- #106
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
- 2,262
- 2
Rade said:I do not view this sequence as being logical at all. Why ? For the simple reason that one cannot "first" have a progressive organizing "force" without there being some "things" to organize.
I'm not sure you understand the concept. The idea is that there is some fundamental stuff and conditions which is normally chaotic, but which could accidentally generate an evolving circumstance. The first thing to evolve would be that circumstance itself since that is its very nature (i.e., to evolve). If it has eternity in which to evolve, then it could become what we call “consciousness” of which one of its characteristics is organization. In this concept, its organizing aspect is what has shaped creation.
Rade said:Give me one example of a force acting on (organizing) itself, which is what would be required for your hypothesis to hold. No such example is possible. Does gravity act on itself ? Or strong force of atom ? Of course not.
You haven’t said anything there that has anything to do with my point.
Rade said:You may ask, where did first (1) some fundamental things = existence come from--easy answer, they had no beginning nor end, they just exist, always have, always will.
That’s what I’ve been saying. However, I suggested what first developed in those most fundamental of circumstances was a consciousness that evolved for eons until it could help guide the development of a universe.
Rade said:Thus I hold that the most logical sequence is (1) some fundamental things = existence (2) an organizing force that forms "things" into "objects" (OK, we call it consciousness to make you happy--others call it union of weak force, strong force, gravity, electro-magnetism) (3) a breakup of objects to form more complex objects during recombination (big bang), etc. etc. etc. to (4) present.
Again, I don’t see much difference in this and what I said except I think it most logical for the fundamental thing to have evolved consciousness first since that would explain the organization found in life. I don’t want to get into another abiogenesis or evolution debate, but there is no suitable explanation for that organization.
Rade said:Finally, you state that "consciousness evolved"But a force does not evolve, the things the force acts on evolve.
Geez, maybe you will stop giving us physics 101 every time someone uses a word that is also used in physics? Forget about force if you don’t like that term, call it the ability to organize on a grand scale, or whatever you want.
Rade said:And please, there is no "us" above "lesser animals" in any logical sequence to explain existence. All life on Earth has identical worth, many forms of animal life have consciousness.
No one was talking about "worth," we were talking about the extent of evolution found in different life forms. As for me I think I am millions of years more evolved that most animals because of the quality of my consciousness.
Last edited: