Dglgmut

Without assumption you could not make any choices. Without memory you couldn't make assumptions. Nothing we do is logical, because we don't know the meaning of anything.

Hmm... The domino scenario is an extremely simplified analogy. You don't believe that every thought and action has a trigger, other than your intangible awareness? We are controlled by our memories; they give the present moment context. Without context there is no reason to do anything. Also: If you don't believe the domino has as much choice as you do, it may be because there is only one option for the domino. However, there's only one option for your existence too, isn't there? You think you have options in the future, but you have no option when it comes to your past, or even your present. You could say you did have the option, but how can you prove that? Only one thing could have happened.

I mean all forms of memory. Without it we would have no awareness of anything but the present. We would have no idea that anything else existed other than the experience we were having. Without memory we would have no concept of change or movement (time). Most of all, we would not be able to identify with anything nor want anything.

Okay, here's my issue: Why must we assume the force that guides collective behavior is different than the force that drives individual behavior? Is it not possible the cause of these intelligent formations is also the cause of our sense of self-preservation and creativity? I'd say that consciousness is not awareness, but a force with intent. Awareness is a product of consciousness, and cannot encapsulate consciousness itself, but only its other creations. Either that, or we do not really understand what awareness is. We can probably imagine awareness without sensation, if we had our memories... but without memory? Even with our senses in tact, awareness would be so different without memory that we cannot conceive of it.

Remember, as Richard Loo said in The Purple Heart..."Must I remind you that a chain is no stronger than it's weakest link?" And, if you remember the movie which was loosely based on the civilian trial by the Japanese, of eight (8) members of Jimmy Doolittle's raid, three were executed and one died as a POW,[1] you pronounce the last word as "rink." Adam Lol... I meant, though, chain of events. A metaphor inside a metaphor :S

Here's the problem: There are two things that exist from each of our perspectives: ourselves and otherness. The confusion arises when we try to draw the line of separation... Where does otherness end and we begin, and vice versa? There are a few possibilities... We are all one. There is no such thing as separation or otherness, but it is an illusion created by our mind. The dilemma with this theory is that we have limited interaction with the Universe. Most things are out of our control and our awareness is limited. How can it be us if we are not in control? Another theory would be that we are only observing and not interacting with the Universe. We are experiencing what it's like to be that domino in the middle... just a link in the chain. In this case, everything is otherness and nothing is really us. Without our awareness, however, it's hard to imagine a brain functioning the way it does.... but the same could be said for those complex formations created in nature. There is no line, though, that we can be aware of, that separates awareness from the physical Universe. And if there really is no line, and we know we exist, isn't it safer to say it is us? Is otherness an illusion? On another note, I shouldn't blame our language for anything... The words are just labels that represent things that already existed.

And that's precisely what interests me. For example, look at a bird swarm flying in elorate formations with none of the birds colliding. No doubt this constitutes an action one could label as "intelligent". So according to your premises, all those birds must possess a remarkable level of consciousness enabling them to carry out these complex actions - right? Researchers use the term "swarm intelligence": I sometimes get the impression that what you really want to discuss are issues related to linguistics and philosophy of language. Asking for precise definitions is certainly justified if you want to make sure what your communication partner is talking about. But asking too many "What is" questions about terms that are normally used in common language without causing misunderstandings can lead the discussion to an infinite regress. Re the 'control' example: I'm sitting here munching a couple of walnuts. In order to perform this act, I had to have sufficient control over e. g. my motor skills to move the nuts from place A where they had been to B where they are now. The use of the term 'control' this context causes no misunderstandings. The same goes for the 'car' example.Your arm lifts the walnut, your jaw muscles tighten and release to chew... I don't know why you feel control is implied in that scenario. Imagine a row of dominoes falling over... If one of the dominoes in the middle said, "I chose to knock the next domino over," how could you refute that? What is doing without result? I already asked it, but it could be confusing, I guess. My point is, if doing is nothing without result, then doing must be result. You could say that doing = intent + result... but our intent and effects are not the same, sometimes not even close. We do have an impact on "otherness," but so does the domino in the middle. We can assume that the domino has no intent, but where do we draw the line? Do animals have intent? Does bacteria? If we have intent, and we assume anything of a certain intelligence level and higher also has intent, why not everything? Someone said something about how humans make discoveries through *mostly* trial and error... I'd argue that we learn everything through trial and error; or trial and failure, as it should be said. We can make all sorts of predictions based on the assumed consistency between what we've already witnessed in the Universe, and what we have not... but as soon as something inconsistent happens, we learn that our understanding was flawed... We're constantly proved wrong. We look back at those people who all thought the world was flat, and think we would have been smarter... Their mistake wasn't believing the world was flat, it was believing anything was certain. When people believed the world was flat... gravity was an interaction between up and down... Then they learned the world was round, and gravity gained a new definition. The more we learn, the more we unlearn... We are products of our experience, that is for sure. However, if we only had the information we observed, we wouldn't be able to do anything... How could we move our arm if we could not imagine our ability to do so? In our bodies we believe intent and result are directly linked... but outside of our bodies, we understand only result. We are contradicting ourselves somewhere... Sorry, this post was over my head and I know it may not be that coherent.

I think I'm going to have to read that general semantics book because those points are pretty confusing to me just as they are. I was thinking about the idea of "doing." What is doing? What does? I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't think of forces as generated by matter, but rather as their own thing. For example, gravity, there is the saying that objects attract. Should we rather look at it as a force that for some reason pushes/pulls objects towards each other? Why do we assume because material is involved, it must be the cause? Someone mentioned that Rand said something like, "Awareness is aware." Does it make sense to say, "Doing does?" Wait... What is doing without result?

Oh boy... Other than material, what do we have labels for? Matter can be sensed, but, for example, movement cannot. Our memories allow us to comprehend movement, by relating our sensations of the present to multiple sensations from the past. To say we are the matter that makes up our bodies is to say we can only be sensed, because that's all matter can be. To say we are aware is something completely different, because you can't sense awareness. We have the label "energy," which Ba'al has explained makes up all the matter in the Universe... What is energy? Really, it is more accurate to say we sense energy, rather than matter. When we touch something, we sense a certain level of pressure, or force. When we smell something we are sensing the product of a chemical reaction, when we see something we are sensing light.

I was not implying that consciousness exists without the above. My question is whether so-called "intelligent solutions" exist without evidence of any consciousness and volition apparent to us. Correct. Would you agree with the definition "awareness of the self and environment"? http://www.thefreedi...y.com/conscious And who controls where the car is going? Intelligence must assume consciousness, right? Intelligence is a level of effectiveness. If there is no goal, there is no intelligence... It's either intelligent and conscious, or random and unconscious. But like I said, if consciousness can exist without senses and memory, we certainly have no idea what that would be. We know that consciousness is not JUST senses and memory, because we have what seems to be free-will and emotions... As to "who" controls the car... Who controls anything? What is control? Seriously, what is control? To Adam: Thanks for that, I think I'd enjoy reading about that.

Absolutely true for the toaster example. The toaster is the end product of what started as an idea in a conscious volitional mind having a specific intention. The issue I'm racking my brain over is how - what we, in common language usage, call "matter" - can organize itself "intelligently" with no evidence of a conscious and volitional mind guiding the process. For example, can one say that the 'genetic replication program' of organisms via procreation is an "intelligent" solution by "nature"? A while ago, I watched a TV documentary about the highly complex (we humans could call them "intelligent") operations certain species have developed (like e. g. the bees' waggle dance), and the moderator (a scientist) said that "nature" had had millions of years to 'figure out' efficient solutions. (Interesting how often even scientists slip into using names that suggest an entity acting in a teleological fashion). But while there exists no entity "nature" figuring out anything, but still efficient procedures like the bees' waggle dance suggest some kind of "intelligence", can one draw the inference that "intelligent solutions" in nature can exist without a consciuos, volitional mind guiding the process? If yes, i. e. if "intelligent solutions" don't require a conscious volitional mind, can one infer that intelligence as such does not require a conscious volitional mind either? But what is consciousness without memory and senses? Whether you say it's a conscious force or not, you still have the daunting task of defining consciousness. Also: When a car is in motion, it's not actually doing anything. The car is being moved by a force that is completely separate from the car itself. The energy from the combusting gasoline is what's doing the moving. The wheels aren't turning, they are being turned. That energy, however, does not control the car, it just moves it. Our language supports bad, habitual ways of thinking. Things don't do, they are done to. I think we strive to attain a higher level of self-control. The fact is, we cannot control our future selves.

We are what we are made of. What else can we be? We are stuff, matter and energy. We are subject to the same physical laws as wood, water and stone. Ba'al Chatzaf So we are the energy that makes up everything? Are we all one, or separate? My body and brain, even the electrical impulses that create my thoughts, are forms of the same energy that has been around forever... If I am that energy, and that energy is everywhere and everything... Well, it doesn't sound like this is what you believe based on my interpretation of your previous posts... Let me ask you this: Is there such a thing as random? You believe in free will, I'm assuming, but nothing can choose what it is. Also: It is an objectivist theory that consciousness is dependent on awareness of self... You could argue that ones own awareness can be recognized... But what about separate awareness? There is no way to be aware of separate awareness... This is a mind-boggling question: What is awareness?

What is the English translation? And this process produces countless 'intelligent' solutions without a conscience, like for example blood circulation. Leaves show elaborate mathematical structures, etc. Or just think of the fascinating world of fractal structures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal So if elaborate mathematical structures in nature and all the intelligent solutions can exist without a conscience, what is it that guides those processes? Don't think I'm arguing from some religious 'argument from design' position here. On the contrary, I would like to explore the issue from the opposite angle: If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without a conscience? By "without a conscience" do you mean without consciousness? בעל חוצפה Sorry about my language mistake; I meant "without consciousness", yes. I still don't understand Ba'al's argument. We are physical, conscious things. We are made up of tiny things that are not us. Those tiny things are made of energy. In other words: We exist as physical beings, yet all the physical components of us are not us. But that stuff is just energy. It is very confusing and seems inconsistent.

Uh, an illusion is something that is perceived by something... The perception exists. To say existence is an illusion makes no sense what-so-ever. To say reality is an illusion is a completely different assertion. What is reality? Objectivity depends on consistency between multiple angles of observation... To say something is real is to say it would be perceived in the same way from infinite points of view. There's no way to prove that reality is an illusion or the contrary. What we should recognize is that our awareness is limited to the present, and to a single point of view.

Judgment of others is very important to some types of Christians because it's an attempt at saving the person you're judging. Even by punishing someone for something on Earth you can save them from being punished by God in their afterlife... And that's not the only reasoning; God demands it be done this way. He's basically saying you should be thankful for all those things you have up here on Earth, even the judgment.

Dglgmut, Just to be clear about my own views, I don't think the universe works this way. I think the fundamental parts are all fundamental, which means--relative to existence--that one is not more important than the other. Michael Yeah, I figured as much from your circle analogy. I guess you see it as nothing really being a cause, but a few things being the essential building blocks that have always been necessary. With my theory I was more referring to the unexplained force in the experiment you mentioned.

E = m*c^2. I can't make it plainer. When the Big Bang occurred there was no material, there was only energy. Ba'al Chatzaf Energy is primarily understood as an interaction between material, though, you must agree. To imagine energy as an object, well, it doesn't make sense to us because it goes against our definition of energy. Also, I don't see the point in using the big bang in any metaphysical argument, as nothing was created at that point, and therefor it was not a beginning in any sense. Michael: Thanks for the reply. I'll check out that scientist; it does sound very interesting. It's a chicken/egg type question to ask whether we have will to live because of an evolutionary development or we have evolved because of our will to live... I am leaning towards will being the most fundamental part of existence.

Mass is congealed energy. Ba'al Chatzaf That doesn't explain anything. If our definition of energy depends on material, we can't use energy to then define material. I asked, "What is energy without material?" and you replied that even material is energy. Then let me ask: What is energy at all?

There is a scant distinction between a quantum field and a quantum particle. And from relativity theory we learn mass and energy are equivalent in that they can convert one to the other. Ba'al Chatzaf But what is energy without material?

What precisely are those "means of non-existence" and "means of unconsciousness"? Exactly. They are nothing. That's what you get with axioms, that you have to step outside them to prove them -- into non-existence, and non-consciousness -- and you can't. Tony How would one deal with the axiom "Existence is illusion", which can't be proved either? An illusion cannot exist separate from existence, because then it wouldn't exist. You could say otherness is an illusion, but that depends on your definition of otherness. That which is not you could be your brain, it could be your thoughts, it could be your feelings... If those are not you, what else is left? If they are you, who's to say everything else isn't? Wait... Doesn't a physical process depend on material?

A process has no components, though... only stages. Air is not what makes the wind... Wind is something that happens to air. So everything is a process, including us. We are separate from the other processes, though, and the process that caused our existence. Or, we are a stage of a grand process. Is this what you're saying? Because once again I fail to see how this explains awareness.

We are physical natural objects. Everything about us is physical (electrodynamic mostly) and material. There is nothing about us to which the laws of physics do not pertain. Life itself is a physical process. Ba'al Chatzaf We are the physical process then, not the physical material. We are not made of physical material like the wind isn't made of air. No physical process, though, like you implied before, is independent of a preceding physical process. You believe we are a link in a chain, then? If we are a physical process, though, we cannot have free-will... So you disagree with objectivism on this? Also: A physical process can explain the motions of our brains, but not our awareness. Like whYNOT's Rand quote, basically, awareness is not part of the physical universe and cannot be explained by using our understanding of the physical universe. whYNOT: Good quotes.

Our species came into being about a quarter of a million years ago. The Stuff of which members of our species are made came into existence with the cosmos. Think of a house built last year. Every part of the house is made of atoms that have existed for billions of years. They were only combined into house parts recently. Every atom of your body is (as Carl Sagan would say) billyuns and billyuns of years old. The molecules, which consist of the atoms combined by electrical forces are probably more recent. But the basic pieces go back almost to the Beginning.l Ba'al Chatzaf That would be a fine argument if we were inanimate objects, like a house. The constituents of a house are not behaving in any extraordinary way... our bodies, however, being at the command of consciousness... There is something else there, obviously.

So have we been around as long as those particles? Have we been around as long as the stuff that makes up those particles? If not, what was added when we first became conscious? Do we not come from the same "place" as everything else in the Universe? As Siddhartha realizes that the "Om," the word in its entirety and understands that all things exist at the same moment, all possibilities are real and valid, and time itself is meaningless, he finally achieves enlightenment. Is this your concept? What is a moment, though? If we use the idea of a moment to form our concept of time, lets not use our concept of time in helping us define a moment. Is a moment a state of existence, like a snapshot or a single frame of a video? At what point, then, is one state interrupted by the next? (This is actually more to do with my other thread..) Is there really such a thing as a moment? When you hear a sound, for example, that sound depends on change. Without oscillation, there is no sound. You could not freeze time in the middle of a sound and still hear it... Without that constant rate of change, it doesn't exist. I am really starting to dislike the word "time," as I can't put any meaning to it. Everything happening in the same moment was not my concept... I don't really agree with it. I mean, this moment is, well... it's gone now, but as I remember it, not too much was going on. I guess my main problem with it is the word "moment." These words shouldn't exist; they only make people assume they understand things that cannot possibly be conceptualized. Xray: What I mean is, there is no spontaneity in the Universe. Everything has a cause, including conscious actions. I never questioned whether there was a reality. I know I am aware, and that is something. Ba'al: You say we are an addition to the Universe and that we are made of stuff that has existed forever... How is this not a contradiction?

So have we been around as long as those particles? Have we been around as long as the stuff that makes up those particles? If not, what was added when we first became conscious? Do we not come from the same "place" as everything else in the Universe?