Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 10:13am PT
|
Since healyje is not kind enough to give me direction, I’ll have to use MH2’s summation, which WAS helpful to me.
Universal fundamental consciousness?
Sure, I guess so IF you are willing to accept the notion that there can be a pristine (unelaborated) awareness which has nothing to do with content. As soon as one introduces the apparent fact of consciousness, viola, you have content. So, I guess I could say that consciousness *does* geyser out of the emptiness of being. I suppose now the question now becomes: what’s “being?”
I mean it’s all academic, though, isn’t it? If one really heard *the* answer (as if that were possible), it alone would hardly change anything in anyone’s life, would it? In my view, there doesn’t seem to be any theory that fundamentally or radically changes one’s world. I might have said this before, but a person needs to *see* these things in real time, in real life, in one’s direct experience. Hearing this or that concept can result in new understanding, but too often it’s simply a cognitive understanding.
For example, I get the concept of “the unconsciousness.” I’ve read Jung, Alder, Hillman (for example) about the unconscious, but as Largo pointed out recently somewhere here, *seeing* the influence of unconsciousness in one’s experience is another thing all together. Ya gotta see it; ya gotta live it; ya gotta embody (“be”) the notions. Spiritually, one must become a different being. Secularly, I’ve seen that occur in two different places in my life. One from my experience in Officer Candidate School when I was 19, and the other from my doctoral program. Both experiences changed who and what I was by changing how I saw and felt in direct experience.
When I asked above what the question was and why someone was asking it, I was trying to respond appropriately to what was intended. Our more scientifically interested readers seem to me more interested in the puzzle of this or that being discussed: “How does THAT go together or align with these other things we purport to know?” Ok, cool, I like puzzles because they are often intellectually interesting.
I can’t say the same thing for spiritual realizations these days. (I suppose others might, though.) As a senior monk said to me years ago: “If it ain’t abiding, it ain’t sh*t.” Intellectual puzzles come and go. True realizations don’t.
Thanks for the assist MH2.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 10:24am PT
|
You lost me. I don't see how I can be responsible for my own molecular arrangement. Keerist, I was just standing here.
It's called "epigenetics". One's behavior and choices in life can determine even genetic outcomes, for starters.
The beer you were advised to enjoy may have been a clever rejoinder.
https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/
not yet on cellular makeup
For instance, the number of mitochondria can vary according to tissue type. A typical liver cell might contain 1000-2000 mitochondria. If enough enormous amounts of beer are consumed over time epigenetic mechanisms could result in an increase in sustained heteroplasmy rate (mutations) leading to a possible sharp drop off in numbers of mitochondria. Whereas the cell still contains the same organelles, their numbers and relationships to other organelles within the cell has been affected ; so thus it could be said the cellular makeup has been altered.
To take it even absurdly further let's say huge numbers of humans start drinking gargantuan volumes of beer daily for many many years at a constant rate. Evolution therefore might produce a brand new organelle to aid the mitochondria in decreasing the amount of heteroplasmy, or what seems more likely, increasing the overall population and improved redox shift of mitochondria-- thus ramping up the energy profile of your typical liver cell. A sort of beer organelle: Heinkenchondria. Or better yet , Trotterchondria.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 12:33pm PT
|
It's called "epigenetics". One's behavior and choices in life can determine even genetic outcomes, for starters.
If one is making choices, then, well, one is making choices. Which was the point. Thank-you.
The beer you were advised to enjoy may have been a clever rejoinder.
Yes, and I thought my re-rejoinder was the more clever of the two. Though I don't think anyone got it.
Paul Roehl---is that a pic of Folly?
No, the sacred god of wine.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 02:02pm PT
|
MikeL wrote: Since healyje is not kind enough to give me direction, I’ll have to use MH2’s summation, which WAS helpful to me.
You obviously missed yesterday's quiz...
Let's add a third question...
Did consciousness exist in the universe before the existence of physical living organisms (yes or no)?
[ P.S. Be sure and let me know if you don't understand these questions or if they're just too hard for you to answer... ]
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 02:06pm PT
|
Yeah, he missed it for sure.
Unbelievable .....
Makes you wonder if anyone even has a mind left ... :-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 03:52pm PT
|
Did consciousness exist in the universe before the existence of physical living organisms (yes or no)?
Yes, certainly as a possibility given the rules and regs of the universe. And, further, as a
"likely" possibility given the scope of time and space.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 03:57pm PT
|
If one is making choices, then, well, one is making choices. Which was the point. Thank-you.
I interpreted your original comment:
You lost me. I don't see how I can be responsible for my own molecular arrangement
As a question. Which I answered for you.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 04:03pm PT
|
Paul: "And, further, as a "likely" possibility given the scope of time and space."
The "100 Monkeys Typing Shakespeare Argument"?
Why is it "likely"?
Ed: "I've just been asked to explain the details of a paper I wrote, along with colleagues, in 1994, to help resolve the analysis issues of a current experiment. That's a totally random, out of the blue question."
Funny how these things happen. One of my math notes from 2012 has attracted a little attention on researchgate.net from time to time, and I usually get overall 10 to 20 reads a week scattered over the 60+ postings I've made there, but a couple of weeks ago there were over 150 reads of this one article in one day, an astounding jump. They were from China. The paper is of low importance, so I haven't a clue what triggered this response.
Are the Chinese appropriating my intellectual property?
(They can have it all - good luck)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 04:08pm PT
|
Did consciousness exist in the universe before the existence of physical living organisms (yes or no)?
Yes 100%
And it's not "did it exits" which is a question
It absolutely existed or there wouldn't be a material universe, to begin with.
Now, did the world exist before you made jails for criminals?
eh eh ..... gross materialists logics is such a failure .....
|
|
capseeboy
Social climber
portland, oregon
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 04:28pm PT
|
No, the sacred god of wine.
Got it. Thank you. The smallest amount gives me a blister head ache. Dang.
Dionysus (/daɪ.əˈnaɪsəs/; Greek: Διόνυσος Dionysos) is the god of the grape-harvest, winemaking and wine, of fertility, ritual madness, religious ecstasy, and theatre in ancient Greek religion and myth.[2][3] Wine played an important role in Greek culture, source Wiki
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 06:13pm PT
|
They became drunkards, lost their minds, then Rome fell .....
America is the same way ....
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 06:15pm PT
|
but a couple of weeks ago there were over 150 reads of this one article in one day, an astounding jump.
This reminds me of an idea for a short story in which an extremely depressed individual , with few prospects in life, and leading a humdrum existence, largely out of boredom decides to post a short story on one of those literary websites. Not expecting much of a reaction this person is astounded to see his read totals for the story soar through the roof--after a couple weeks it is in the high six figures. Our assumed author's entire life is revolutionized, he emerges triumphant from his debilitating depression, is made deeply happy and consequently finds meaning and purpose perhaps for the first time in his life.
However not soon thereafter he receives an apologetic email from the literary website. Apparently they are responsible for confusing his name with a hugely successful commercial author ( a Steven King type) who uses a pseudonym very similar to our assumed author. The big time successful writer's read totals were therefore wrongly transferred and accredited to the pathetic nobody.
The working title: The Assumed Author
Not entirely sure how it will end.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 06:16pm PT
|
Why is it "likely"?
Interesting question. Well, stars seem likely in this universe due to the laws of physics being what they are and planets seem likely as well. And I suppose, given the extent of the universe, its scope and size, it seems likely other earth like planets exist and I am assuming, as are many scientists interested in extra terrestrial life, that life and consciousness would also be likely. Consciousness because it seems to exist given the right parameters as evidenced on this planet. I suppose it depends on what is meant by "Likely.'
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2019 - 06:30pm PT
|
Yes, certainly as a possibility given the rules and regs of the universe.
I think that there might be a bit of work connecting the "rules and regs" of the universe to your definition of consciousness and intelligence.
You can certainly choose not to do the work and make the assumption.
As for this universe, an interesting line of thought in the physics community regards the fact that our universe exists, presuming the conditions for universes to exist are eternal. Why then did this instance create life, us?
For that to happen at all, of all the universes that are possible, requires that our universe is not so unusual, that it is a highly probable outcome as universes go. The consequence of this sort of thinking is termed "naturalness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics);
the idea is to avoid the need for "fine-tuning" the constants, "fine-tuning" implies unlikely values, and then a low probability for our universe.
Many of these ideas are more aesthetics than physics at this point, but that there is serious thought given to "why this universe" is part of the puzzle solving that MikeL mentioned. Sometimes the solution to the puzzle is more profound than what one started out to do.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2019 - 02:58am PT
|
The questions again with my answers:
1) Consciousness is solely a property of sufficiently evolved physical organisms. Yes.
2) Consciousness can and does exist external to and independent from physical organisms who possess it. No.
3) Did consciousness exist in the universe before the existence of physical living organisms? No.
4) Consciousness creates the physical universe? No.
From my perspective everyone here should be able to answer them and then - after 23k post - we would at least know where folks are coming from when considering their responses.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2019 - 07:56am PT
|
^^^^what is consciousness?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2019 - 08:16am PT
|
1) Consciousness is solely a property of sufficiently evolved physical organisms. NO.
2) Consciousness can and does exist external to and independent from physical organisms who possess it. YES.
3) Did consciousness exist in the universe before the existence of physical living organisms? YES.
4) Consciousness creates the physical universe? YES.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2019 - 09:23am PT
|
Good exposition, Ward. (And funny too.)
Healyje, you’re angry and looking for a fight, I’d say. I don’t think that attitude helps learning—if you think there is anything worth learning.
Ed: Many of these ideas are more aesthetics than physics at this point, . . . .
I, for one, will vote for this kind of foray into the unknown. As Ward *might *have implied, expressiveness may be equally causative as physical transformations appear to be. Maybe I have gone too far with this claim, but “seeing” in new ways opens doors to new “things” and relationships.
It’s a funny universe, you know? There appear to be an infinite number of (loose) interpretations to what is seen, none of which can be ultimately pinned down. Is that a problem with research methodologies, or is that more of a characteristic of the universe itself, or is it a little bit of both? If we suppose for the moment that it is a little bit of both, then it would be no wonder at all that perfectly imperfect beings will never find final answers to anything other than “there is consciousness.” In that regard, one simply dances with the universe, and neither is leading. In that scenario, the dancer should be smiling. (I understand not everyone is interested in dancing; some may want to diagram the infinite number of dances available.)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2019 - 09:28am PT
|
perfectly imperfect beings will never find final answers
will never
That's NOT true either.
Again you are not the absolute authority.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2019 - 10:22am PT
|
There appear to be an infinite number of (loose) interpretations to what is seen, none of which can be ultimately pinned down.
There has been much loose talk on this thread about what cannot be done. Loose in the sense that it doesn't bear on what has been done or what could be done.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!