Universal Consciousness?

[Suezoled]

(snipped)
By the way, you spelled "succinct" incorrectly.

Yeah. That makes Paul, one of the most articulate gentleman on this board, a stoopid head.

 

[Iacchus]

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

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

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

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

So what does waffling mean anyway? Does it have anything to do with the inability to separate "the principle" from "the facts," you know, as an intentional means of avoiding the issue?

 

[Iacchus]

Yeah. That makes Paul, one of the most articulate gentleman on this board, a stoopid head.

Yeah, speech for yourself.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Um....

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
R&J, II. i. 85-86.

Sorry, sorry, sorry...I can't help myself sometimes

I had a feeling I was a little off on that one. In my defense, it was late at night and I didn't have my copy of "The Globe, The Complete Works of Shakespeare" handy. Thanks for the correction, Mercutio.

 

[RussDill]

So what does waffling mean anyway? Does it have anything to do with the inability to separate "the principle" from "the facts," you know, as an intentional means of avoiding the issue?

Another great response from Iacchus in which rather than responds, he claims that what he said was fact, and it is silly of me to challenge it.

 

[Iacchus]

Isn't it interesting that we've had several new posters lately that come here, not to converse, but to teach? Most of whom have the same underlying premise: "Consciousness is everything."

Wow! And isn't it interersting that this is the only means we have by which to tell?

 

[Ratman_tf]

This is obviously not what I had in mind, but it's possible.

Okay. So we can define awareness as any awareness of an external stimulous.

How about Making Sense? How do we make Sense of the universe, and who judges when and under what conditions it Makes Sense?

 

[Ratman_tf]

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?

Just because something can be defined (existence) doesn't mean it must have a universal aspect, or even that it must exist.

 

[Iacchus]

Okay. So we can define awareness as any awareness of an external stimulous.

How about Making Sense? How do we make Sense of the universe, and who judges when and under what conditions it Makes Sense?

How about the awarness of oneself, in relation to an external stimulous?

That would then define it as a "conscious entity" wouldn't it?

 

[Dancing David]

Here it is from this threadPerception by Shroud of Akron

It is lenthy but addresses 1+1=2

Evildave

Yes, but we all need to have the same model of 1, +, = and 2.

"1+1=2" might be a particularly offensive curse on "Planet X". It certainly is getting to be one here on Earth, if only because of the annoying way some people keep referring back to it in order to simplify problems down to gibberish.

Part of the problem is the work our senses have evolved to do. We might have evolved truly cosmic senses that would make us intimitely aware of every force in the universe... but those probably aren't the kinds of senses that keep a large animal alive among all the other competing biology experiments on Earth.

Being too grossed-out by the microscopic critters in water to drink it in the desert would not be an especially helpful adaptation. Hearing every swish, crackle and chitter for a mile might distract from the big, slavering thing right near us.

We have senses and brain processing that simplifies (or dumbs down) the world to a point about on a par with the ability of what's left in our little brains to process that flow of information.

The ability to see friend and foe. Identify ripe fruit and dead plants from a distance. Hear "what's comming". Feel when damage is imminant or occurring. Smell and taste what might be "bad" to eat. Even communicate.

Every new kind of sense we could have would need to have a commensurate amount of processing to handle it. Would having a brain the size of a watermelon be a help or hindrance when something is chasing you to eat you?


Shroud of Akron:

Originally posted by evildave
Yes, but we all need to have the same model of 1, +, = and 2.

"1+1=2" might be a particularly offensive curse on "Planet X". It certainly is getting to be one here on Earth, if only because of the annoying way some people keep referring back to it in order to simplify problems down to gibberish.

i'm not talking about what we call something. if i have a box and i get another box, i now have box box. box+box=box box. what we call each unit is describing our perception, but the reality is that there are 2 boxes, the 2 merely designates one more than one. how could that reality possibly be inaccurate?
__________________


Evildave:
But box box is actually 10 boxes. If you use base 2, which is base 10, in base 2.

'2' is only a designation for a grouping of box box we have because we count, and do so in a radix higher than 1 or 2. How we codify information impacts how we perceive it.

Without a concept of "counting", which is grouping things by encoding them in groups, you have box, and perhaps "lotsa box" for however many boxes besides just "box" there are.

Perhaps a particular entity might (by their own convention) measure "box" by volume instead of unit quantity. In this case {box box box} = {box}, if the first set of boxes are smaller than the second.

Or we can take the grocery store's answer to "how many", apples are accounted by weight. In this case {apple apple} can routinely equal {apple apple apple}, if the first set of apples are heavier.

Or my favorite, if you take two panes of glass and carelessly throw them into a big box, how many do you get? If measured in WHOLE panes of glass, probably zero. If measured in unit pieces of glass, thousands. If measured by weight or volume, the original amount.

What you measure is impacted by your perception of what's important to measure. If you're supposed to be installing panes of glass, having the number of units in the box remain the same as the number of units that leave the box is important. If you are the one shipping the box, only the weight and volume of the box is important. If the glass is destined to be dumped, only its volume is important. If the glass is to be recycled, then only its purity and weight is important. To the animal you, the inherent danger of broken glass you've learned from experience is all that's important. Seeing that red stuff leak out and feeling pain is among the things you're evolved not to like.

 

[Dancing David]

And yet some form of consciousness is, or else how would we even know we exist? And if we can't even determine that, then what else is there to know?


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.

Woah there Tex!

There is the fact that consiousness may exist, depending on the definition.
Universal axioms haven't a need to be proven because they are axiomatic. So where do you get universal consiousness from axioms, unless it is an axiom?

Isotropy does the same thing, but does not have a causal mechanism.

 

[Iacchus]

Here it is from this threadPerception by Shroud of Akron

It is lenthy but addresses 1+1=2

I'm not sure what you're telling me here?

But, when you have two identical objects, with no variance between them, you still get 1 object + 1 object = 2 objects.

If you try to explain it any other way is lame if you ask me.

 

[Dancing David]

So what does waffling mean anyway? Does it have anything to do with the inability to separate "the principle" from "the facts," you know, as an intentional means of avoiding the issue?

No but that does seem to be why you avoid answering the question.

Would you like to come to the Ivory Tower it has all the latest gadgets and the coolest popcorn machine...

 

[Iacchus]

Woah there Tex!

There is the fact that consiousness may exist, depending on the definition.
Universal axioms haven't a need to be proven because they are axiomatic. So where do you get universal consiousness from axioms, unless it is an axiom?

Isotropy does the same thing, but does not have a causal mechanism.

No, I'm suggesting universal consciousness would be the means by which to "acknowledge" axioms.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not sure what you're telling me here?

But, when you have two identical objects, with no variance between them, you still get 1 object + 1 object = 2 objects.

If you try to explain it any other way is lame if you ask me.

Ah, the Master of 'interpretation' does not understand that mathematics is a language, it is not a universal. I am very disappointed, I had thought from your sig line that you had actauly practised mystical arts.

There are no universal truths, especialy if they can only be assesed through human consiousness. I refer you to the teachings of the buddha, but I suppose that it is a universal truth that we may all look at the same things and come to different conclusions.

A philospher ought to know better than to even approach 'two identical' objects with a proverbial ten foot stick.

 

[Dancing David]

No, I'm suggesting universal consciousness would be the means by which to "acknowledge" axioms.

Um, that would not be possible, axioms are given, not subject to knowledge.

Remeber the process that leads to a belief in materialism? That is one of the aknowledged axioms that Idealism doesn't aknowledge.

 

[RussDill]

Would you like to come to the Ivory Tower it has all the latest gadgets and the coolest popcorn machine...

we got a new popcorn machine? sweet!

 

[Iacchus]

Ah, the Master of 'interpretation' does not understand that mathematics is a language, it is not a universal. I am very disappointed, I had thought from your sig line that you had actauly practised mystical arts.

No, it's the "principle" behind the symbol which makes it universal.

There are no universal truths ...

Is that right?

, especialy ...

Especially? What do you mean especially? It's either yes or no.

if ...

If? What do you mean if? It's either possible or it's not possible.

... they can only be assesed through human consiousness.

Especially if? ... And when I refer to universal consciousness, what makes you think I'm referring to human beings specifically?

I refer you to the teachings of the buddha, but I suppose that it is a universal truth that we may all look at the same things and come to different conclusions.

Yes but how could you, when you say such things don't exist?

A philospher ought to know better than to even approach 'two identical' objects with a proverbial ten foot stick.

Yes, but the "principle" of it does exist, and one can ascertain that.

 

[Suezoled]

we got a new popcorn machine? sweet!

Yeah. You can't put butter on the popcorn BEFORE the kernals pop. You have to do it after. It breaks the machine otherwise.

 

[Dancing David]

No, it's the "principle" behind the symbol which makes it universal.

Or is the principle the symbol. I don't imagine running into the number two at a party. Are you saying that there are absolutes behind language?



Is that right?

Of course it has to be a universal truth that there are no universal truths, which in violating itself is the exception to prove the rule.
How can there be universal truth, all we have is human truth, which is observational in nature.



Especially? What do you mean especially? It's either yes or no.

I don't know, it's somewhere in the fine print, I keep loosing the manual. I know when it is or I know where it is but it is indeterminate if I know where the manual and when the manual is.


If? What do you mean if? It's either possible or it's not possible.

Gosh another dichotomy, was there a sale or something?



Especially if? ... And when I refer to universal consciousness, what makes you think I'm referring to human beings specifically?

Oh, are you talking to the iceicles now?


Yes but how could you, when you say such things don't exist?

I am just chock full of contradictions! Which is another universal truth.


Yes, but the "principle" of it does exist, and one can ascertain that.

No principles before five pm, please.