Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
philosophy
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
"Consciousness is awareness of your will.Anything that is aware of its will is conscious."Since we can never tell what 'being' has will or has not, then it could be that everything in the Universe has consciousness. After all everything has 'will' to change (tell me if I am wrong). So back to the original question: The Universe must be conscious, meaning, it is a 'being?' Right? But what exactly is it being? And does this question even make sense in a reality where time and space are figments of our imagination? After all, being (verb)implies movement - in either time or space - change from one state to another BTW where has young Tycho disappeared to? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
ChessMaster wrote: @Wakanyugi - You seem like you want to talk psychology.We can. Sure we can talk psychology. I am even more un-knowldegable about it than philosophy. Where do you want to begin? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
Wakanyugi wrote:"Consciousness is awareness of your will.Anything that is aware of its will is conscious."
Since we can never tell what 'being' has will or has not, then it could be that everything in the Universe has consciousness.
After all everything has 'will' to change (tell me if I am wrong).
So back to the original question:
The Universe must be conscious, meaning, it is a 'being?' Right?
But what exactly is it being?
And does this question even make sense in a reality where time and space are figments of our imagination?
After all, being (verb)implies movement - in either time or space - change from one state to another
BTW where has young Tycho disappeared to?
True maybe the things around us have will but choose not to exercise it. I am biased,I don't believe the universe has will because I believe God is the will of the universe. Time and space maybe figments of our imagination but so are words,languages and symbols. They are not real but represent something we need to maneuver in this existence that we inhabit. But I agree with you,being could be anything and everything,but until we can discern the truth behind it we can only make leaps of faith. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
ChessMaster wrote: I don't believe the universe has will because I believe God is the will of the universe. I think another definition is called for here. This time I'll help: "Universe' - from Uni - one, united. The one which contains everything. By definition, nothing can exist outside of the Universe, otherwise it would not be a 'Uni - verse'. Ergo, God is not only the will of the Universe, she is in the Universe; is the Universe. When you say the Universe has no will, you are saying God has no will. You have just declared God to be dead (in true Nietzschean tradition). Which I am sure was not your intention, or was it? "But I agree with you,being could be anything and everything,but until we can discern the truth behind it we can only make leaps of faith."And so we come full circle. Back to truth. So what is truth? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
 "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
Wakanyugi wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:[quote=ChessMaster] I don't believe the universe has will because I believe God is the will of the universe. I think another definition is called for here. This time I'll help: "Universe' - from Uni - one, united. The one which contains everything. By definition, nothing can exist outside of the Universe, otherwise it would not be a 'Uni - verse'. Ergo, God is not only the will of the Universe, she is in the Universe; is the Universe. When you say the Universe has no will, you are saying God has no will. You have just declared God to be dead (in true Nietzschean tradition). Which I am sure was not your intention, or was it? "But I agree with you,being could be anything and everything,but until we can discern the truth behind it we can only make leaps of faith."And so we come full circle. Back to truth. So what is truth? Nietzsche.You see your not ignorant. My belief is that God exists,existed and will exist outside of the universe.Its a creation of his will. Truth is the will of God.Nothing else. But God gave man and angels will. We can choose to act in a way outside the will of God,but that is folly in my opinion.Now the problem is finding out the will of God while our own will is hindering us. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
"My belief is that God exists,existed and will exist outside of the universe.Its a creation of his will."No my brother. You can't have it both ways. Either the Universe contains everything or it is not a Uni-verse. Even if God created the Universe, she can't exist outside of it - unless you subscribe to the concept of the Multiverse.In which case God is simply another Universe that spawned this one. We are back to the turtles analogy writ large (see below). About Nietchse, I was trying to impress you. I used to watch Andromeda, the TV show not the galaxy.
“William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. "But, my dear lady", Professor James asked, as politely as possible, "what holds up the turtle?" "Ah", she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle." "Oh, I see", said Professor James, still being polite. "But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?" "It's no use, Professor", said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way down!” "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
Wakanyugi wrote:"My belief is that God exists,existed and will exist outside of the universe.Its a creation of his will."
No my brother.
You can't have it both ways. Either the Universe contains everything or it is not a Uni-verse.
Even if God created the Universe, she can't exist outside of it - unless you subscribe to the concept of the Multiverse.In which case God is simply another Universe that spawned this one. We are back to the turtles analogy writ large (see below).
About Nietchse, I was trying to impress you. I used to watch Andromeda, the TV show not the galaxy.
“William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. "But, my dear lady", Professor James asked, as politely as possible, "what holds up the turtle?" "Ah", she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle." "Oh, I see", said Professor James, still being polite. "But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?" "It's no use, Professor", said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way down!”
A multiverse it still part of the universe.God is independent of the universe but the universe is dependent on the God. When it comes to creation it is very simple to me,the first cause was God. God is God because he wasn't caused.But that's my opinion. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/27/2011 Posts: 1,777
|
ANIMALS HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS TOO- NEUROSCIENTISTS DECLARE THAT ANIMALS TOO ARE CONSCIOUS BEINGS: We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non- human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”http://io9.com/5937356/p...s-awareness-just-like-us
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
josiah33 wrote:ANIMALS HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS TOO-
NEUROSCIENTISTS DECLARE THAT ANIMALS TOO ARE CONSCIOUS BEINGS: Thank you @Josiah for providing all this validation. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Quoth the Bard. I hope @Chessmaster in convinced. Now I have to take a break from this thread. My head hurts. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
[quote=josiah33]ANIMALS HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS TOO- NEUROSCIENTISTS DECLARE THAT ANIMALS TOO ARE CONSCIOUS BEINGS: We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non- human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”http://io9.com/5937356/p...-awareness-just-like-us[/quote] @Wakanyugi and Josiah33 - What I'm saying is not the truth just my opinion.I believe animals are special. For example how elephants cry when one of their own dies.It's philosophy,its all about sharing your ideas.No one is right wrong here.To me its about finding truths together. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,634
|
ChessMaster wrote:@Wakanyugi and Josiah33 - What I'm saying is not the truth just my opinion.I believe animals are special. For example how elephants cry when one of their own dies.It's philosophy,its all about sharing your ideas.No one is right wrong here.To me its about finding truths together.
No hard thinkings @Chessmater. All is fair in love and the search for knowledge. Have a good weekend. "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
Wakanyugi wrote:ChessMaster wrote:@Wakanyugi and Josiah33 - What I'm saying is not the truth just my opinion.I believe animals are special. For example how elephants cry when one of their own dies.It's philosophy,its all about sharing your ideas.No one is right wrong here.To me its about finding truths together.
No hard thinkings @Chessmater. All is fair in love and the search for knowledge. Have a good weekend. Have a great weekend too. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
Wakanyugi wrote:ChessMaster wrote: @Wakanyugi - You seem like you want to talk psychology.We can. Sure we can talk psychology. I am even more un-knowldegable about it than philosophy. Where do you want to begin? Do you understand yourself? Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
josiah33 wrote:This is what some teacher told a student on the question- do we really exist?
the experience itself and the one who experiences it are not the same. This is one of the basic concepts that we should understand when answering this question. For example, the olive tree itself and the olive tree when I look at it are different things, because I already have impressions about the tree. That’s why it’s impossible to find answers to such questions without personal experiences. The answers for these questions are highly paradoxical and require my inexistence from the outset. To know whether I exist or not, I should first disappear. By this, I mean I should remove myself from the picture. To see the olive tree as it is, I first need to rid myself of my impressions about it. I should delete my existence, or in other words, I should get myself “out.” I can then see the olive tree as it is after deleting my impressions about it. However, this is easier said than done, and succeeding at it requires a certain training process.
If the objective reality and my mind’s interpretation about it were the same, thinking about water would be enough to satisfy my thirst, but this is not the case. That means water in the objective reality is different to my interpretation of it. One of them is real, and the other is an impression. The same thing applies to “me.” “I” in reality is different to the image in my mind. So, instead of giving a direct answer and confusing you, I will try to explain and confuse you that way: We neither exist or not exist; we both exist and not exist. It's about perception and reality. If man is not capable of perceive reality/truth then basically life is just a ride.If we can perceive reality while still being a part of it,it gets interesting. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
tycho wrote:
If the truth about the self cannot be established, can the truth about anything else be established?
There is one truth already established by self.Self is present.There is you and there is everything else.I consider math to be truth,simply because it is. Children learn math before they even understand 'self'.So truth about self is not a prerequisite to establish truth about other things but I believe greater truths will be learnt from learning the self than from learning the environment. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 1/27/2011 Posts: 1,777
|
ChessMaster wrote:josiah33 wrote:This is what some teacher told a student on the question- do we really exist?
the experience itself and the one who experiences it are not the same. This is one of the basic concepts that we should understand when answering this question. For example, the olive tree itself and the olive tree when I look at it are different things, because I already have impressions about the tree. That’s why it’s impossible to find answers to such questions without personal experiences. The answers for these questions are highly paradoxical and require my inexistence from the outset. To know whether I exist or not, I should first disappear. By this, I mean I should remove myself from the picture. To see the olive tree as it is, I first need to rid myself of my impressions about it. I should delete my existence, or in other words, I should get myself “out.” I can then see the olive tree as it is after deleting my impressions about it. However, this is easier said than done, and succeeding at it requires a certain training process.
If the objective reality and my mind’s interpretation about it were the same, thinking about water would be enough to satisfy my thirst, but this is not the case. That means water in the objective reality is different to my interpretation of it. One of them is real, and the other is an impression. The same thing applies to “me.” “I” in reality is different to the image in my mind. So, instead of giving a direct answer and confusing you, I will try to explain and confuse you that way: We neither exist or not exist; we both exist and not exist. It's about perception and reality. If man is not capable of perceive reality/truth then basically life is just a ride.If we can perceive reality while still being a part of it,it gets interesting. JUST READ THIS SOMEWHERE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK NOW- inner linear time has its basis in neuronal activity of the
brain: “The brain is the ‘local’ creator of time, space and space-time as our special maps of
reality we ‘observe’ and participate in” (1).
“Time is a fundamental dimension of life. It is crucial for decisions about quantity, speed
of movement and rate of return, as well as for motor control in walking, speech, playing or
appreciating music, and participating in sports. Traditionally, the way in which time is
perceived, represented and estimated has been explained using a pacemaker–accumulator
model that is not only straightforward, but also surprisingly powerful in explaining
behavioural and biological data. However, recent advances have challenged this traditional
view. It is now proposed that the brain represents time in a distributed manner and tells the
time by detecting the coincidental activation of different neural populations (2).
Linear time “past- present-future” is psychological time. Physical time is run of clocks in
a space. Motion that we experience through psychological time happens in space that is
timeless; past, present and future do not exist in space. There is no physical time existing
behind run of clocks. Time as a run of clocks in space implies that the duration of a material
change has no existence on its own. Duration of material change is result of measurement
with clocks. This implies that universe is timeless, time is not part of the universe; time/clock
is a measuring device for motion in timeless space.
Psychological time is a mind frame in which we experience physical events. Physical
events run in space only and not in time. Clock/time is a reference system to measure them.
Physical time is not part of the space; physical time is run of clocks in space. Space itself is
timeless in a sense that time is not part of the space. Space-time is not fundamental arena of
the universe; space-time is merely a mathematical model. Some physical events happen in
time t zero, they are immediate.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
@josiah33 - I agree. Time is not a independent quantity but measured using space.Its a utility. But I disagree with psychological time. The mind has no time you can think of the past,present or future at any moment but present captures your attention Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/2/2007 Posts: 8,776 Location: Cameroon
|
Impunity wrote:ChessMaster wrote:tycho wrote:ChessMaster wrote:Subject or topic is simply the object being studied.
It applies to all attempts to establish the truth. Because unless the truth is established everything else is just opinion based on perception. The subject, is in fact, an object? Meaning, existing seperately and independent of the philosopher, and his intentions? Not always because the philosopher could be his own object.The study of self. Where is this discussion heading to?  Let me ask on your behalf, is there any philosophy in matters airport? TULIA.........UFUNZWE!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 2/23/2009 Posts: 1,626
|
simonkabz wrote:Impunity wrote:ChessMaster wrote:tycho wrote:ChessMaster wrote:Subject or topic is simply the object being studied.
It applies to all attempts to establish the truth. Because unless the truth is established everything else is just opinion based on perception. The subject, is in fact, an object? Meaning, existing seperately and independent of the philosopher, and his intentions? Not always because the philosopher could be his own object.The study of self. Where is this discussion heading to? Let me ask on your behalf, is there any philosophy in matters airport? Hahaha.What is your take on matters airport? Freud was a psychologist particularly interested in all matters airport. Uncertainty is certain.Let go
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
philosophy
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|