5
   

Consciousness, again

 
 
Cyracuz
 
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 06:24 am
I've made posts about this before. In broad terms, I think of matter and energy as information, and consciousness as interpretation.
Whenever units of mass or energy interact they interpret what they encounter and order themselves accordingly. Molecules bind to certain other molecules according to electrical charge, for instance. There is information being interpreted.
This is awareness. A relatively 'simple' natural phenomenon. Then interpretation causes biological cells to bind together, and living things exist.
Interpretation happens at every interaction on every level and scale, from the smallest quantum scales to the macro scale.
Then biological organisms start storing the information that has been interpreted, and this stored information is factored into new interpretations. Over time, this contrast of new interpretations over old ones creates still new interpretations, and the organism has become aware of the awareness happening within it. Then there is interpretation of interpretation. This interpretation becomes information in itself and has identity, and the organism is aware of doing it...

This is a very quick summary of the idea.
Do you think such a process of information and interpretation could result in creatures like us, who are not only aware, but aware of being aware.

It's a challenge of sorts, to the scientific axiom that physical evolution 'created' consciousness, and that before it occurred in organic creatures, it didn't exist.
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 06:30 am
Quote:
Whenever units of mass or energy interact they interpret what they encounter and order themselves accordingly. Molecules bind to certain other molecules according to electrical charge, for instance. There is information being interpreted. This is awareness. A relatively 'simple' natural phenomenon. Then interpretation causes biological cells to bind together, and living things exist.


This is a completely unwarranted contention. You lost me right here. Have fun, though.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 07:08 am
@Setanta,
I simply mean that all things, substances, elements, atoms and so on, have very specific rules for how they interact, which has ultimately led to absurdities such as me and you. Is it possible to understand the world based on this rather than some notion of god or big bang? What would a metaphysical reality based on ideas from quantum physics look like and be like?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 07:12 am
@Cyracuz,
Whatever one may allege on what they would "look like," ascribing consciousness to submolecular or subatomic particles is unlikely to be a part of it.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 07:23 am
@Setanta,
Agreed. I am thinking more specifically of some natural process, involving information, that is fundamental to reality. A process which, when layered by means of memory, can result in consciousness.
Awareness of awareness would happen as a result of multiple interpretations being made again and again, each new one contrasted to the previous ones. The only thing that would distinguish the awareness of consciousness in this case from the awareness of everything else, would be memory. Without memory any human being would just be a mindless natural process. Information interpreting information based on nothing but then and there.

I realize this is a lot of speculation, but can we say that it is wrong?
0 Replies
 
G H
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 11:46 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Whenever units of mass or energy interact they interpret what they encounter and order themselves accordingly. Molecules bind to certain other molecules according to electrical charge, for instance. There is information being interpreted.

Interpretation suggests the possibility / flexibility of misinterpretation, or of deviant alternatives "to the universal commandments" intermittently flaring. Degrees of freedom / choice would seem to be the baggage of even proto-cognition, if it's going to warrant being called that (or related synonym) as opposed to some mechanistic classification. Which would be utter disaster for a cosmos that at least depends upon celestial bodies and atoms being reliable, predictable robots that lack options for literal decision-making (a successful, single attempt to land the Curiosity rover on Mars would have been otherwise impossible).

The supposed randomness of QM at the lower nested levels (where even time can become haphazardly scrambled, effects sometimes preceding causes) averages out to more precise or determined results at the higher ones. Similar to the scattered variations of thermodynamic activity in a system still producing a definite overall measurement on a thermometer; and change up here having a relentless bias for the future direction. Thus the macroscopic world eventually emerges as a fine example of classical physics or machine-hood. Though biological processes produce complex novelties whose ill-defined rules fall out of evolution and changing social templates, making them much less amenable to any formulas intended to forecast what they'll do next. Organisms interpret correctly or incorrectly; or neither associated value in an ultimate sense, perhaps, if nature overall cares not a whit about prescribing what is proper knowledge and action for these non-primary entities of life (which seems a far more appropriate stance for an non-conscious, dispassionate, intellectually vacant cosmos to figuratively assume).

I can actually sympathize with your elemental "awareness" to the extent that I've often felt an urge to inject "detection" into how or this or that field of a particle reacts to the presence of another, rather than ignoring each other as if ghosts. Some less magical-appearing reason than "lawfulness" or "it just happens because nature has decreed it so", though under analysis any substitute also seems to dismantle into the latter (barring introduction of a block-universe, eternalism, etc., where the "lawfulness" becomes the already established tracks of a higher dimensional structure rigidly regulating the supposed "flow") .
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 10:30 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I've made posts about this before. In broad terms, I think of matter and energy as information, and consciousness as interpretation.
Whenever units of mass or energy interact they interpret what they encounter and order themselves accordingly. Molecules bind to certain other molecules according to electrical charge, for instance. There is information being interpreted.
This is awareness. A relatively 'simple' natural phenomenon. Then interpretation causes biological cells to bind together, and living things exist.
Interpretation happens at every interaction on every level and scale, from the smallest quantum scales to the macro scale.
Then biological organisms start storing the information that has been interpreted, and this stored information is factored into new interpretations. Over time, this contrast of new interpretations over old ones creates still new interpretations, and the organism has become aware of the awareness happening within it. Then there is interpretation of interpretation. This interpretation becomes information in itself and has identity, and the organism is aware of doing it...

This is a very quick summary of the idea.
Do you think such a process of information and interpretation could result in creatures like us, who are not only aware, but aware of being aware.

It's a challenge of sorts, to the scientific axiom that physical evolution 'created' consciousness, and that before it occurred in organic creatures, it didn't exist.


i've already clashed with you about this before, so feel free to ignore my post insofar as it clashes with your idea.

In this post at least, you seem to be providing a naive monist view --that is, what occurs at the macro-level must penetrate to the micro-level. But to say that micro-increments of energy or mass "interpret" those other "units", or their interactions with the same, seems like a gross example of anthropomorphism. The process or outcome of molecular interaction may occasionally appear to be similar to the interaction of organisms, but they are in no case the same. Ie, molecules do not seem to "interpret" one another, they interact and react to one another without awareness.

Likewise, a bit (binary digit), (to divert this convo only slightly), is not independently capable of providing the matter for computer memory -- but its ambiguous nature is nonetheless constitutive of it. [Holy **** -- oversimplification, Batman]

Interpretation is only available at the level of info-storage, which is itself only available after the level at which "observation" (which involves a combination of diverse types of input, and a system of organizing them), or even "self-observation" (which involves not only the previous senses+ editing system, but also the capacity to those known, pragmatic self-limits as such, although subject to experiment) is available.

What i suppose i'm trying to say is (it seems to me) that the evolution of consciousness does not describe an expanding consciousness, so much as it describes a coming-to-be of consciousness out of its other (see the weak anthropic principle [wiki]).
Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 12:25 pm
@Razzleg,
Quote:
that is, what occurs at the macro-level must penetrate to the micro-level.


This is somewhat opposite of how I'm thinking. Macro-level is merely human conceptualization of these micro level phenomenon. Our senses interface with the world on a micro-cosmic level, and the result is the macro cosmos. It only exists within the perception of humans, or creatures similar to humans.
But yes, in essence, the entire conception we have of 'macro cosmos' is a gross anthropomorphism. It is reality cast in a human frame.

I am not saying that micro cosmic phenomena have awareness in the same way humans do. Humans have 'awareness of awareness', which is a much more complex thing that simple awareness.

I know that the idea can be pretty wild, but there is a sort of elegance to it.
Based on this, the phenomenon of life could be explained as a micro cosmic process that replicates itself in cycles. Each cycle is a continuation of the previous one. I'm not saying nature is aware of it's own awareness, and picks the right cycles that can continue and survive. I'm saying nature tries every possible cycle, and the ones that work endure and those that don't are forgotten.
Some fossils of the earliest life forms discovered reveal simple animals that looked like random congregations of cells. Then later animals appeared in which the cell structure had system. Relatively simple fractal rules which the cells reproduced according to. This complexity in structure is only possible because each new event is interpreted in relation to the previous. There is a 'natural awareness' which emerges from the process itself, and guides it forward. But it is not 'awareness of awareness'.

According to evolution theory, all life began like that, like single celled organisms. Then creatures with brains evolve. Memory is stored, and some processes now have a much more fluid interaction in which one event is interpreted in contrast to all similar events that exist in memory.
This mix of new events continually being interpreted in a context of previous events, is the spawning ground for 'awareness of awareness'. The internal relationship that distinguishes 'now' from 'similar situations' gives birth to the mind that makes the interpretation.

Like I said, this is a lot of speculation, but we are free of the paradox of how consciousness could occur in a 'dead' universe without a god making it happen. It also makes it easier to understand what is meant by 'reality being an illusion', and to see the cultural and conceptual bonds that form our understanding. Cool
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 01:35 pm
@Cyracuz,
Very interesting speculations. I'm too lazy to deal with them in detail, but I do need to insert the notion that consciousness does not occur in a "dead" (or essentially unconscious) universe (even one without a God). As a simple empirical fact our consciousness--as manifested in this very conversation--is a property of our Universe. My consciousness could not possibly exist without the physical universe that generates and sustains my "brain". And the construct "Universe" exists as a mental "phenomenon" because of the humaness (including its cultural power) we are sharing right now.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 10:46 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Very interesting speculations. I'm too lazy to deal with them in detail, but I do need to insert the notion that consciousness does not occur in a "dead" (or essentially unconscious) universe (even one without a God). As a simple empirical fact our consciousness--as manifested in this very conversation--is a property of our Universe. My consciousness could not possibly exist without the physical universe that generates and sustains my "brain". And the construct "Universe" exists as a mental "phenomenon" because of the humaness (including its cultural power) we are sharing right now.


Not to come off as more of an asshole than i usually do, but our consciousness seems less like a property of the "universe", and more like an effect. Its being an effect, in so far as consciousness exists, would seem supportable as an empirical fact, but its being a universal property -- that is, consciousness being an attribute of the universe, at large -- does seem empirically questionable.

The word "universe" as, vaguely, defined by its use in a human context and the "universe" as the hypothetical environment of that context have a relationship -- but the extent to which that relationship is reciprocal is, or should be, and seems to be, in doubt.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2012 10:59 pm
@Razzleg,
Not an asshole at all. You have a quality of consciousness and so do I. And this is a quality of the universe insofar as you and I are properties of the universe.
Razzleg
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 12:03 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
that is, what occurs at the macro-level must penetrate to the micro-level.


This is somewhat opposite of how I'm thinking. Macro-level is merely human conceptualization of these micro level phenomenon. Our senses interface with the world on a micro-cosmic level, and the result is the macro cosmos. It only exists within the perception of humans, or creatures similar to humans.
But yes, in essence, the entire conception we have of 'macro cosmos' is a gross anthropomorphism. It is reality cast in a human frame.

I am not saying that micro cosmic phenomena have awareness in the same way humans do. Humans have 'awareness of awareness', which is a much more complex thing that simple awareness.

I know that the idea can be pretty wild, but there is a sort of elegance to it.
Based on this, the phenomenon of life could be explained as a micro cosmic process that replicates itself in cycles. Each cycle is a continuation of the previous one. I'm not saying nature is aware of it's own awareness, and picks the right cycles that can continue and survive. I'm saying nature tries every possible cycle, and the ones that work endure and those that don't are forgotten.
Some fossils of the earliest life forms discovered reveal simple animals that looked like random congregations of cells. Then later animals appeared in which the cell structure had system. Relatively simple fractal rules which the cells reproduced according to. This complexity in structure is only possible because each new event is interpreted in relation to the previous. There is a 'natural awareness' which emerges from the process itself, and guides it forward. But it is not 'awareness of awareness'.

According to evolution theory, all life began like that, like single celled organisms. Then creatures with brains evolve. Memory is stored, and some processes now have a much more fluid interaction in which one event is interpreted in contrast to all similar events that exist in memory.
This mix of new events continually being interpreted in a context of previous events, is the spawning ground for 'awareness of awareness'. The internal relationship that distinguishes 'now' from 'similar situations' gives birth to the mind that makes the interpretation.

Like I said, this is a lot of speculation, but we are free of the paradox of how consciousness could occur in a 'dead' universe without a god making it happen. It also makes it easier to understand what is meant by 'reality being an illusion', and to see the cultural and conceptual bonds that form our understanding. Cool


Well, i'll avoid the basic semantic argument regarding the use of the word "consciousness" for "unconscious", or even perhaps "sub-consicous", activity -- which is how i regard your use of the word "consciousness" for "micro-" physical activity.

And i would also challenge the implication that all human beings have an innate "awareness of awareness". Most people have temporary epiphanies, in the Joycean sense, that provide momentary self-awareness, beyond circumstantial self-reflection, but most people seem to get along quite well, without constant self-awareness. Generally, i've found, in my experience, that "awareness of awareness" is a skill that requires practice.

And i'm curious as to what scholarly source you can appeal regarding these primeval, "unsystematic" life-forms that could survive long enough to mature and reproduce often enough to provide multiple fossils for modern study. Can you provide these studies?

Your comparison of individual memory with a species' biological success within the evolutionary model is not un-ingenious. But it doesn't accurately describe the likely complexity of the process termed "evolution", and it serves as a poor model for memory. The conditions that would likely temper evolutionary trends do not vary according to a "retention" of previous mutations, those conditions vary as affected by successful mutations. And even "memory" is not currently understood as a readily available reservoir of observed past events, but as a source of information available only as it is interpreted by, and added to analyze current experience.

Cyracuz wrote:

Like I said, this is a lot of speculation, but we are free of the paradox of how consciousness could occur in a 'dead' universe without a god making it happen. It also makes it easier to understand what is meant by 'reality being an illusion', and to see the cultural and conceptual bonds that form our understanding.


i appreciate the motive behind it, but i find little to suggest that there is anything but "speculative" evidence, much less non-speculative evidence, for the position put forth here. It all "sounds" more like an attempt to reconcile a belief that the "universe" is an attribute of our minds, and that the observations of the mind accurately portray the universe. What if neither situation needed to exist for both the mind and the universe to exist? Does unconscious universe and conscious mind really represent a paradox? What if it weren't conscious minds and unconscious universes that were in question, but the line of inquiry that made their co-existence impossible?

"Reality being an illusion" solves nothing, all it does is make the concept of "illusion" meaningless -- "illusion" doesn't have a contrasting "truth" to define it. If you want to define "reality" as culturally or conceptually "based", then be prepared to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 12:23 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Not an asshole at all. You have a quality of consciousness and so do I. And this is a quality of the universe insofar as you and I are properties of the universe.


Thanks, JLN, i appreciate the affirmation. i enjoy your internet company, along with a lot of the other contributors to this forum, as well. All the same, "redness" or "green-ness" or "yellowness" is a property of an apple (vs., say, blueness); and roundness is an approximate property of a baseball. These aspects define, to some extent, the phenomena to which they are an attribute without being able to comprise them.

On the other hand, i am not a property of the universe. When i die, which i will -- and if i do say so, irreplaceably -- the universe will not be any less the universe. My existence is an effect of the universe, certainly, and i appreciate it, but my consciousness is in no way definitive. Nor is anyone's or everyones' -- if every conscious being in the universe were to die tomorrow, it would nevertheless continue to be the universe.

You and i do have a quality of consciousness, if by that you mean that we have consciousness and we can qualify the descriptions of each, or if you mean that we, as individuals, have qualities and that consciousness is one of them.

In other words, we have consciousness in so far as we are in the universe, but there is no reason to attribute this qualtiy to the universe because we have it...
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 06:22 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
And i'm curious as to what scholarly source you can appeal regarding these primeval, "unsystematic" life-forms that could survive long enough to mature and reproduce often enough to provide multiple fossils for modern study. Can you provide these studies?


You can see it in this video. Start at around 18:30 min if you are only interested in the first multicellular organisms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYB8K1fIuhI


I'll get back to you about the rest when I have time for it.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:18 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
On the other hand, i am not a property of the universe.


Were you created by some force not of the universe? Is there any part of you that is not natural? Your misconception stems from the biblical teaching that man was placed in nature by god, after it's completion, implying that man is somehow more than nature, and not of it.

But humans are a part of nature. If the budding of new flowers on a tree is a phenomenon of nature, and not just of the tree, then human consciousness is also a phenomenon of nature, and not just of humans.

With this small adjustment to the premise, I think you may find a different perspective on the ideas I've put out in this thread, if you are interested.

Quote:
In other words, we have consciousness in so far as we are in the universe, but there is no reason to attribute this qualtiy to the universe because we have it.


Again, I disagree with your logic. Lets go back to the budding flower on the tree. Do we attribute this quality to the tree, or to nature? We can do both, depending on the perspective we are speaking from. The same is true for consciousness. We have it. We are part of nature. Therefore nature has it.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:09 pm
@Cyracuz,
As I see it, when you, I and Razzleg cease to exist or be conscious the UNIVERSE will have changed--even though it will continue to be what we call the universe. Indeed, the universe is always changing because of its internal dynamism.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 01:45 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

[quote="razzleg]
And i'm curious as to what scholarly source you can appeal regarding these primeval, "unsystematic" life-forms that could survive long enough to mature and reproduce often enough to provide multiple fossils for modern study. Can you provide these studies?


You can see it in this video. Start at around 18:30 min if you are only interested in the first multicellular organisms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYB8K1fIuhI


I'll get back to you about the rest when I have time for it.
[/quote]

Hmmmm...i didn't watch the whole video, although it seemed good -- i'll have to catch up on it later. But nonetheless, you'd have to to be a fool to regard sponges as unsystematic organisms - if that was your point. Sponges, as taxonomically ambiguous as they are, are extremely systematic: that is, "a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole". They are not a-"systematic".[/quote]

Cyracuz wrote:

[quote-"razzleg"]On the other hand, i am not a property of the universe.


Were you created by some force not of the universe? Is there any part of you that is not natural? Your misconception stems from the biblical teaching that man was placed in nature by god, after it's completion, implying that man is somehow more than nature, and not of it.

But humans are a part of nature. If the budding of new flowers on a tree is a phenomenon of nature, and not just of the tree, then human consciousness is also a phenomenon of nature, and not just of humans.

With this small adjustment to the premise, I think you may find a different perspective on the ideas I've put out in this thread, if you are interested.

[quote-"razzleg"]In other words, we have consciousness in so far as we are in the universe, but there is no reason to attribute this quality to the universe because we have it.[/quote]

Again, I disagree with your logic. Lets go back to the budding flower on the tree. Do we attribute this quality to the tree, or to nature? We can do both, depending on the perspective we are speaking from. The same is true for consciousness. We have it. We are part of nature. Therefore nature has it.
[/quote][/quote]

Perhaps you misunderstand the disjunctive relationship between part and property. i refer you to your chosen dictionary.

My conception, mis- or no, does not depend upon any sort of biblical reading... i can only refer you to my many un-Abrahamic interpretations of events -- perhaps you would be more comfortable with my consistent disagreements with you if you could attribute it to some sort of religious misunderstanding, but that isn't the case.

My question is not whether to attribute the bud to the tree or to nature, but whether to attribute the color blue (consciousness) to the bud or to the tree...? The bud is a product of the tree, no doubt, but the color blue is a property of the bud. If you wanted to say that the color blue was a property of the tree would be to say that the tree was blue -- which it isn't.

i refer you to the "vegetable fallacy", its roots in Jesus of Jerusalem's parables, and its logical critique.

i have no problem admitting that i am part of nature, nor that i have consciousness, and in so far as i have consciousness -- so to is consciousness a part of the universe. But to say that consciousness is a property of the universe, well, that is taking my egotism (or even the self regard of my species) a bit too far.

JLNobody wrote:

As I see it, when you, I and Razzleg cease to exist or be conscious the UNIVERSE will have changed--even though it will continue to be what we call the universe. Indeed, the universe is always changing because of its internal dynamism.


Indeed, and even in so far as we contribute to that internal dynamism, we will still cease to exist- despite out past existence.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 02:06 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

[quote="razzleg]
And i'm curious as to what scholarly source you can appeal regarding these primeval, "unsystematic" life-forms that could survive long enough to mature and reproduce often enough to provide multiple fossils for modern study. Can you provide these studies?


You can see it in this video. Start at around 18:30 min if you are only interested in the first multicellular organisms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYB8K1fIuhI


I'll get back to you about the rest when I have time for it.


Hmmmm...i didn't watch the whole video, although it seemed good -- i'll have to catch up on it later. But nonetheless, you'd have to to be a fool to regard sponges as unsystematic organisms - if that was your point. Sponges, as taxonomically ambiguous as they are, are extremely systematic: that is, "a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole". They are not a-"systematic".[/quote]

Cyracuz wrote:

[quote-"razzleg"]On the other hand, i am not a property of the universe.


Were you created by some force not of the universe? Is there any part of you that is not natural? Your misconception stems from the biblical teaching that man was placed in nature by god, after it's completion, implying that man is somehow more than nature, and not of it.

But humans are a part of nature. If the budding of new flowers on a tree is a phenomenon of nature, and not just of the tree, then human consciousness is also a phenomenon of nature, and not just of humans.

With this small adjustment to the premise, I think you may find a different perspective on the ideas I've put out in this thread, if you are interested.[/quote]

[quote-"razzleg"]In other words, we have consciousness in so far as we are in the universe, but there is no reason to attribute this quality to the universe because we have it.[/quote]

Again, I disagree with your logic. Lets go back to the budding flower on the tree. Do we attribute this quality to the tree, or to nature? We can do both, depending on the perspective we are speaking from. The same is true for consciousness. We have it. We are part of nature. Therefore nature has it.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misunderstand the disjunctive relationship between part and property. i refer you to your chosen dictionary.

My conception, mis- or no, does not depend upon any sort of biblical reading... i can only refer you to my many un-Abrahamic interpretations of events -- perhaps you would be more comfortable with my consistent disagreements with you if you could attribute it to some sort of religious misunderstanding, but that isn't the case.

My question is not whether to attribute the bud to the tree or to nature, but whether to attribute the color blue (consciousness) to the bud or to the tree...? The bud is a product of the tree, no doubt, but the color blue is a property of the bud. If you wanted to say that the color blue was a property of the tree would be to say that the tree was blue -- which it isn't.

i refer you to the "vegetable fallacy", its roots in Jesus of Jerusalem's parables, and its logical critique.

i have no problem admitting that i am part of nature, nor that i have consciousness, and in so far as i have consciousness -- so to is consciousness a part of the universe. But to say that consciousness is a property of the universe, well, that is taking my egotism (or even the self regard of my species) a bit too far.

JLNobody wrote:

As I see it, when you, I and Razzleg cease to exist or be conscious the UNIVERSE will have changed--even though it will continue to be what we call the universe. Indeed, the universe is always changing because of its internal dynamism.


Indeed, and even in so far as we contribute to that internal dynamism, we will still cease to exist- despite out past existence.
[/quote]
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 02:08 am
@Razzleg,
bah, i've spent a good 30 minutes trying to figure out where i've left out an appropriate punctuation mark -- **** it. You guys figure it out for yourselves...****...my argument stands up for itself...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2012 01:14 pm
@JLNobody,
Quote:
As I see it, when you, I and Razzleg cease to exist or be conscious the UNIVERSE will have changed--even though it will continue to be what we call the universe. Indeed, the universe is always changing because of its internal dynamism.


Yes. Here are some pictures of how five constellations will look in 50,000 years. It's interesting how they have changed, and yet remain so similar.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Consciousness, again
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 02:27:56