The evolutionary path of Human consciousness

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


This is where our opinions differ. I believe rocks are aware.




Ooooooohhh I like what you said. I agree! Message drops as one friend put it
. Is very hard to discuss this and not sound um, well, insane,
, but I am very excited to hear you speak of it.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamschist
 


Rocks are alive and modest. Nice Avatar.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Iamschist
 


Rocks are alive and modest. Nice Avatar.


Modest, I like that. I agree that consciousness is everywhere and in all things and was first. I enjoyed the discussion between you and Dark Ghost very much. about the beginning. I learned some things, I do not always know how to put into words certain ideas, particularly lately.


Re; avatar, I have quite a few and I like to change often.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Iamschist because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I agree that consciousness is a kind of fundamental building block.

I think one of the most basic expressions of consciousness is simply inertia. An object remembers its direction and momentum, but this is just the beginning. Another expression of this is the kinetic energy contained within a volume of vibrating atoms. In other words, they remember their temperature and whatever other physical manifestation results from the internal vibrations of the atoms. They remember their internal ratio of protons and neutrons and whatever else is inside them as well, like the nuclear (strong) force.

From the start, at the very basic level of atomic things, you see that they remember key things about themselves and retain this memory dependent on what's around them. An object set into motion in a certain direction with a certain temperature will maintain this until it interacts with something else.

The fact that things interact and change each other is another key trait.

As atoms come together they form materials and these materials remember their shape and have their own unique textures and tolerances. The makeup of atoms is increasingly complex.

All of this seems to be based on the idea that matter remembers its state and can interact with other matter. The principle of locality also seems to relate. It's the idea that there's a thick viscous goo pervasive in the universe that separates everything from everything else. As distance increases, the goo becomes increasingly impenetrable. What this does is it creates places and these places retain their unique characters. Without such a separating goo in the universe there would be only one place; the universe. No matter where you'd look, you'd see a relatively uniform and stable universe that actively shares everyplace with every other place.

So from this I get the idea that for intelligence to form there must be all of these traits already present in the universe. Otherwise, I can only think of everything as just one thing without any break.

A rock by itself is not impressive. But a rock can change over time because of the traits I've mentioned. But without memory, there's nothing to change, right? In its shape and its various properties we can see its history; its memory. A rock has its own character. But without somebody to observe it and characterize it, or give it a name, is it meaningful? I don't know. But I do know that the rock shows change and memory and reaction.

But does a rock act (react?) on other things? On a basic level, it does. If the earth quakes, rocks can fall from a hillside and act on other things by colliding with them. If the heat from the center of the earth fills a rock, it can melt and change the surface of things it crosses. If the rock emerges into water, some atoms might break away from it and circulate in the water and thus change its content. None of this is very impressive, though.

It's an assumption to say that intelligence is different from inanimate objects. Rather, I think it's simply a progression. It's an addition to what's already there. We don't just remember our temperature, our direction and momentum, our shape, our density, our nuclear force, or other such things, we also remember concepts. We build a very active memory of events as they unfold around us and this memory allows us to create a kind of mirror-universe. This mirror-universe is a clumsy model of the actual universe and it allows us to make predictions. These predictions are the things that're our most powerful tool. I think as this mirror-universe grew in the mind of intelligent lifeforms, they became ever more constructive and devious.

But I want to clear up the idea of actions as opposed to reactions. The way I see it, all things are reactions. Actions tend to be more deliberate and time consuming, but actions are based on a history of events and in that respect actions are in fact reactions to memory. In this way, intelligent creatures are not much different from rocks. We react to our memory just as they do. If a rock is 3000 degrees (f) then it says "uh oh, I'm melting!" If a human sees something 3000 degrees (f) they will run unless they know they're safe.

Animal intelligence REacts in much more complex ways than a rock. This is because of our deep memories of things around us. When an event in the universe occurs within our proximity, we don't just examine our temperature and direction and momentum and density and other basic characteristics to determine our reaction. We're more evolved than that. So, lifeforms evolved a more complex memory than rock or inanimate object. I think that was when life was able to create a mirror-universe in its mind and predict the future.

Anyway it's late and I have to go afk. Was fun.
edit on 16-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Consciousness is that which can perceive the world subjectively. The world is that which can be perceived subjectively. Therefore the world is undefined. How can something that exists be undefined? It can't. That is life's purpose.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You saying the purpose of being alive is to define life?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


This is where our opinions differ. I believe rocks are aware.


Rocks are not aware. They have the potential for awareness. The potential for awareness is existence itself



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You saying the purpose of being alive is to define life?


To define existence



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



Does good and evil exist?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You saying the purpose of being alive is to define life?


To define existence


'Define' means to 'draw a line around'.
'Define' means 'to separate' one thing from another. This is what the mind does - it measures things by separating something out of the whole. The mind imagines there is something separate from the whole.

Existence cannot be defined really but the mind believes it can, it tries and gets confused. It is only the mind that believes in division.
edit on 17-11-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Thoughts can affect the individual and others. It is potential/kinetic energy. for eg: if a person is angry, then others observe/feel that energy and then behave differently/adjust. That is a collective thing...we all do it, so it becomes collective behaviour/response and is the individual or others conscious of this? Yes, of course. So we have collective behaviour/responses...that is a basic survival instinct.

The potential aspect of this energy essentially depends on how you or another will react to any given situation. If you react differently to what is typical, then the outcome changes.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You said it. "This is what the mind does." Who are you to say it shouldn't?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You said it. "This is what the mind does." Who are you to say it shouldn't?



It is what the mind does. Did i say it shouldn't?
It is what is.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



Does good and evil exist?


Only when we say they do.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Thurisaz
 


Its interesting what you are saying. I was thinking today of the violence in the middle east of how it appears everyone is caught up in some sort of Domino falling affect of hatred and seeking revenge. Then i thought what if its something external thats causing them to respond in a misaligned way to eachother. I wonder if the great pyramind can emit negative engery and affect peoples behaviours.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You said it. "This is what the mind does." Who are you to say it shouldn't?



It is what the mind does. Did i say it shouldn't?
It is what is.


You are against defining, no?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


No, i am defining defining.
I am against nothing.
edit on 17-11-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


well that depends on what you consider the pyramid to emit. Your thoughts may not be shared by others.

20 People may think that the pyramid emits a negative energy whilst 20, 000 People see it as a historical monument... question is, will 20 People change those who think differently?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Thurisaz
 






20 People may think that the pyramid emits a negative energy whilst 20, 000 People see it as a historical monument... question is, will 20 People change those who think differently?


Unlikely. Still we know 20 people running a TV station can affect the minds of 20,000. So cant rule out my theory on that basis.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


No, i am defining defining.
I am against nothing.
edit on 17-11-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Ok cause it sounded like u didn't like it






top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join