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.
It would help if you shared with me your beliefs on the mechanisms of consciousness, and its significance in the universe. Just so I can have a base for this conversation.
Perhaps there's a balance between individual and society, for purposes of survival. This balance is influenced by various physics like conservation of energy and different physical laws.
If you are consciously processing information, that state is known as "consciousness" or "awareness".
..............
But what happens when most of the individual makeup is removed? It makes me think of the Borg in Star Trek. Each member resembled a sensory/mechanical arm of the central computer. One thing that Star Trek never really answered was how was that bad survival-wise? Sure, the Borg were indifferent to emotions and expanded (reproduced) by forcefully assimilating others, but it never really showed how this would lead to their extinction. It does give the impression that they fail to adapt and instead force themselves on the universe, but it mostly just appealed to emotions and not logic.
One thing I can think of is that separation in time/space forces individuals to have some self-autonomy. So even the Borg will need some individual discretion because they cannot communicate with the central computer instantaneously. So Borg ships that're too far apart to fully control all of their drones with one central computer will have to have two separate central computers. And what happens when a Borg drone is seperated from the central computer???
Perhaps there's a balance between individual and society, for purposes of survival. This balance is influenced by various physics like conservation of energy and different physical laws.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I've already mentioned that "consciousness" and other terms are abstractions of the functioning human organism.
The term "conscious" is an adjective. Adding the suffix "ness" is merely turning an adjective into an abstract noun, meaning it doesn't exist outside of thought, but nonetheless implies there is an actual person, place or thing, called consciousness. This can be quite confusing, leading people to think this intangibility (and others) is somehow fundamental to the universe. But "conscious" is an adjective, implying that something appears to be conscious. Consciousness, therefor, is a state of appearance, meaning something appears to be conscious. What is the thing that appears to be conscious? The human organism.
So in a sense, there is nothing that leads me to believe there is anything we can call "consciousness". Everything that people describe as "consciousness" can be reduced to the sensual interaction of the human organism and its surroundings.
Hopefully this helps.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
So I feel it is a little dishonest to demonize a virtual abstraction of oneself and chalk-up all our arrogance, greed, vanity and other egotisms, to a few bodily urges, when the entire drive, urge or instinct of the organism as one whole phenomena is the only thing operating in this fashion.
Paradoxically, the more someone detaches from ego, the more they take responsibility for all egoistic tendencies, thoughts, and actions. This is because the need to protect the ego diminishes proportionally to the degree of detachment.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
There is never a 'why' in creation; only a 'how'.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by mysticnoon
That is an invalid question.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by mysticnoon
That is an invalid question.
I could also say that yours is an invalid response, but that would not contribute to any further understanding.
So am I to assume that in your view of creation, there is no reason for it to exist?