who is to say humans are not inside a large active brain and every action within it is a "thought" or "idea" in action?

There are many religions who believe this. They believe a rock is an idea or thought created by the universe. You are a thought created by the universe. Actions and Reactions are all ideas created by the universe. The universe is not a separate entity that God created, but IS GOD.

You can even read "The Universal One" by Walter Russell, the founder of the University of Science and Philosophy. He too has concluded via philosophical logic that the entire universe is a mind, and all actions in it are thoughts and ideas.

Even the people who wrote the Bible had insight enough to say that man was created "In God's image". Some could say his mental image.

Scientific minds are all about physical observation of the actions and reactions in the universe. They study the how, but not the why. So they are the first to deny any philosophical logic which could possibly explain a why of such grand scale.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Pokemon discovered in Venezuela
  Posted 14 days ago with 47 member flags

89-Year-Old Man Develops Bladeless Bird-Friendly Wind Turbine
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags

Amazing snowflake images that you have never seen before.
  Posted 14 days ago with 44 member flags

Energy Solutions THEY don\'t want you to know about
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags

High speed video reveals the bizarre physics of an ordinary water droplet
  Posted 4 days ago with 32 member flags

Does this video show a working self propelled magnetic engine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags

Viruses: alive or not?
  Posted 11 days ago with 30 member flags

NASA reveals secrets it has hidden on the Curiosity rover.
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: