Universal Consciousness?

[RussDill]

A rose by any other name is not a rose? No, it doesn't stand to reason. And only goes to show that "universal axioms" do exist, and quite possibly a Universal Consciousess does as well.

is y = 4x a "universal equation"? It certainly exists whether we write it down or not. Does that make it special in any way? Does the same thing about counting make it special in any way? Can you point out any relavence with a universal consciousness?

 

[RussDill]

If you were totally unconscious you would be totally unaware, and there would be "nothing" to make any sense out of.

Wonderful job of answering the question, I give it a 0 out of 10.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Universal Consciousness?

And yet you and I are both linked to the Internet and still remain separate don't we? While you and I can both watch the same TV program and remain separate can't we?

We are not really "linked" to the internet ourselves, our computers are. So its pretty ease for us to remain seperate. Once again, a very poor analogy.

And yet how can we possibly agree, if there wasn't something universal about our ability to agree (and be able to see the same thing). All of which as I say, boils down to consciousness.

The fact that we can agree on occurances only indicates a shared external world. If we shared consciousness, we wouldn't necessarily agree, we could be experiencing completely seperate realities.

 

[Iacchus]

Are you telling us that you haven't been able to independently verify this?

Yes, we all have the ability to "tune in" independently.

 

[hgc]

Yes, we all have the ability to "tune in" independently.

So, you checked in with The Big Giant Head, and verified that 1+1=2. Glad to know it. I got the same result, but it was my dog Sam who told me. He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge.

 

[Iacchus]

It boils down to your individual consciousness and my individual consciousness, and the individual consciousnes of everybody else. Not some linked up "universal". Did you feel it last time I hit my thumb with a hammer? I can demonstrate to you that 1 + 1 = 2. You should test this out for yourself. Why invoke some big mysterious universal concept to explain something so simple?

Then how do we all "tap" into the "universal fact" that 1 + 1 = 2? Why do birds of a feather flock together?

I wouldn't underestimate the power of the "collective unconscious" here.

 

[Iacchus]

So, you checked in with The Big Giant Head, and verified that 1+1=2. Glad to know it. I got the same result, but it was my dog Sam who told me. He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge.

Oh, he's connected too by the way.

 

[RussDill]

Yes, we all have the ability to "tune in" independently.

Interesting statemnt, where is your evidence? If you have none, then it is just as valid for me to say, "No, we do not have the ability to tune in", or, "No, only the select few can tune in". Which statement is right, how do you decide which statement is right?

 

[Suezoled]

(snipped) He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge.

Don't do it man! Don't do it! Just put the compass down!

 

[RussDill]

Then how do we all "tap" into the "universal fact" that 1 + 1 = 2?

What makes it a universal fact, rather than just a plain old, the milk is in the fridge, fact? What makes universal fact's special? Why do we need to tap into anything to learn these special facts but not other, not so special facts?

Why do birds of a feather flock together?

Because its advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of the "collective unconscious" here.

really? Why is that, have you seen any power in it? Can you show us that power?

 

[RussDill]

So, you checked in with The Big Giant Head, and verified that 1+1=2. Glad to know it. I got the same result, but it was my dog Sam who told me. He also told me to do some very bad things, like divide by zero and trisect an angle with a compass and straight-edge.

The big giant head told me that 2+2=5 for very large value of 2

 

[Iacchus]

First, you are dealing with two concepts: perception and consciousness. I do not have a handy dictionary definition of consciousness, but I usually go with the definition of being aware of one's surroundings. When one is aware of one's surrounding,s one is conscious and one exists. You are aware of your surroundings, therefore you have consciousness. I am aware of mine, therefore, so do I.

I DON'T have any kind of awareness of your surroundings, therefore, my consciousness is different from yours.

As for your second issue, that of perception, you mangle a famous quote from Shakespeare (The actual quote being "would a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet?")

To that, I offer the following geeky answer:

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

But what you don't seem to realize is that consciousness is only means we have by which to define existence. For without it, we wouldn't even know we were here. So in that sense it must have some "universal aspect" ... Perhaps like the sun in the sky?

 

[RussDill]

But what you don't seem to realize is that consciousness is only means we have by which to define existence.

We do not define existence through consciousness, we experience it because of consciousness.

For without it, we wouldn't even know we were here.

Without it, we wouldn't be aware we were here, we may well know that we are here.

So in that sense it must have some "universal aspect"

You'd only like to believe it has some universal aspect.

... Perhaps like the sun in the sky?

The sun in the sky has no universal aspect. There are countless suns in countless skys

 

[Iacchus]

Interesting statemnt, where is your evidence? If you have none, then it is just as valid for me to say, "No, we do not have the ability to tune in", or, "No, only the select few can tune in". Which statement is right, how do you decide which statement is right?

Evidence of what? The fact that we all have the ability to "tune in" or, that we're all separate entities? Like I said, the fact that we're all separate (your evidence) does not deny anything.

 

[RussDill]

Evidence of what? The fact that we all have the ability to "tune in" or, that we're all separate entities? Like I said, the fact that we're all separate (your evidence) does not deny anything.

Present evidence that we can tune in. All evidence we have now points to us being able to only receive information though our senses.

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Re: Universal Consciousness?

Actually, there is not "one thing", most critical thinkers try to create as many scenerios as possible to make sense of consciousness and then examine the merits of each. You however seem to be stuck on examining only one.

You're either aware that you exist (consciously) or you don't.

Ok, there is one to consider. Now, lets take the evidence we have, and compare it to that. Lets see, everyone's consciousness, intelligence level, thinking process, etc is different, doesn't seem consistent with a universal consciousness...Damage to certain parts of the brain damage certain mental abilities, memory, recolection, speech, recognition, and can even effect our sense of self, again, doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. Ok...what about drug use, that effects the brain and sense of self, also doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. What about neurons, we seem to understand them very well, and there is no evidence for them being receptors.

And yet if you were to look at the sun in the sky, everything which is living exists is in relation to it, and yet manifests itself differently.

All the evidence I have points away from a universal consciousness, what about you? Add to that that saying there is a universal consciousness does not explain *anything* about consciousness, which is what you set out to do.

Did you know that the "evidence" can only be interpreted through consciousness?

the reason we agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is that we have all learned the concept of counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. We didn't all automatically know it through some universal consciousness, we learned it.

No.

It means that we are capable of learning from the world around us.

No, what we learn from the world is what we "interpret' through our consciousness.

Now, I have this other philosophy I've heard about that does match all the evidence we have, and even attempts to explain consciousness, care to hear about it?

By all means start a new thread. Of course there's no guarantee I'll reply, but that's up to me.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
You're either aware that you exist (consciously) or you don't.

Could someone draw a parse tree of this sentence for me?

And yet if you were to look at the sun in the sky, everything which is living exists is in relation to it, and yet manifests itself differently.

Iacchus, look man, no one has the vaguest notion what a sentence like this means.

Can you give us a succint summary of your philosophy?

~~ Paul

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Universal Consciousness?

You're either aware that you exist (consciously) or you don't.

I'm talking about explainations for consciousness, you seem to be stuck on only one.

And yet if you were to look at the sun in the sky, everything which is living exists is in relation to it, and yet manifests itself differently.

You have not countered any evidence, nor provided any. You use the word "manifests" which, depending on your meaning, can be true or false. Certainly, from a purely physical form, the sun manifests itself identically to every living and non-living this. The manner in which we have understood the sun has changed over time. However, you need to explain how this is evidence for what you are saying.

Did you know that the "evidence" can only be interpreted through consciousness?

Actually, we are able to design machines that examine evidence, and make descisions based on that evidence. Other life does that too (for instance, ants). Also, you have failed to respond to my argument, but instead, stated something that is someone true, but still meaningless towards your argument.

No.

Explain why.

No, what we learn from the world is what we "interpret' through our consciousness.

Much information that we learn is never interpreted by our consciousness. Again though, your statement in no way supports your claims and does not in any way respond to my arguments.

By all means start a new thread. Of course there's no guarantee I'll reply, but that's up to me.

Just thought I'd mention materialism

 

[Suezoled]

(snipped)
Can you give us a succint summary of your philosophy?

~~ Paul

Good lord man! Don't you get it?? Iacchus says god exists. Everything he believes you should. Not because he knows everything, but because it's THE TRUTH. And then go galvanting through the fields awash in joy that there isn't just this world but others, that you can cavort spiritually with Elvis Presley and Ghandi and Jeffrey Dahmer. It's all good man; this Planet X we're all bound for...

 

[Iacchus]

Could someone draw a parse tree of this sentence for me?


Iacchus, look man, no one has the vaguest notion what a sentence like this means.

Can you give us a succint summary of your philosophy?

~~ Paul

Okay, substitute "don't" with "aren't" in the first sentence, and drop the second "is" in the second sentence. There, does that help?

By the way, you spelled "succinct" incorrectly.