Re: Time To Tie A Bow Around It
So you want me to answer three questions in order for you to answer one?
You answered the questions, so I will answer yours. I believe the entire earth has a certain level of self-awareness, but not in the limited human scope that you utilize. Therefore, in this regard, since a rock is a component of the earth it has a level of self-awareness. As one might relate the self-awareness of a cell in our body to our entire self, I would say a similar relationship of self-awareness exists between a rock and the earth. That is because self-awareness is a continuum. I'll explain in how I respond to one of your answers:
Yes. In my opinion selfawareness is finite
Perhaps I was not clear enough. I did not ask if you think it was finite. What I am getting at is this: We relate to other humans as being self-aware because we are all constructed the same way (from the same mold, if you will) and this gives us relatively the same lifespans. The lifespans of animals is well within our own lifespans, so we see elements of self-awareness in them. Trees, however, have much longer lifespans than we do... and the earth itself... well scientists are still arguing about the precise age of it, but let's just say it is extremely long compared to that of the human. Since I think you would agree that self-awareness is shaped and brought forth by our modes of perception, it is quite possible that in using only the human model to evaluate self-awareness that you could be mistaken. In other words, how can you know a rock is NOT self-aware since you have obviously not lived anywhere near as long as that rock has "existed". I am sure you will laugh and call this ridiculous, so perhaps sticking to the tree example would illustrate a little better. If you had a time-lapse video of one of the trees that has lived for many hundreds of years, do you think you might observe some responses of the tree that might give an inkling of self-awareness? Or what about the experiments where plants were hooked-up to electronic monitors, and their responses were shown to correlate with humans destroying other plants?
Like I said, it takes a brain to be selfaware.
Are you sure of this? So, should I take this to mean that you do not buy into the concept of the generalized
Turing Machine? Would you believe we could create self-aware machines via this concept if we provide enough feedback and "intelligence" to computers?
It could very well be possible that there's a scale of selfawareness. For instance a chimpanzee has a selfawareness level of 8, where an ant has a selfawareness level of 1.
You mean it is not obvious to you that there
IS a scale of self-awareness? I'm sure you have heard of the experiments with chimpanzees that can converse in sign language. And that they have shown abilities to form statements about themselves. And if this is not enough evidence, you should come visit sometime and see my Chili Dawg in action. When I refuse to play fetch with him while sitting by the pool, he will purposefully go and find one of his rubber toys that sinks in the pool. He will bring it to the edge of the pool and "pretend" as if he is playing with it and chewing on it. He keeps his eye on me as he moves it closer, and closer, and closer to the edge of the pool. And then when it drops in and begins to sink, his facial expression changes to almost one of surprise. He then stands at the edge of the pool and barks, looking from me to the bottom of the pool and back to me again. Surely this is evidence that he knows EXACTLY what he is doing. At least it is obvious to me.
but the fact that you called me ignorant is simply a weakness offer. I'm pretty damned sure that I'm far from ignorant and thus labeling me as such, says more about you than it does about me.
No, it is merely a fact. You are ignorant of some things that I am not, and I am ignorant of some things that you are not. The "non-emotional" definition of ignorant is "Unaware or uninformed." I tend to believe you do find it insulting, because you have seemed to adopt a view that someone stating you are ignorant "says more about them than it does about you." That is a veiled statement that tells me you were insulted. I was merely stating a fact in that you have shown yourself to be "unaware or uninformed" about certain levels of connectedness in the universe. Now, if you were to take-up OvrLrdLegion's suggestion to learn about Goetia, and how to communicate with them and invoke them, you would become aware of this level of connectedness. The fact is, as long as you disbelieve it, deny it, and do not seek it out for yourself, you are, indeed, ignorant in that particular regard.
Somehow you're under the assumption that I am going to blindly accept that knowledge as the truth. Also, for some strange reason you believe that you have provided undisputable proof, which you have not.
I am under no such assumption. In fact, I have told you many, many, MANY, M A N Y,
M A N Y times that you should investigate and find out for yourself, because that is the ONLY way you will come to know it as truth. And I have never said it is "undisputable" proof, especially since you obviously continue to dispute it. Yet, I am quite sure it IS enough evidence for a reasonably curious person to investigate it on their own.
For one thing Energy is not selfaware.
I am glad you are so comfortable in your certainty. If you are that certain, then I can see why you would not want to investigate further... you might uncover some more evidence that might shake the foundations of your certainty!
Yes, that was the most hilarious (read: useless) act in debating I have ever witnessed in my entire life.
You think it was useless. And yet there are others (both participants and lurkers) who saw great usefulness in that it clearly revealed one of his more destructive character traits.
You build your believes on wrong assumptions.
Are you sure you are not trollface is disguise? You are now on the bandwagon of being the ultimate judge of what is "right" and "wrong"? Bravo... you called me wrong. If it really meant anything at all, I might get upset. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
You tried proving that statement as follows:
1) we consist of energy
2) we are selfaware
3) therefore energy is selfaware
No, I think that is an unfair characterization. There was quite a bit more than that! For one thing, you mention nothing of the fact that energy is required for any form of creation. That is another major part of the evidence.
In my eyes, this reasoning is complete and utter nonsense and far from scientific.
Given the way you misquoted my argument, and left parts of it out, I would agree. The fact that something had to give rise to the Big Bang (scientifically accepted) means you cannot rule out self-awareness of whatever may have caused the Big Bang. Nonsense? Far from scientific? You may think so. And that only infers that you are not willing to build on current science. You DO know that science discovers new things every day, don't you? You DO know that science "works" in a way where theories are proposed and then tests for evidence are carried out? You can think I am being non-scientific, but I can assure you that you are mistaken in that regard. Science (and scientific knowledge) are not as static as you seem to imply with this statement.
Also you seem to be fond of these theorems (that incidentally rely on logic), yet you defy logic as it is a manmade system?! That's not very logical, is it?
So you also seem to think logic is fully quantified, and nothing new will ever be discovered relating to it? Wow. You are really hard-core, Roel. I think you will agree that the rules of logic developed by Aristotle are based in
linearity. One part of this site to pay special attention to is as follows: "One description of linear logic can be like having a design for an aircraft that tells us everything about how to build the aircraft except listing all the components we might need to build or, or indeed whether the aircraft is of a type we need to build or not. In that respect, logic is an incomplete system of thinking as it tells us what we have, not what we might need or how to use it creatively.
The problem is that it is often perceived as being complete and is therefore applied in all applications. This is incorrect and leads to poor applications of the system through incomplete or inadequate thinking processes."
Did it ever occur to you that advancements in non-linear logic might someday resolve Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? In fact, as I have said before, I tend to believe that ANY paradox or contradiction is a result of limited thinking or not enough information. You see, this is a perfect example of why I
DO believe you are somewhat close-minded on topics. You state your certainty on only the logic you know...and I think you can see that linear logic is quite old, indeed. I'd say it is just about time for it to get a tune-up. Aren't you even CURIOUS about how implementation of non-linear thinking, yes even to the "iron-cast" realm of logic, can change how we view our universe?
I know you don't agree with me, but the uncertainty principle was not applicable in our inside/outside discussion.
Well, I think uncertainty is also in for some modifications and tune-ups in the years to come. However, I would be more interested in how you think I am overapplying the concepts of energy, given that ALL of our scientific laws stem from energy and its conservation.
Wow, that's a coincedence... I think I have just explained why I do not agree with this statement.
OK, so I'd like to see your proof, then. And I am sure you realize that "because it has risen every day that I am alive" is not proof. Proof, by its very nature, needs to be time-invariant.
but I think the way I perceive reality when I'm awake is still normative.
Wow. Normative. That brings a whole new concept into the fray. So I wonder how you can argue that your "normative" mode of thinking (assuming you mean within 1-sigma of the mean of a gaussian distribution) is "reality", and then argue that an event that is CLEARLY at least 5-sigma out (referring to the universe being created by accident) is "reasonable"? It seems we have found another contradiction in your thinking.... yes, I do believe we will be talking about this one for quite awhile.
The existence of a selfaware creator implies that good and bad are not in balance.
It implies nothing of the sort. And the reason it doesn't is that there is no universally accepted "measuring stick" for good and bad, and therefore no way to positively state whether they are, or are not, in balance. Imagine an alien race coming here to our world. Since all things are relative, they could come here from a world where there is MUCH more hate, and discrimination, and killing, etc. Their notions about balance of good and bad could be much different from ours...so much so that they could easily believe that good and bad ARE in balance on our world, for the simple fact that we have not had a nuclear holocaust.
A creator, however, would be the cause of an unequal division of "good" and "bad" and thus responsible for creating an imbalance.
That is absolutely not a logical imperative (even by the "norms" of linear logic!). See statement above regarding relativity of good and bad. Gee....now it is YOU who sounds like they are pronouncing absolute truth! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The statement that I can achieve more happiness is again based on a loose assumption.
Not really. It is quite a strong assumption. Don't you believe in the quote that it seems most other people believe in: "There is always room for improvement." I know there is for me. As happy as I am today, I know there is the potential to be even happier. Don't sell yourself so short like that, Roel.
Whatever makes you think I look towards each new day with anxiety or fear?
Well, now you are simply whistling as you walk by the graveyard. Roel, it is part of the human condition to experience some levels of anxiety and fear from time to time! Hell, even Jesus Christ experienced them (temptation by the devil, and his prayers in Gethsemane). Are you going to now tell us all that you are completely free of fear and anxiety? If so, they you are truly an angel! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Which brings me to another question... do you think everything is predestined?
Not in our linear timeline, no. However, I do believe that all possibilities are known to God. Our free wills are what craft a specific timeline that exists within a multitude of possible timelines.
RMT
