Viability of foreverness

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

..and I also am not in any way suggesting that I cannot be that GOD.

SFrank the apodictical existential pantheist affirms you in fact are, just like the rest of us, at least an important part of Her

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Glad we are on the same page on these things, Dale.

The conversations going on between Fresco and Cyracuz is way beyond my ability to comprehend, so I will stay out of it. I will continue to comment in areas where I am able to keep my head above water.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Wouldn't it make more sense to say consciousness is a phenomenon of reality? Because the physical world will be there even if it is without observers, say the whole human species became extinct, there would still be earth, galaxy, the universe, etc.
the cognitive hardware that even allowed consciousness, and awareness, was developed, in theory, from evolution through time.

Then again if you are of a religion, you could say God is consciousness and that reality is a phenomenon of consciousness. Is that what u meant?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Glad we are on the same page on these things, Dale.

So am I but I’ll bet if we kept after it long enough we’d find some serious differences

Quote:

The conversations going on between Fresco and Cyracuz is way beyond my ability to comprehend,

Mine too

Quote:

so I will stay out of it.

Me too

Quote:

I will continue to comment in areas where I am able to keep my head above water.

Still your head is a bit higher than mine, occasionally breathing in a dollop of the Sea of Confusion

0 Replies

@Atom Blitzer,

You say that without us human observers the physical world would still exist. But surely you are not suggesting the Naive Realist position that trees would still LOOK like trees and birds would SOUND like birds sound, even without human eyes and ears. Reality--whatever that is--would remain but its phenomenal appearance is a function of the relation between our physiology and the physical world.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

You say that without us human observers the physical world would still exist. But surely you are not suggesting the Naive Realist position that trees would still LOOK like trees and birds would SOUND like birds sound, even without human eyes and ears. Reality--whatever that is--would remain but its phenomenal appearance is a function of the relation between our physiology and the physical world.

And you are absolutely certain of that,JL, because...?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Because it seems most plausible to me; you have a suggestion more plausible? Plausibility rather than certainty is always my goal.
If you have read many of my philosophical posts you know I am not very interested in either certainty or absolutism. All "truths" are both tentative and relative.

1 Reply

@Atom Blitzer,

Quote:

Because the physical world will be there even if it is without observers, say the whole human species became extinct, there would still be earth, galaxy, the universe, etc.

That is the assumption I'm challenging. "Physical" is a perception, an experience.

Quote:

the cognitive hardware that even allowed consciousness, and awareness, was developed, in theory, from evolution through time.

There's a problem with that assertion, as I see it. Any attribute or ability an animal has, has evolved as a successful adaptation to it's environment over many generations. Ducks got better at swimming by swimming a lot. Monkeys are good at climbing trees because they climb trees all the time. There's a simple, yet elegant logic to it.
That logic is breached when it comes to consciousness. "It evolved", we say, and assume that it didn't exist before we or some animal that came before us got it. But how could 'mind' evolve if there was no thinking?

Quote:

Then again if you are of a religion, you could say God is consciousness and that reality is a phenomenon of consciousness. Is that what u meant?

No. I am not of a religion. I am not suggesting a unified consciousness that is self aware. But I am saying that the physical universe evolved in our minds. If I were to speculate about "absolute reality", I'd say that there would still be reality without humans, but it would only be expressed to the degree of awareness that the remaining universe had a capacity for.
That is assuming we are the most evolved awareness in the universe. If we are not, our passing may be of little consequence.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Okay that makes sense but then if the rules are the same throughout doesn’t that mean (assuming that anything that can happen, will) that at each and every moment there are an infinite number of every possible visible Universe, galaxy, etc, and doesn’t that idea bother you

Quote:

It doesn't bother me.

Okay Ora, but infinity is pretty big so then if you accept the idea, then at this very instant there must be an infinite number of absolutely identical neighborhoods (“visible ‘Universes’ ”?) in which Ora is chatting with Dale; also an infinite number identical to the latter in every way except that one hair on my head is 0.00000001 cm longer etc etc ad infinitum

Doesn’t your intuition react even a little

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Because it seems most plausible to me; you have a suggestion more plausible? Plausibility rather than certainty is always my goal.
If you have read many of my philosophical posts you know I am not very interested in either certainty or absolutism. All "truths" are both tentative and relative.

JL...theists often assert to me that although they cannot prove there is a GOD, the notion of a GOD makes more sense than any other alternatives offered. I acknowledge the "it seems more plausible" explanation, but it holds no more water for me than the theists assertions about plausibility.

Here is what we were talking about:

Quote:

You say that without us human observers the physical world would still exist. But surely you are not suggesting the Naive Realist position that trees would still LOOK like trees and birds would SOUND like birds sound, even without human eyes and ears. Reality--whatever that is--would remain but its phenomenal appearance is a function of the relation between our physiology and the physical world.

Now you ask if I have a suggestion for "more plausible."

I certainly have a suggestion that is AS PLAUSIBLE. Here it is…and perhaps you can tell me why you do not see it AS PLAUSIBLE.

Without us human observers the physical world would still exist and the trees MAY still look like trees and the birds would still sound like birds…even if only to the other animals besides humans who inhabit our planet.

Not trying to give you a tough time...just calling attention to the fact that you are treating these issues like most of the non-duality folk treat most issues of this sort...in a religious way. You state "beliefs" as though they are facts.

You tend to state things using very certain wording...where uncertainty seems more appropriate. In this last post, for example, you wrote:

"All 'truths' are both tentative and relative."

That may or may not be true. The truth, however, MAY be that some truths are not both tentative and relative.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

And then there's the fact (?) that what is plausible for one person is not so for another. And what is plausible today for me may not be so tomorrow. I think I prefer to say that all is provisional. And your point about how the world appears to us possibly looking the same for other species is an empirical question, one that I cannot address: maybe a zoologist can.

4 Replies

@JLNobody,

I can provide you with as much empirical evidence you like on that one JLN , but it won't get the dog off your coat tails . It wants to play ! Laughing

1 Reply

@fresco,

Oh, so you're a zoologist too? Wink

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

It helps when dealing with certain species !

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=p1SUzc5GUVcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA77&dq=Varela+color+vision&ots=eRlJXVYWy7&sig=E6kphVtAr1QWmkg44F8hzL7-zOM#v=onepage&q=Varela%20color%20vision&f=false

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

And then there's the fact (?) that what is plausible for one person is not so for another. And what is plausible today for me may not be so tomorrow. I think I prefer to say that all is provisional. And your point about how the world appears to us possibly looking the same for other species is an empirical question, one that I cannot address: maybe a zoologist can.

I have no problem with any of that, JL. But none of it impacts on what I orginally wrote about your initial post.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Well the fact that I can communicate up to an extent with an animal would at least partially prove that there can be common points between us, so again you are stretching the truth J...when I cross the road and see a car coming in my direction the car isn't a car functionally speaking but an immediate danger and I guess dogs experience exactly the same feeling when they cross the road carefully...that is perhaps because we share the same surviving perspective regarding the identification of a potential danger in something as simple as the movement of a huge object, thus the function of avoiding danger and the identification of a moving car as a potential danger its common between our species...things don't have to be perceived exactly the same way to prove that there can be common perspectives, quite on the contrary, they just don't have to be perceived as completely different...

...naturally if I don't identify the car and I die, the damn dog better still be careful when crossing the road as the car didn't vanished for sure... Laughing

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

This might be a good time to bring this up, JL.

You might consider why people like you and Fresco get into such a pet when I ask you to substantiate assertions that seem extraordinary.

If a theists says, “There is a God”…I do not consider it inappropriate to ask, “How do you know that?” or “What is the basis for that assertion?”

If a strong atheist says, “There are no gods” or “There is no soul or Heaven or Hell”…I do not consider it inappropriate to ask, “How do you know that?” or “What is the basis for those assertions?”

I doubt many would consider it inappropriate to ask those questions under those circumstances. It often can help clear the air about the nature of the assertion.

But if one of you non-dualists makes a statement about your dogma, you seem to resent any questions of that sort. You are perfectly content to assert stuff that does not come from logic (although you claim it does) but from “belief”…and get worked up in indignation that anyone would have the temerity to question the basis of the assertions.

You might do some introspection and try to determine why that is. You might want to do some introspection to determine why it is okay for some of you to intimate that a person asking questions of that sort can be thought of as a dog yapping at coat tails…or of a species different from homo sapiens…and for others of you not to call comrades on nonsense like that.

Just sayin’!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Some absolute truths that anyone mentally sane can assert with ease:

- It is absolutely true that I was born for the life I lived and experience until today...
- It is absolutely true that if I let the natural course of ageing proceed I will die for the life I lived and experienced so far...
- Equally it is absolutely true whether you know it or not that at this point I am laughing while writing these exact words as demagoguery can nothing against facts...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Some absolute truths that anyone mentally sane can assert with ease:

- It is absolutely true that I was born for the life I lived and experience until today...
- It is absolutely true that if I let the natural course of ageing proceed I will die for the life I lived and experienced so far...
- Equally it seams absolutely true that at this point I am laughing while writing these exact words as demagoguery can nothing against facts...

Number three leaves me baffled!

0 Replies

Viability of foreverness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know