Explore the Nature of Spirit - Questions & Answers

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
... So should we take recourse to so many unsubstantiated claims and assumptions just to manufacture an explanation of events which we never could understand? Or should we accept our ignorance and proceed to understand things that we do know something about? What do you think?

I think that we know about things that we didn't know before because some of us speculated about what was possible (and, at one time, unknowable) until such a time as that which was unknown and deemed unknowable became known.

My speculations do NOT come from a desire to "manufacturer an explanation". My speculations come from a desire to see if I can add anything useful to our wonderings about the Universe...something useful and "new" that -- down the road -- might be confirmed. I think that this is as productive a pre-occupation as any...certainly as productive as watching the soaps, or, worse, shooting marbles across a room to re-prove projectile motion.

I once saw a bumper sticker that read:

THE EVOLUTION OF NEW IDEAS:
1. They are ridiculed.
2. They are strenuously fought.
3. They are accepted as self-evident.

Why ridicule and fight with those of us who just want to make a contribution? We might not succeed, but how does it hurt YOU -- or the world of science -- if we try?

Will get to your other questions as time permits.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage
I am saying sentience is a physical phenomenon just like a hurricane and can be explained by interactions between baryonic matter following physical laws. There is no necessity to invoke seminal consciousness in baryonic matter to explain the emergence of sentience in humans. Consider this- a hurricane is produced by baryonic matter. Does that mean we need to assume the existence of a mysterious property called seminal ‘hurricaneness’ in elementary baryonic particles to explain how hurricanes are formed? Laws of physics are enough. Same with the emergence of ‘higher’ consciousness in humans.

Your first sentence above is a flat-out assumption. Moving on...

A huricane is not doing MORE than a huricane does...it's just a great big physical system that's dispersing a lot of energy..doing nothing MORE than its physical components allow (like knocking over trash cans). Consciousness is a system BEYOND the physical components that "house" it...performing "tasks" that the physical components themselves could never do (like recognizing a trash can).

Chances are, you and I aren't ever going to have a meeting of the minds. Nonetheless, as a mental exercise, I shall comment on what you have written:

You didn’t get the point did you?

Nope. Was there one? (just rattling your cage )

1) KEY SURVIVAL SYRATEGIES LIKE FLIGHT AND FIGHT RESPONSE ARE HARD-WIRED IN BOTH BEETLES, CHICKENS AND HUMAN BEINGS.

There was a time when these responses weren't hard-wired...when the wiring was taking place. I maintain that the wiring is an assemblage of conciousness particles that form a network. So what.

2) BEETLES AND CHICKENS CANNOT LEARN NEW RESPONSES FROM INPUTS FROM THEIR ENVIRONMENT(more for beetles than chickens)

I've seen chickens who learned to DANCE...so let's move on...

3) HENCE THERE IS NO DANGER THAT VITAL FIGHT AND FLIGHT RESPONSES CAN BE MODIFIED(through learning from the environment) IN THESE ORGANISMS.

I'll bet if you took a newly hatched chick and gave him a zap of electricity every morning when the sun came up, you'd have a pretty nervous chicken whose fight or flight response was heightened to the nth degree...hence, "modified".

4) SENTIENT BEINGS LIKE HUMANS LEARN PRODIGIOUSLY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT LEADING TO CONSIDERABLE MODIFICATION OF THEIR INITIAL HARD-WIRED BEHAVIOR.

And some of us remain REFLEXIVE to the hilt! Meanwhile, bees "learn" precisely where a new patch of flowers are from a bee that communicates direction and distance.

5)HENCE THERE IS A DANGER THAT HARDWIRED FIGHT-FLIGHT RESPONSE MAY BE OVERRULED BY STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.

Uh-huh (nodding politely).

]6)THIS IS CLEARLY DISADVANTAGEOUS.

It is "disadvantageous" that a being -- when confronted by a perceived threat -- does not have at its disposal the impulse to fight or flee? Perhaps this impulse itself is "disadvantageous" when negotiation or cooperation would be a more productive response. Hmmm?

7)SO NATURAL SELECTION HAS DEVISED METHODS TO PREVENT SUCH AN OCCURANCE.

Do tell...

8)ILLUSIONS OF SPECIALITY AND PURPOSE ARE THESE METHODS.

So, because I think I -- and the whole human race -- is "special" and "created by God for some grand purpose"...THEN, I can reserve my hard-wired reflex to run from a perceived danger...or kick the crap out of it! And, to further this thought, had I NOT come up with my illusions of "specialness" and "purpose"...when I perceived danger, I would stay and take it like a man (even tho I'm NOT one).

9)THERE EXISTS NO SUCH DANGER FOR HENS AND BEETLES.

What danger are we talking about: the butcher? your theory? my foot?

10)HENCE NO PREVENTIVE ILLUSIONS ARE NECESSARY.

Or, no "preventive illusions" are POSSIBLE...due to the LEVEL of consciousness of a chicken or beetle...which may or may NOT be capable of ABSTRACT THOUGHT...which would be needed to deliver an "illusion".

11) ANALOGY- YOU DO NOT NEED MEDICINES UNLESS YOU ARE SICK.

I am sick of non sequitors...what is the cure?

Note- this is a watered down version of my idea. Just presents the rough structure of my logic so that you can understand.

Look : I am having a sort of "flight or fight" response myself here...wanting to flee, not from "danger" but from a "painful series of posts" where neither one of us gains ground because our PARADIGMS are too INCOMPATIBLE. The other response -- the "fighting" part -- is what I have been INDULGING myself in by way of rattling your cage. I do not wish to do this either, as I respect you (I've read other of your posts on other threads that were not so contentious...and delivered good info). Also, I've been kicked around quite a bit myself (as you may have guessed...GUESSED? your boot marks are there as well). Thus, I'm GAINING COMPASSION for people with hair-brained theories...like MINE!

If we put each other on "ignore" then, in essence, we are FLEEING. If we jab at each others' ideas, we are, in essence, FIGHTING. If I consider myself "special" it's because I've compared myself to a lot of lesser lights...and humility is not my "strong suit". Have I "made up" that we're here to EVOLVE by gaining compassion over lifetimes...it's not "because God wants me to do it"...it's because I do!

Thus, while I feel bad about hurting your feelings -- or making you angry (same thing) -- I think I've made the point that "flight or fight" -- hard-wired or not -- is not necessarilly the most productive response we can have to each other.

If you put me on "ignore", let me know, so that I don't spend more time responding to the rest of your post(s).

And, by the way, for the record: 1) I am NOT saying your theory is "wrong", 2)I do not personally hold with the "illusion" that "we" are "special", 3) I don't believe in "God" as commonly conceived, hence, 4) I do not hold that "God created the Universe" nor 5)that we each have a "purpose".

Instead, I believe that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts...and that INTENTION is an inherent force/process/ingredient in the System.

So sue me.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Tell that to the particle/wave photon.

No use, it isn't conscious .

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
No use, it isn't conscious .

Hi. Welcome back.

By the way, during your hiatus from the threads, I've been informed that the particle/wave phenomenon is not a good example of paradox...because, now, it is understood.

Further, I was told by Tom that while a paradox SEEMS to exist now and again in science, eventually we "see the light" so to speak and figure out what's going on.

I say this in response to a post of yours before you left ...that a paradox is the death-knell of any theory. I am "comfortable" with paradoxes because I'm comfortable with "incompletions"because I accept them as part of the process.

And you can tell that to the dust-bunnies under your bed!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Hi. Welcome back.

Why thank you, glad to see someone cared .

I say this in response to a post of yours before you left ...that a paradox is the death-knell of any theory. I am "comfortable" with paradoxes because I'm comfortable with "incompletions"because I accept them as part of the process.

Well I don't accept dead-ends as part of any process - except perhaps the process of choosing a new path.