GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:It [life] is arising spontaneously (through cause and effect) right this very moment in countless places throughout the Universe but because your vision of the Universe is so extremely small you can't see it happening.

I think you are very much mistaken. I think life exists in countless other places in the Universe. My vision is far grander than yours, I guarantee. You fall back on your tireless, meaningless cause and effect to explain how life appears.

I am saying life is created and placed on countless other planets and suitable locations in the Universe of Universes by unfathomably intelligent and loving beings - divine beings.

Whose vision is more limited? Which vision is more compatible with life itself? And which is more dead?

brokenhead wrote:You fall back on your tireless, meaningless cause and effect

Cause and effect is only meaningless to those people for whom truth itself is meaningless.

I am saying life is created and placed on countless other planets and suitable locations in the Universe of Universes by unfathomably intelligent and loving beings - divine beings.

You create this fantasy because the little you see of reality doesn't satisfy you.

Whose vision is more limited? Which vision is more compatible with life itself? And which is more dead?

Truth must always take precedence.

[b]Kevin Solway[/b] wrote:Cause and effect is only meaningless to those people for whom truth itself is meaningless.

I intended no offense, Kevin. I merely meant "meaningless" in the sense that recognizing that every effect must have had a cause or causes conveys no information. It explains nothing due to its very ubiquity. Yet truth is always meaningful, so in that sense, to say an effect had a cause has meaning, such as it is.

brokenhead: I am saying life is created and placed on countless other planets and suitable locations in the Universe of Universes by unfathomably intelligent and loving beings - divine beings.
Kevin: You create this fantasy because the little you see of reality doesn't satisfy you.

But I have created nothing. I have said so many times at GF. I seek. I seek to learn. I do not make things up, unless I am clearly doing so in jest or perhaps stating a hypothetical within a given argument.

But you are quite right: the little I see of Reality does not satisfy me. I am always hungry for more. Or to be more precise, I can definitely get my fill of Reality - too big a dose - but the hunger always returns. I always want to know more.

Truth must always take precedence.

Well, I agree with this, of course.

I for one think that there is nothing mysterious about consciousness. For example consider a computer with a digital camera, it can process the information through the digital camera and decide some action based on this data. Is this system conscious? I think consciousness is just a much much more powerful system than this simple example here, i.e. representation of the world and decision/action based on that representation.

Or even more simply consciousness is simply to respond to outside influences. In this terms even a dead thing is conscious, since everything responds in some way to a cause, ie. consciousness is cause and effect itself.

maestro wrote:I for one think that there is nothing mysterious about consciousness. For example consider a computer with a digital camera, it can process the information through the digital camera and decide some action based on this data. Is this system conscious? I think consciousness is just a much much more powerful system than this simple example here, i.e. representation of the world and decision/action based on that representation.

Or even more simply consciousness is simply to respond to outside influences. In this terms even a dead thing is conscious, since everything responds in some way to a cause, ie. consciousness is cause and effect itself.

I agree there is nothing mysterious about consciousness.

I cast my vote for: everything about 'consciousness' is utterly mysterious. The original mystery. It is an asbolute, unreally incredible mystery. One can explore it and never come to en end.

brokenhead wrote:It's quite funny, I find. When people discover that you have faith, they tend to swarm all over you and try to suck it out of you like starved vampire bats. Especially in this forum. It's amusing, because it never works. I suggest such leeches try faith for themselves instead of invariably trying to destroy it in others. Really, faith is a lot easier to understand than lack of it if you do your homework.

I leave you to your faith. Enjoy.

maestro wrote:I think consciousness is just a much much more powerful system than this simple example here, i.e. representation of the world and decision/action based on that representation.

While I pretty much agree with that view of consciousness, there are still questions: Why is it that I have subjective experiences? Why am I me? Why is it that there is something it is like, to be me? Why do I experience life from this point of view, and not some other?

DHodges wrote: While I pretty much agree with that view of consciousness, there are still questions: Why is it that I have subjective experiences? Why am I me?

Of course there is no me. The me is a part of language and an illusionary construct, there is no me. Only the representation of the world, and thoughts and emotions. For example the computer example also has a representation of the world obtained through its camera. Is it something to be like it?

DHodges wrote: Why am I me? Why is it that there is something it is like, to be me? Why do I experience life from this point of view, and not some other?

These questions are nonsensical, since there is no I. These questions are created by the language, having no basis in reality.

brokenhead wrote:I merely meant "meaningless" in the sense that recognizing that every effect must have had a cause or causes conveys no information.

It conveys the information that things don't happen out of nothing whatsoever, and that there is no freedom of movement. To me, this is extremely meaningful.

If things happened out of nothing and for no reason, that would be meaningless. The idea of a conscious creator being who doesn't have a cause, would be meaningless.

I always want to know more.

Then I think you should be a lot more circumspect and humble in the way you say things. For example, instead of saying, "This is the way things are", you should say, "It may be this way", or "The God I propose/postulate is like this".

Kevin Solway wrote:The idea of a conscious creator being who doesn't have a cause, would be meaningless.

Why?

I always want to know more.

Then I think you should be a lot more circumspect and humble in the way you say things. For example, instead of saying, "This is the way things are", you should say, "It may be this way", or "The God I propose/postulate is like this".

Well, that's just too funny, Kevin. I believe I sprinkle in enough "IMHOs" and "FWIWs." You mean I should gentle-up my approach? Hmmmm. I might try that for a while and see what happens.

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The idea of a conscious creator being who doesn't have a cause, would be meaningless.

Why?

Because if their behaviour is without cause it would not have any pattern and would be essentially random. One moment they might create a world, and then the next moment they might just destroy it again, because they can't remember creating it.

However, in matter of fact, even random behaviour is caused, since it is impossible for anything (any thing that is not the All) to be uncaused.

What if the conscious creator is the ALL? Or precedes it. What if Consciousness precedes the rest of the ALL. What if the ALL issues forth from Consciousness.

Carl G wrote:What if the conscious creator is the ALL? Or precedes it. What if Consciousness precedes the rest of the ALL. What if the ALL issues forth from Consciousness.

If I may perhaps jump in here, I would very much like to say that Carl has given voice to my own thoughts, as it were. Thank you.

The problem is that you guys have not defined consciousness.

Carl G wrote:What if the conscious creator is the ALL?

In that case "conscious" wouldn't mean anything since there wouldn't be anything left over for it to be conscious of — since it is already everything.

Or precedes it.

This concept doesn't mean anything either since there is nothing other than the All. The All includes all of time, and all of the past.

What if Consciousness precedes the rest of the ALL.

It is possible for a consciousness to be part of the All, but then there will always be something that caused it.

What if the ALL issues forth from Consciousness.

This doesn't mean anything, since there is nothing other than the All.

broken,

I agree there is nothing mysterious about consciousness.

What would be mysterious to you?



maestro,

DH: Why am I me?

maestro: Of course there is no me. The me is a part of language and an illusionary construct, there is no me.

This is like saying after you wake up from a dream, there is no dream. If you're not dreaming, it's easy to say there is no dream. However denial of the ego from the standpoint of ego rings hollow.

Only the representation of the world, and thoughts and emotions. For example the computer example also has a representation of the world obtained through its camera. Is it something to be like it?

Is the representation conscious? Does it claim to be a me?

DH: Why am I me? Why is it that there is something it is like, to be me? Why do I experience life from this point of view, and not some other?

maestro: These questions are nonsensical, since there is no I. These questions are created by the language, having no basis in reality.

Denial is not a particularly compelling argument. If you don't understand why someone might say, "why am I me?" then you really have no basis to deny their experience. The question is pointing to an experience and you are replying with an intellectual evasion of that experience. Do you really think someone is going to be satisfied with that?

samadhi wrote:you really have no basis to deny their experience.

For example the digital camera's ccd array also responds to changes in environment, is it having experiences? Suppose the computer detects these changes, is it having experiences?

Kevin Solway wrote:It is possible for a consciousness to be part of the All, but then there will always be something that caused it.

I think that just perhaps there might be a chance that you could maybe be incorrect with this statement. It seems to me to be possible that Consciousness, if it were truly grand and far surpassing any notion of what we may consider comparable - such as our own limited consciousness - need not have been caused Itself, but rather be the very well-spring of causality and every thing else. That is, of course, IMveryHO, as it were. Thank you.

maestro,

sam: If you don't understand why someone might say, "why am I me?" then you really have no basis to deny their experience.

maestro: For example the digital camera's ccd array also responds to changes in environment, is it having experiences? Suppose the computer detects these changes, is it having experiences?

You are the one who needs to answer this question, not me. Are you saying a camera is conscious because it responds to changes in the environment? Is a thermometer conscious too? Does a thermometer ever ask, "why am I me?"

maestro wrote:

samadhi wrote:you really have no basis to deny their experience.

For example the digital camera's ccd array also responds to changes in environment, is it having experiences? Suppose the computer detects these changes, is it having experiences?

maestro, I think that one could perhaps say that anything with a memory and can not merely react to but adapt to its environment "has experiences." However, as a DSLR, for example, cannot be said to be alive in any sense when compared to even rudimentary single-celled organisms, then perhaps it would be erroneous to posit that it possessed what we call "consciousness."

If among living things there exists a wide variety of types of consciousness that exhibit characteristically different levels of awareness and responsiveness, then if I may make the humble suggestion that we take as our minimum level of awareness that of the lowest specimen of human being, while leaving the highest type of awareness open-ended to include possible higher forms of intelligence yet to be encountered, we could then use an upper-case C and denote this as Consciousness. Such higher forms of Consciousness may very well be aware of us and intentionally do not make themselves overtly known to us until we are ready to understand and accept what it is that they have to impart to us, as it might consist of truths to comprehend which we must be sufficiently evolved.

FWIW, I have seen this notion put many ways, from grandiose to loving and touching, to outright disturbing. The latter was along the lines that we have been planted here and are now in the process of being cultivated, and when we are ready, when we are ripe, we will be harvested. That was either a Twilight Zone episode or an article in High Times, I forget which.

brokenhead wrote: maestro, I think that one could perhaps say that anything with a memory and can not merely react to but adapt to its environment "has experiences." However, as a DSLR, for example, cannot be said to be alive in any sense when compared to even rudimentary single-celled organisms, then perhaps it would be erroneous to posit that it possessed what we call "consciousness."

But you can have computer programs that adapt rather than merely react. This is known as machine learning. What you call adaptation is also a reaction, albeit of higher complexity.

maestro wrote:

brokenhead wrote: maestro, I think that one could perhaps say that anything with a memory and can not merely react to but adapt to its environment "has experiences." However, as a DSLR, for example, cannot be said to be alive in any sense when compared to even rudimentary single-celled organisms, then perhaps it would be erroneous to posit that it possessed what we call "consciousness."

But you can have computer programs that adapt rather than merely react. This is known as machine learning. What you call adaptation is also a reaction, albeit of higher complexity.

Yes I am aware of that. Are you saying that such programs are "conscious"?

According to your definition. Since they perceive and adapt.

brokenhead wrote:It's quite funny, I find. When people discover that you have faith, they tend to swarm all over you and try to suck it out of you like starved vampire bats. Especially in this forum. It's amusing, because it never works. I suggest such leeches try faith for themselves instead of invariably trying to destroy it in others. Really, faith is a lot easier to understand than lack of it if you do your homework.

Christ. What an ugly piece of thinking.

I hate incoherent strings of stupid similes and patchwork metaphor in lieu of reason:

What I find remarkably more humorous is when the self-proclaimed faithful find a leech pool and obsessively jump into it, only to continuously complain that it is a leech pool and blame the leeches.

Apparently, it can’t be faith being sucked out of such faithfuls; else the leeches would clearly be bloated with it and the faithfuls left quite deathly dry…