But nonetheless, you'd have to to be a fool to regard sponges as unsystematic organisms
Not a fool. Just lacking of information.
I don't recall if I ever used the word 'unsystematic' in relation to the sponges, but what I mean is that the cells combine with no specific pattern, unlike later creatures, who's cell structure followed distinct, repeating patterns.
Thanks for not commenting on the terrible state of my last post...i'm not sure what happened there, but i have a feeling that i am growing quote-impaired. However, it would have been an excellect opportunity for mockery. And i also apologize, i didn't mean to actually suggest you were a fool. i don't think that you did use the word "unsystematic", but you did use the word "random". My contention is that no creature (and i'm set off a little by that term alone, for its biblical precedent) has ever been composed of a "random" conglomeration of cells. Cells, or as they have also been called the "building blocks of life", always combine in a non-random way. i don't think, although there might be a paleontologist out there prepared to prove me wrong, that there has ever been a random collection of cells grouped together in a way that could feed and reproduce, much less slime its way across a sea bed.
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.
You seem to consistently get things backwards. If you realize that your consciousness is a property of the universe, if that truly is understood by you, there will be nothing left for the ego. You would be enlightened.
Perhaps this misunderstanding between us is due to my poorly presented post above, but let me state it explicitly: i do not think that either my consciousness or consciousness, in general, is a property of the universe. Both my consciousness and consciousness in general is a part
of the universe, but it is not a property of it.
To quote myself in a previous post (to JLN):
... "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.
An example of my point made above is this: A bicycle has many properties -- it must have two wheels, a pedal based method of propulsion, etc. Give it three wheels and it is a tricycle, one wheel and it is a unicycle (i realize how arbitrarily number based this example is), or attach a motor to it and it is a moped.
A bicycle also has parts: wheels, pedals, gears, handlebars, etc. However, take one of those parts away, and it remains a bicycle. The only question as to that absence is how will those parts be replaced. If my consciousness were a pedal, and it were removed from the bicycle known as "the universe", then that "universe" would remain a "universe" without a pedal. (Oh sure, take enough parts away, and the bicycle would be unrecognizable -- but that's a different debate.)
To me, consciousness is like a horn attached to the handlebars of the universe. If one were to to lose it, the bicycle would continue to function as well as it did before. Just so, were consciousness to vanish, and perhaps humanity with it, the universe would still function just fine.
If consciousness were a property of the universe, then both individual consciousnesses and enlightenment would be a moot point.
Let me ask another question. Do you think thoughts can occur outside or without a mind/awareness?
We have awareness of things that happened millions of years ago. When did that awareness begin? When we dug up the first dinosaur bone? Or when the dinosaur crawled out of it's egg millions of years ago?
No, i don't think that thoughts can occur outside or without a mind/awareness, but nor do i think that we are aware of things that happened millions of years ago. What we are presented with today is evidence, both material, technologically provided, and theoretical, of events that preceded our contemporary awareness by millions of years. That evidence requires, nay demands, modern interpretation by our current awareness -- but i do not pretend that my speculation, however reliably fact-based it might be, as to the lifespan and environment of a trilobite in any way reflects the experience of that same trilobite.
Although i think that this is a very speculative point, "awareness" as a mental phenomenon extends back quite a ways -- perhaps that trilobite, about which i am so ignorant, would be considered "aware". But "awareness", as a mental phenomenon, does not seem to be a resource of information retention, or memory. If you're looking for an authority regarding "ancestral memory" look to Jung, but there is little empirical evidence for it. Posterity cannot draw upon past memories in any sort of practical way.
Is your knowledge of the first dinosaur hatchling in the Triassic really a matter of awareness? i invite you to describe it in detail... a play by play, as it were.
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.
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.
Yes, but consider how much they may have already changed, without our having been able to see them. The positions that those stars currently seem to occupy have already actually altered slightly, without our being aware of it.
By the way, I consider my conscious states of mind to characteristically involve a large (maybe a larger) unconscious component. Don't you?
Yes, precisely, but i don't therefore think that this view of the situation privileges consciousness in any way.
But ""involve" is a highly ambiguous word. In what way, situation, relation do you view the involvement between conscious states of mind and their large (perhaps larger) unconscious counterpart?