 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)ijonspeches ...and 316 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614224 Today 6 Topics 127549 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
back again i cant really put it down to genetics theres definitely something mystical about being a person |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
genetics, the memory of our ancestors, all the way back to the primoridal oceanic womb. vibration, memory that dates back to the beginning if there was one. but back to the human development, if the embyo that you came from was conscious, but the sperm and the egg were not conscious, you then believe there was a single point whence you came into consciousness? before this moment you were not, after this moment you were? (be it sperm penetration, completion of fertilization or whatever, an instantaneous moment of being turned on is what is implied) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when i grew a brain :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bring over some of your old motown records |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am me not someone else :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm not sure i understand you correctly, but it seems as if you are asserting that whether or not a being is conscious depends on the opinion or "threshhold" of an outside observers coneption of consciousness. whether or not a tree is actually conscious has nothing to do with my or your personal concept of consciousness. does it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but you didn't grow a brain in a single moment. do you believe it possible that there was a single moment before which you had no consciousness and after which you had consciousness? this is the only option other than you were always conscious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what if the principles of consciousness and they way it works is too far above our heads to understand for now? i didn't look up the definition but i'm not even sure i agree with it, it's like the way the brain works, we are far from having all the clues in this domain... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dont think a tree has a consciousness. but no one knows what does and what doesnt. people could never make a concensus on what exactly is consciousness. i think for consciousness to be 'there', having a sensory system is a necessity. if a human is born without any senses (blind, deaf, no feeling, paralysed), what would he experience? would he experience anything? are there innate 'faculties', or is everything learned by experiencing the world? and aprat from needing a sensory system for consciousness to be there, there's a need for memory. 2 basic things that i doubt a tree posseses. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ahhh do you know what you just said? that made too much sense :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
+ to favourites |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what i'm saying, johnny, is that if you believe that you were at one point not conscious, you believe that there was a single moment in which you bacame conscious. now, this being the case, i would think that either the moment of consciousness turn-on was the result of something supernatural (outside of physics) or you think consciousness has a corresponding physical key-code-setup, in which case we would have to introduce a new law or principle into physics, stating that there exists specific physical criteria for consciousness. but there are problems with this and rather than admit they believe in the supernatural moment, they deny the issue. i have long gaven up the game of denial. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree to an extent. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in order to fully confront the implications of the your assertion that there are both things with and there are things without consciousness, please follow my human development scenario i described. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
howcome? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree with this one |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hello reincarnation |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the thing is we dont know when a feotus acquires cousiousness, and how it does, i.e. in a single moment or if it's a gradual thing. this is why there's a huge debate on abortions; when is a feotus a entity with cousciousness? to know this fact is merely impossible. how can you know if something has consciousness? us humans can use introspection, and communicate what we experience. but apart from that, we just assume for other living creatures and organism, no?. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
btw, why did you start this thread? for a class? interesting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
indicates that if we could specify where life begins and ends, then we could be scientific about it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BUT we cant :] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean, I agree somewhat. I don't know any of this is true but it seems most likely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
remember that article in last years news they say.. ok these cats are cloned but theyre totally different when we do see cloned people! well.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it could be argued that awareness does not preclude being. in other words, it is not necessary for a thing to be conscious of its existence (be it via either sensation or thought - or a combination of the two) in order for it to exist in time and space. on the other hand, does a blade of grass exist for the mere fact that we as human beings have the capacity to observe it? the question of: if a tree falls in a forst and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? comes to mind. from our (severely limited and restricted) point of view, it would appear that existence does not necessitate awareness, but at the same time, we are utterly incapable of describing how a presumably unconsious thing such as a tree experiences the process of existence. as human beings, we have absolutely no point of comparison. even on an individual level, the comparisons we draw and the conclusions we make on the issue of existence as such are based solely on our own private experience of reality. who is to say that between two different individuals, the only thing linking their existence is not language? how am i to suppose that when we both see a red car passing by, we are in fact both witnessing the exact same colour - or perhaps it is only the associative word 'red' - and by inference, language in general - upon which a collective awareness of reality is founded? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats heavy shitz reference to 'it could be argued that awareness does not preclude being ... exist in time and space' yes we can only make a personal observation of others, but we cant observe for anyone else |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i agree with what youre saying. i think the chances that we both perceive or experience the same thing (red car) are slim to none, because the experiencing of the red car is a construct of what you reality is, and not reality itself. but we'll never know, unless there's a way for us to swap brains and experience what the other does. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
look at a car with your friend, both draw it and check the result =) colour is another issue... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shape has the exact same issue than color. think about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
even if you were to swap brains (nieche market in the pornography industry of the future: brain swapping! hehe!) with another creature, this would not actually allow you to experience reality as that creature comes to interpret it. true enough, you may, for instance, know what it feels like to have a body of an ape, for instance, but not how the ape perceives the world and its own existence - because you would still be interpreting everything around you using your own brain - there really is no escaping our own individual reality, and hence, philosophically speaking, no way of comparing our experience to that of anybody else. two people drawing a picture of what they have both witnessed is not much of a solution to this, by the way, because what you draw, and how you draw it, or moreover, how you come to view someone else's visual interpretation (even if it's a photograph), will be filtered through the prism of your own subjective experience of reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i was hoping you wouldnt mention this, but youre right ;) i would still be using my own brain. replace the word 'brain' by 'mind' or 'spirit' or 'soul'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cortex... "we dont know when a feotus acquires cousiousness, and how it does, i.e. in a single moment or if it's a gradual thing." i am not saying that we can know when a fetus acquires consciousness and i specifically stated that i don't think we could logically argue whether conscoiusness develops along an absolute continuum or comes to be in a single moment. part of what i am saying is that, simply: IF certain things are not able to experience their existence (or, if you like, are not conscious)... THEN this ability to experience that we and possibly other things have MUST come to be in a single instant--for those beings that have the ability--an instant before which there is not "consciousness" and after which there is "consciousness" no offense to anybody, but i have a feeling that many do not understand what i am asserting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wish this was for a class. most scientists refuse to approach the physical/spiritual "problem" in such a straight to the point manner, and the folks of academic philosophy have a sneaky way of tricking themselves into assuming they can't look at the question in this manner without bringing up an endless series of related issues. it fancies me you could say. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
then you understand me! (i think) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you're touching on "nature vs. nurture," what makes us who we are and all right? it's both. genetics and external experience are both influences. you are a product of your experience (did somebody say that in this thread?) and part of your experience is the genetic code (all 125 billion miles inside you!). but that's not all of your experience and so genetic clones cannot be the same individuals. they just have very close starting points, but diverge into unique individuals nonetheless. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
word. every individual life experience is absolutely unique. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im pretty sure i know what youre trying to say. im just deriving from your original question a little, and what i said wasnt to contrast what i thought was your position on the question. hmmmm... i dont think im clear, and i dont think i can put into english words what i mean... but the question is interesting. i tend to believe it's gradual, so i couldnt say that in a split second, the foetus goes from 'has no consciousness' to 'has now consciousness'. kind of like when you become a human. i dont believe that at some precise and distinguishable point, you 'cross' from not being one to being one. the sperm and egg slowly evolves and aspires to be more and more human. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Kinda off topic but: Humans are obviously conscious, and all other species --> all we can ever say about them is that they are less concious than us; (less concious) in the way humans are conscious. But they obviously have a different conciousness, so they cannot be compared to ours. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but what about single cell species? what about viruses? what about minerals? are they conscious? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
re: question .. 1. if you distinguish between conscious/unconscious you will be bound by an arbitrary line, that in the end will cause much grief to the distinction (depending how far you want to go with it). 2. quite a schopenhauerian picture ... possibly implying a collective sub/unconsiciious? mmm.. i think you can use either depending on the context the question is asked .. i think ultimately the first materialist notion is a bit flat, though perhaps more obviously pragmatic. as the second "possibility" invites the inclination to distinguish between humans, plants animals, rocks - anyway? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you guys are forgetting the third possible reality, which is that i am a banana. think about it guys... then get back to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my ULTIMATE POINT of the original post, korben dallas and all, is this: for there to exist a distinction between things having the ability to experience their existence and things unable, there must... (a) ...exist a distinction between certain matter with this ability and other matter without this ability. this is contrary to physics and puts one in the state of belief in something supernatural, something outside the forces of physical nature. ...or... (b) ...exist a separation between the self and the physical body e.i. body = vehicle for the soul. either way, the so called materialist view fails to remain material. and this is precisely why scientists and philosophers dodge this straight forward manner of dealing with the issue. mostly at the subconscious level, they dodge the possibility of facing these implications. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh ok .. though i imagine (a) would me more of a functional kind then. the way you put it makes it sound a little like starwars and the force? and how do you understand us experiencing our existence ..? incase you're implying there is a body/mind dualism .. western philosophy has in the past been very concerned about it .. perhaps more contemporary material monists consider it a waste of time .. and equally , other disciplines within philosophy may have (in their opinion - up to you to decide i guess) reached a similar conclusion, either dissolving the problem or solving it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but what about single cell species? what about viruses? what about minerals? are they conscious? I still want to say we cannot compare their concious(ness) to ours. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if you define consciousness as something outside of bodily occurrence, then you can start making up as many assumptions about who has body and consciousness and who doesn't (plants, animals, bacteria, organisms, inanimate objects, etc) but in order to get to this point, you have to define what consciousness IS, and if you say it's something vague like 'it's that i realize that i exist' or something of the sort, you're going to be talking in circles. on the other hand, if consciousness is just a by-product of the body's material functions (ie. consciousness as just an illusion created to seem like it is more than what it really is), then there is no separation to discuss. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
only a seperation between these material bodies .. between the ones that elicit the illusion and the ones that don't |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
true, but the ones that claim to elicit the illusion (us i assume) can only confirm this through our language - but we can't confirm it with other beings/objects as confidently, so we just place the assumption that they lack something we have - but i would not be so sure as to say that this is therefore a given fact that because these OTHER objects lack this supposed illusion, that we therefore should be clearly distinguished from them? :o |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is consciousness which gives rise to matter. therefore, all matter is conscious. the conscious quark, molecule, rock, a single cell in your finger, cat, and you yourself experience consciousness in radically different ways. consciousness is whole, and complete, yet is creative in that it can assume infinite forms without the limits of space or time. within this conscious context we exist, and the gift we are given is the ability to define and articulate our selves. we can gather momentum and expand infinitely, or we can wither into darkness, if we choose. the path is acceptance or denial, but we create the circumstances of our personal "truth." absolute truth is an oxymoron, because there is no plateau of understanding or experience. each of us is a thread that began before we were born, and continues beyond our death. the process by which we transcend our physical experience is anamnesis. these statements are described as a map. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no never meant a clear distinction. just seems "natural" to do :) i agree with you about language .. though i'd put less weight on "confirm" ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am not implying anything about what is, i am illustrating the (imo, silly) implications of the idea that there are things that are not conscious. i am implying that for one to be rational and believe that there are things which are not conscious, they must also believe that the experience of conscious beings (our experience) is supernatural, that our experience is outside, above or beyond nature. and if one believes that there are things not conscious yet also believes that nothing is outside of nature, they are irrational. in other words, the philosophical beliefs of most westerners, men of science or not, are irrational. the idea that not all is animate is irrational. i believe i've illustrated it through and through, and still i ask, can you show me another possibility? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
