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.

 

Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 19
42
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I was rather enjoying following the above debate, seems to have come to an end though. Did somebody get lost for words?




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 


Nope, no loss for words; Just loss of patience for the blatant admiration and applauding of stupidity. Can't really argue a point when some moron will turn around and misconstrue that point purposefully. No one is actually debating anything in this thread. It's been nothing more than me correcting the claims in the clips, correcting a few other thing's stated by other posters and getting called a closed minded ignorant troll. It's simply amazing the level of stupidity I've dealt with. No it's not an insult, it's a simple observation of the level of intellect communicated in this thread. If people don't like it, they can change how they communicate their thoughts.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 


Well i did not understand his point lol If he saying the universe as an enterty is not conscious then

How does he fit into it if he is? Human / conscious

would mean that it is in fact conscious "because of us" it may not be that we understand "how" but it most deffinitly IS



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Nope, no loss for words; Just loss of patience for the blatant admiration and applauding of stupidity. Can't really argue a point when some moron will turn around and misconstrue that point purposefully. No one is actually debating anything in this thread. It's been nothing more than me correcting the claims in the clips, correcting a few other thing's stated by other posters and getting called a closed minded ignorant troll. It's simply amazing the level of stupidity I've dealt with. No it's not an insult, it's a simple observation of the level of intellect communicated in this thread. If people don't like it, they can change how they communicate their thoughts.


"moron" and "get bent" are in fact insults... you may not be aware of your own imaturity at the point..

And most people are debating it, you on the other hand are off topic when dealing with my replys to you.

I have made the case, and even used your own words to state it? how is that me "misconstrue" your own statements?

I think you should read your own posts be for you lambast others " it's a simple observation of the level of intellect"



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by bargoose
 



Infinity is a reflection of being alive.

Thats why we have it. Infinity STOPS when you die..

Observer "TRAPPED" in INFINITY because They are living a lifetime.

If you put 2 mirrors facing each other what do you get? "infinity" simple test.. What happens when you take one of the mirrors away ? No infinity

Now try to think this way what happens when you are alive? you become a mirror? what is it that is reflecting back? You are.. "not your body" but the very function of creation in all its glory.

Thats what makes YOU so important. LIFE is a gift of epicness should not be feared just understud.

you make the universe conscious "fact" and if you was to exclude humans form it.

The universe would still be conscious "ask my cat" take away cats "ask the tree"

And a tree is conscious "of its soroundings" just because it does not talk and walk does not mean its not "aware" / "interacting"



You only take into account the small percentage of what really is. You continiously use contradictions and illogical thinking. I did not say a tree is not alive, in fact everything is aware. There is no end to your being, the physical body is merely a tool or a catalysts to mature spiritually.


You will always have your identity.

I took a lot of time in a previous post to explain the concept of all that is, yet people still argue over this and that. I should turn my post into a thread and probably still will.

Namaste.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The reason the universe is here is BECAUSE of conciousness.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 





There is no end to your being, the physical body is merely a tool or a catalysts to mature spiritually.


Yes there is "thats why people die"..

Do you think we live for ever?

I think you confuse this reality with your own inpetness to understand DEATH is a A PART of life.

it not a game nore it is a joke.

and if you wish to understand more about my experiance ill be more than happy to tell you the outcome of it.

instead of speculating WHAT was or happend

Just as you cant prove there is life afterdeath I can not prove what happend to me now can i?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 



correct, Ours..


but what made that? "no clue"



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



"moron" and "get bent" are in fact insults... you may not be aware of your own imaturity at the point..


See, this is what I mean about stupidity. Please quote me where I explicitly stated that moron and get bent were not insults.


And most people are debating it, you on the other hand are off topic when dealing with my replys to you.


No, most people are applauding it irregardless of me pointing out the erroneous information portrayed right on page one. I was one of the first few people to get a comment in on those clips. Most people are applauding with an air of arrogant idiocy.


I have made the case, and even used your own words to state it? how is that me "misconstrue" your own statements?


You took the meaning of the post out of context you flipping tool.


I think you should read your own posts be for you lambast others " it's a simple observation of the level of intellect"


More appropriately, get a clue before you poke your eye out.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


I think you should I will be happy to post on it.


Please u2u me when its done.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Death is illusory. Just as electricity "animates" an electrical appliance, so conciousness, or spirit, animates these physical bodies.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


You are not the bio-chemical body. You do not die. Dieing is part of the physical.

Namaste.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bargoose
Death is illusory. Just as electricity "animates" an electrical appliance, so conciousness, or spirit, animates these physical bodies.


OK, and what evidence do you have to back up such a belief and discuss it as if it were a fact?

That's all I'm asking for, not saying it isn't possible. Just would like some evidence to review that is not misrepresented erroneous information.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


can you type without insulting people or is that just because you cant? lol




You took the meaning of the post out of context you flipping tool.


Or maybe you have no clue and i put it in a context that grated your ego?

would seem evident by the way you talk when debating a subject?

If the universe "as a whole" if that was your "context" is NOT

then how is it YOU are?

are you separate from the universe? or is it that you fail to grasp you live inside of it and was created by it?

and if that is the case the universe unwittly IS because it made me and you

Or is that wrong?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


Im sorry but prove it...

Please.

That is all i ask.




Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.[1] It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena. [2] Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined, philosophers note (e.g. John Searle in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy):[3] "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives." —Schneider and Velmans, 2007[4]


and yet the universe is what? as sirex said.. ?? just a something that happend to have parts that "are"

makes no sens does it?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



Or maybe you have no clue and i put it in a context that grated your ego?


No, my ego can hardly get grated by a three year old mentality.


If the universe "as a whole" if that was your "context" is NOT


Please make your thoughts more coherent, there are plenty of free website's available in which you can learn the English language. It isn't that hard, I picked up on it by the time I was one.


then how is it YOU are?


We exist because the universe exists. The universe does not exist because we exist. Simple fing concept, my eight year understood that one.


are you separate from the universe? or is it that you fail to grasp you live inside of it and was created by it?


I don't know about you, but I was born thanks to the physical interactions of my parents. I won't bore you with the details of that action, nor do I personally like to think they did that sort of thing. yet, they did it and here I am. The universe itself had no hand in it at all.

I understand we live *IN* the universe, but our existence within the universe does not inherently imply the universe *ITSELF* is an intelligent conscious entity. If you think what you are saying is true, then back it up or STFU.


and if that is the case the universe unwittly IS because it made me and you


I have no clue what your trying to say there bud. You really need to learn English, that would probably solve ninety percent of our problem. Do you have any friends or relatives that can translate your incoherent babbling into English?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by bargoose
Death is illusory. Just as electricity "animates" an electrical appliance, so conciousness, or spirit, animates these physical bodies.


OK, and what evidence do you have to back up such a belief and discuss it as if it were a fact?

That's all I'm asking for, not saying it isn't possible. Just would like some evidence to review that is not misrepresented erroneous information.


Remember sirnex, all we have are matters of faith in unproven interpretations and conclusion about proven observations.

A proven observation can be entirely subjective. If I see and interact with something it's then proven beyond a doubt that what I had come in contact with is true. This can be thought of as being subjectively-objective. Had I the ability to share these direct thoughts with others it could then be seen as objective by those who hadn't the privelege of the direct experience. Unfortunately we lack this talent so the only way to go about showing this subjectively-objective reality to others is to come up with a case that's repeatedly testable or to simply have the good fortune of having others present reinforcing the strength of the original observation.

Meaning for something to be externally-objective it requires at a minimum one outside confirmation. For it to be scientifically-objective requires repeated confirmation. So there can be three overarching types of objectiveness:
  1. subjective objectivity (lone observation)
  2. external objectivity (more than one individual or device)
  3. scientific objectivity (infinitely observable)
Usually when people discuss objective versus subjective we simplify. If we hear "subjective" we immediately assume the person has no real basis other than belief guiding that principle. This is frequently a poor assumption because in many cases there's actually something tangible that the person encountered that made it subjectively objective, not simply wishful thinking.

Likewise something can be scientifically objective, but that doesn't mean we understand the observation. However since it's scientifically objective many people accept initial explanations if only because the observation has proven through repeated tests to be valid. This is even worse than being dismissive of poorly quantified observations because now the person is accepting an explanation for an observation because of the type of objectivity used to verify the observation.

These types of biases and poor understanding often lead to a scenario similar to the one described in "The Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe,

 
It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant, (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation, Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall, Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant, Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, "Ho! what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant, Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal, And happening to take, The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee. "What most this wondrous beast is like, Is mighty plain," quoth he; " `Tis clear enough the Elephant, Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man, Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant, Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun, About the beast to grope, Than seizing on the swinging tail, That fell within his scope, "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, is very like a rope!"

And so the these men of Indostan, Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion, Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly right, And all were in the wrong!

Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance, Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant, Not one of them has seen!
 


Unless I have at a minimum two of the above criteria I'm willing to doubt the truthfulness of an observation. It's only when all three are satisfied that I'm willing to say something is 100% objectively true, but even then though I have to admit my understanding of the observation is very likely inaccurate if not wholly incomplete.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by bargoose
Death is illusory. Just as electricity "animates" an electrical appliance, so conciousness, or spirit, animates these physical bodies.


OK, and what evidence do you have to back up such a belief and discuss it as if it were a fact?

That's all I'm asking for, not saying it isn't possible. Just would like some evidence to review that is not misrepresented erroneous information.


Unfortunately, it is a subject that can neither be proven or disproven. What i have stated previously is what i believe, and i'm sharing my opinion. You could look at it this way; The entire universe is orchestrated by unseen forces-gravity,electromagnetism etc. So conciousness can be considered likewise,invisible but there nonetheless and not a product of matter. Psychonaughty outlined it perfectly about half way through page18.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 


Him and I have previously discussed his views and opinions on reality to such an extent that he began to contradict himself many times. I don't bother discussing his views anymore as I personally dislike contradictory arguments of reality.

Yet I have to wonder, if it's an opinion and personal belief in which there is no evidence for at all and admitted to as such, then why discuss it and argue to such an extent as if it were a cold hard fact? That just seems utterly pointless. Opinions and facts are two distinct thing's and shouldn't be used interchangeably.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

However, because that definition came about from a person ultimately, then how do we not know that consciousness as defined here (the state of beingness) is an illusion brought about by our own brains? if in fact that was the case (and I don't think we can conclusively ever know either way given our incapability to step aside from our brains and remain alive) then it would seem a brain, or at least some kind of feedback system is required for consciousness.


Simple, because the brain is an object of our perception. Are you familiar with Hilary Putnam's brain in the jar thought experiment? If you were a brain in a jar, how could you ever know you were a brain in a jar? It would be impossible to know because you would experience a virtual world outside of the reality of the brain in a jar. This is why it is silly to even say you are the brain. You are clearly nothing that you render into your perception and a brain is a part of our perception.

The second argument is if you were the brain it would be possible to derive you from your brain. We have the brain of Einstein in a jar, but we have not been able to derive him from it. If he is in there we should be able to find him. Just as we can find information on a hardisk.


By that standard, then, one could rank consciousness in terms of complexity, with a thermostat being right around the bottom of the ladder, present day AI near the middle, plants, animals and people much higher up, and ultimately, interconnected social collectives very much near the top.

-rrr


The problem with your argument is a thermostat is not capable of quale. It does not experience or know. As I said earlier, "a camera cannot see" As long as quale exists we can can logically accept that that the brain is causing consciousness. It is impossible to reduce quale to a quantity, because quale cannot be measured. Can you measure how much you love somebody? The other option is to deny quale like eliminative materialists do but such an exercise ends up contradicting itself. I can deny I am feeling love, but then I have to deny the one that is feeling the love and deny its denial.

Why do you have a problem in accepting you are in fact a spiritual being ? It is the most logical belief to have.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join