Universal Consciousness?

[Iacchus]

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 anything like tripping over the law of physics?

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.

But what does human truth stem from? So, if there were no universal truths, how would the universe hold itself together? And why the need for a Universal Consciousness to recognize any of this is so?

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.

Try looking in the glove box?

Oh, are you talking to the iceicles now?

Hmm ... I cee. Huh? ... Icy?

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

Another one?

 

[fishbob]

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

You mean nap time or what? The power of not thinking? Kind of like the 700 Club?

 

[Iacchus]

You mean nap time or what? The power of not thinking? Kind of like the 700 Club?

Why do things occur en masse so to speak, without something "collectively" holding them together?

And yes, I suppose that could held true of certain "religious prayer meetings" (rpm's), which consciously doesn't seem to be tapped into anything.

 

[RussDill]

Why do things occur en masse so to speak, without something "collectively" holding them together?

Just because things seem to have a unifying "force" doesn't mean that they do. Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate.

 

[Iacchus]

Just because things seem to have a unifying "force" doesn't mean that they do. Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate.

Again, this is "your" assertion.

 

[Dancing David]

The Laws Of Physics do not exist!

They are an approximation of The Way Things Appear.

Until there is a test and theorem devised to test the ontology behind the LOP there is no way to discuss it scientificaly, it makes for great philosophy however!

TLOP are a figment of the human imagination! The universe acts the way it does, because it does. It does not require a unifying force, it could have a plurality of forces. One for each particle/wave.

 

[Iacchus]

The Laws Of Physics do not exist!

They are an approximation of The Way Things Appear.

Until there is a test and theorem devised to test the ontology behind the LOP there is no way to discuss it scientificaly, it makes for great philosophy however!

TLOP are a figment of the human imagination! The universe acts the way it does, because it does. It does not require a unifying force, it could have a plurality of forces. One for each particle/wave.

Do you think the Universe will ever "change" its Mind?

Somehow I think we're pretty much stuck with the Universe we have. And yet that's not to say there aren't things about it that we don't understand. And, that to the degree that we "do" come to understand them, it will most likely affect a change in us. But, that doesn't mean the Universe is inconsistent or, has changed its rules.

 

[RussDill]

Again, this is "your" assertion.

Really....we understand how ants work, how they communicate, act as a unit, now you are going to say no, you're wrong, they are all physcic? You're a loon.

 

[RussDill]

Do you think the Universe will ever "change" its Mind?

Somehow I think we're pretty much stuck with the Universe we have. And yet that's not to say there aren't things about it that we don't understand. And, that to the degree that we "do" come to understand them, it will most likely affect a change in us. But, that doesn't mean the Universe is inconsistent or, has changed its rules.

The universe never changes its "underlying" rules, but the rules that apear to as can change. For instance, when the higgs field formed. The universe could conceivable undergo another one of these changes, but it would not end well with us, all matter would basically be destroyed, torn apart, or crushed.

 

[BillyJoe]

Both sides are wrong.

.....I suppose that could held true of certain "religious prayer meetings".....

hold

.....Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate.

separate

BillyJoe

 

[Iacchus]

Afraid you missed something there. The first quote is mine ...

.....I suppose that could held true of certain "religious prayer meetings".....

And the second quote is RussDill's ...

.....Ants act as a unit, but have no unifying force, each is completely seperate.

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes, it seems we are all wrong.

I quoted your's first and then copied that to insert Russ' quote but forgot to change the name. I will change it so the heading makes sense.

 

[BillyJoe]

Oops, seems I can no longer edit it after 60 minutes. I could contact an administrator but I feel it's hardly worthwhile.

 

[Ratman_tf]

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

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

Certainly. This would mean that apes are concious, as are humans and elephants and probably a lot of other species.

How about Making Sense? One person's sense is another person's madness...