100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Life arises from consciousness and other choices. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
James, I am responding here because this thread is the one in which there were words spoken by Mirror which clearly repeated my earlier words. The trouble I had was witnessing your complete acceptance of that notion when voiced by another.
What is the difference? My purpose is to clarify the irony displayed by your posts in our recent conversations. More importantly, it is not a matter of right and wrong concerning the subject. It is about the evidence at hand which strongly suggests that you have automatically dismissed my words as invalid simply because of their author. My reason is purely because you are someone who I once held in high regard, and it is very clear to me that your perception has become clouded by some foreign matter, the origin of which I have chosen to not assume. Now then, I have this clarified below. Mirror's words were this... exactly... verbatim! The more senses a living thing possesses The higher its conciousness The exact same thing I initially claimed, when one has the critical thinking skills required to take it a little farther... If A then B A = quantity of senses B = level of consciousness If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so. It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness. Keep in mind that senses are physiological. Mirror even stated "living thing's" without a hint of objection from neither you or JB...  That fact alone implies that this has a kinda personal relevence which is completely outside the subject matter to me...  In Mirror's conclusion he lends support to this claim which is completely against what you and JB are suggesting. Here are his words again... So it stands to reason that consciousness would be measured by the same standard According to Mirror's entire post, he attributes the amount(therefore the existence of) consciousness directly to the amount of senses that a living thing has. For you to react as though you had no idea what I was talking about is a reflection of something, although I am doing my best not to assume to know what that something is. For JB to ignore that which has been clearly displayed and has contradicted her assessments does not at all surprise me. For you to follow suit James... I am. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without self-consciousness, one does not realise that they are alive...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You shouldn't be trying to fling mud in the first place. This is absurd to even suggest. Have you no awareness of the quantity of personal mud that you and JB have slung towards me in recent past? When have you ever known me to throw mud first? This unsupported stance that you are taking has been made more than obvious lately James, and it is the sole reason why I have been at a loss for words with you. I used to believe that we drank from the same well, I no longer think that. That is truly disappointing. I am really expecting another completely unsupported rant at this point in time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 06/20/08 11:09 PM
|
|
According to Mirror's entire post, he attributes the amount(therefore the existence of) consciousness directly to the amount of senses that a living thing has. The "amount" is the "degree" of consciousness. I have stated from the beginning that consciousness flows through all things and all things have a degree (amount) of consciousness. You added a "therefore the existence of" which is not what mirror stated. Mirror only spoke of the degree (or amount) of consciousness being influenced (or increased) by the senses. He did not state that the existence of consciousness depended upon the senses, only that they were increased or influenced by the senses. Once again you have added your own words and misquoted someone with your ... "therefore the existence of"...interpretation. Your ..."Therefore the existence of..." is a conclusion. It is YOUR conclusion, not Mirror's. (If it is Mirror's conclusion, he has not actually stated so.) For JB to ignore that which has been clearly displayed and has contradicted her assessments does not at all surprise me. It is you who ignore that which has bee clearly displayed. Mirror's statements as they stand, do not contradict my assessments. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The "amount" is the "degree" of consciousness. I have stated from the beginning that consciousness flows through all things and all things have a degree (amount) of consciousness. You added a "therefore the existence of" which is not what mirror stated. I also stated that if one can follow a logical construct, then they can logically and reasonably take it one step farther, evidently you are having problems with that, and there is no surprise here. Mirror only spoke of the degree (or amount) of consciousness being influenced (or increased) by the senses. He did not state that the existence of consciousness depended upon the senses, only that they were increased or influenced by the senses. If it is true that consciousness can be increased resulting from quantity of senses, then must also be true that it would be decreased by the same measure, or neither is held as true. I have no explanation for your inability to follow this logical construct. Once again you have added your own words and misquoted someone with your ... "therefore the existence of"...interpretation. First of all, I misquoted no one. There are Mirror's words which are in quotes, and my own which are not. Your perception is off. Again, there is no surprise here. Your ..."Therefore the existence of..." is a conclusion. It is YOUR conclusion, not Mirror's. (If it is Mirror's conclusion, he has not actually stated so.) Of course it is my conclusion! I never claimed otherwise. It is a completely sound logical conclusion, the ability for making such is gained from having the awareness necessary to think in reasonable and rational ways, to draw a logical inference based upon that which is held as true. His words clearly will logically follow my earlier assertation that consciousness is a result of senses. I just demonstrated the logical construct. If that were not the case then his claim would also be false, which makes no difference to me... My focus is that an author is being rejected not the content of words. Again I have no attachment to you as a direct result of my value placement regarding that which you have shown yourself to be. I am merely pointing out the obvious to James, not you, I would not expect you to understand the construct which must follow, based upon Mirror's words being held as true. It is you who ignore that which has bee clearly displayed. Mirror's statements as they stand, do not contradict my assessments. I have never claimed to know what Mirror would logically conclude should those words be continued in a logical construct. I merely stated that they do not logically support what you and James are claiming. You are the one who claimed to explain his meaning. I just held his words as true and then followed the only logical construct accordingly, I can't help it if you do not like it. It follows, none-the-less. As a matter of fact in order for consciousness to be able to be affected in any way by an external concept such as the senses, then that clearly shows that consciousness is not free, but dependent upon those senses for not only it's increasing, but also it's decreasing would also be true. If it can do either then it can do both. You can fight about the logic of it all you want, that is just the way it is. If you agree with those terms mentioned by Mirror, then you would have to logically conclude what I displayed. I find it humourous how you avoid the substance... Why not address this directly? If A then B A = quantity of senses B = level of consciousness If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so. It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness. Mirror's person has no bearing on this. I have nothing against him either way. This is about a hidden personal agenda upon your part. I am open that there are significant differences between our positions, yours is on a personal level, mine is not. The acceptence of things mentioned by another which were rejected when I said them makes this clear to one who has the critical thinking skills. You reject me as an author, and therefore anything which I write for that reason. The same thing was embraced when another spoke it. Clear to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sat 06/21/08 02:18 AM
|
|
The "amount" is the "degree" of consciousness. I have stated from the beginning that consciousness flows through all things and all things have a degree (amount) of consciousness. You added a "therefore the existence of" which is not what mirror stated. I also stated that if one can follow a logical construct, then they can logically and reasonably take it one step farther, evidently you are having problems with that, and there is no surprise here. Mirror only spoke of the degree (or amount) of consciousness being influenced (or increased) by the senses. He did not state that the existence of consciousness depended upon the senses, only that they were increased or influenced by the senses. If it is true that consciousness can be increased resulting from quantity of senses, then must also be true that it would be decreased by the same measure, or neither is held as true. I have no explanation for your inability to follow this logical construct. Once again you have added your own words and misquoted someone with your ... "therefore the existence of"...interpretation. First of all, I misquoted no one. There are Mirror's words which are in quotes, and my own which are not. Your perception is off. Again, there is no surprise here. Your ..."Therefore the existence of..." is a conclusion. It is YOUR conclusion, not Mirror's. (If it is Mirror's conclusion, he has not actually stated so.) Of course it is my conclusion! I never claimed otherwise. It is a completely sound logical conclusion, the ability for making such is gained from having the awareness necessary to think in reasonable and rational ways, to draw a logical inference based upon that which is held as true. His words clearly will logically follow my earlier assertation that consciousness is a result of senses. I just demonstrated the logical construct. If that were not the case then his claim would also be false, which makes no difference to me... My focus is that an author is being rejected not the content of words. Again I have no attachment to you as a direct result of my value placement regarding that which you have shown yourself to be. I am merely pointing out the obvious to James, not you, I would not expect you to understand the construct which must follow, based upon Mirror's words being held as true. It is you who ignore that which has bee clearly displayed. Mirror's statements as they stand, do not contradict my assessments. I have never claimed to know what Mirror would logically conclude should those words be continued in a logical construct. I merely stated that they do not logically support what you and James are claiming. You are the one who claimed to explain his meaning. I just held his words as true and then followed the only logical construct accordingly, I can't help it if you do not like it. It follows, none-the-less. As a matter of fact in order for consciousness to be able to be affected in any way by an external concept such as the senses, then that clearly shows that consciousness is not free, but dependent upon those senses for not only it's increasing, but also it's decreasing would also be true. If it can do either then it can do both. You can fight about the logic of it all you want, that is just the way it is. If you agree with those terms mentioned by Mirror, then you would have to logically conclude what I displayed. I find it humourous how you avoid the substance... Why not address this directly? If A then B A = quantity of senses B = level of consciousness If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so. It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness. Mirror's person has no bearing on this. I have nothing against him either way. This is about a hidden personal agenda upon your part. I am open that there are significant differences between our positions, yours is on a personal level, mine is not. The acceptence of things mentioned by another which were rejected when I said them makes this clear to one who has the critical thinking skills. You reject me as an author, and therefore anything which I write for that reason. The same thing was embraced when another spoke it. Clear to me. Creative Soul...... I see no hidden personal asgenda on Jeannie or Abra's part here at all. Just miscommunication....due to both sides processing info differently. One one side we have analytical thinking... on the other side is more abstract thinking. You wrote..... If A then B A = quantity of senses B = level of consciousness If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so. It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness. Creative....according to other ways of thinking, the statement above is not necesarily so. Simple. Example.....although Mirror's statment earlier was similar to your statement, Creative.... with just a couple of words added or subtracted ,it can hold an entirely different meaning, especially to someone with a different thinking style at work. http://web.media.mit.edu/~neptune/lifenet/experts_think_together/experts_think_together.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "amount" is the "degree" of consciousness. I have stated from the beginning that consciousness flows through all things and all things have a degree (amount) of consciousness. You added a "therefore the existence of" which is not what mirror stated. I also stated that if one can follow a logical construct, then they can logically and reasonably take it one step farther, evidently you are having problems with that, and there is no surprise here. Mirror only spoke of the degree (or amount) of consciousness being influenced (or increased) by the senses. He did not state that the existence of consciousness depended upon the senses, only that they were increased or influenced by the senses. If it is true that consciousness can be increased resulting from quantity of senses, then must also be true that it would be decreased by the same measure, or neither is held as true. I have no explanation for your inability to follow this logical construct. Once again you have added your own words and misquoted someone with your ... "therefore the existence of"...interpretation. First of all, I misquoted no one. There are Mirror's words which are in quotes, and my own which are not. Your perception is off. Again, there is no surprise here. Your ..."Therefore the existence of..." is a conclusion. It is YOUR conclusion, not Mirror's. (If it is Mirror's conclusion, he has not actually stated so.) Of course it is my conclusion! I never claimed otherwise. It is a completely sound logical conclusion, the ability for making such is gained from having the awareness necessary to think in reasonable and rational ways, to draw a logical inference based upon that which is held as true. His words clearly will logically follow my earlier assertation that consciousness is a result of senses. I just demonstrated the logical construct. If that were not the case then his claim would also be false, which makes no difference to me... My focus is that an author is being rejected not the content of words. Again I have no attachment to you as a direct result of my value placement regarding that which you have shown yourself to be. I am merely pointing out the obvious to James, not you, I would not expect you to understand the construct which must follow, based upon Mirror's words being held as true. It is you who ignore that which has bee clearly displayed. Mirror's statements as they stand, do not contradict my assessments. I have never claimed to know what Mirror would logically conclude should those words be continued in a logical construct. I merely stated that they do not logically support what you and James are claiming. You are the one who claimed to explain his meaning. I just held his words as true and then followed the only logical construct accordingly, I can't help it if you do not like it. It follows, none-the-less. As a matter of fact in order for consciousness to be able to be affected in any way by an external concept such as the senses, then that clearly shows that consciousness is not free, but dependent upon those senses for not only it's increasing, but also it's decreasing would also be true. If it can do either then it can do both. You can fight about the logic of it all you want, that is just the way it is. If you agree with those terms mentioned by Mirror, then you would have to logically conclude what I displayed. I find it humourous how you avoid the substance... Why not address this directly? If A then B A = quantity of senses B = level of consciousness If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so. It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness. Mirror's person has no bearing on this. I have nothing against him either way. This is about a hidden personal agenda upon your part. I am open that there are significant differences between our positions, yours is on a personal level, mine is not. The acceptence of things mentioned by another which were rejected when I said them makes this clear to one who has the critical thinking skills. You reject me as an author, and therefore anything which I write for that reason. The same thing was embraced when another spoke it. Clear to me. Creative Soul...... I see no hidden personal asgenda on Jeannie or Abra's part here at all. Just miscommunication....due to both sides processing info differently. One one side we have analytical thinking... on the other side is more abstract thinking. You wrote..... If A then B A = quantity of senses B = level of consciousness If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so. It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness. Creative....according to other ways of thinking, the statement above is not necesarily so. Simple. http://web.media.mit.edu/~neptune/lifenet/experts_think_together/experts_think_together.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Morning Mirror Mirror.....
(((((((  MirrorMirror)))))))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Morning Mirror Mirror..... ((((((( MirrorMirror)))))))  Good Morning MorningSong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Morning Mirror Mirror..... ((((((( MirrorMirror))))))) Good Morning MorningSong All those M's.....kinda reminds me of M n M's candy....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Morning Mirror Mirror..... ((((((( MirrorMirror))))))) Good Morning MorningSong All those M's.....kinda reminds me of M n M's candy.... Your adorable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Morning Mirror Mirror..... ((((((( MirrorMirror))))))) Good Morning MorningSong All those M's.....kinda reminds me of M n M's candy.... Your adorable You are Precious, MirrorMirror
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sat 06/21/08 03:22 AM
|
|
Creative Soul.....if we are talking about the 5 senses here ......smell, hear, see, taste, and feel.....
then what about the after death experiences some people have reported , after returning back into their bodies....where they said they were VERY conscious and aware of what was going on about them . In those after death experiences, There were no 5 senses involved...cause the senses are limited to the physical body only. But yet all these people who have had these after death experiences ,could "see" what was going on about them. So that would mean then , that there is an ability to "see " , which is not limited to the physical body. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't I be rotten and selfish? Does that label come with a self adhesive sticky strip? LOL...You can be anything you wanna be there Lil girl. You're OK in my book.  However I hardly think there's a rotten or selfish bone in yer body. LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You shouldn't be trying to fling mud in the first place. This is absurd to even suggest. Have you no awareness of the quantity of personal mud that you and JB have slung towards me in recent past? When have you ever known me to throw mud first? This unsupported stance that you are taking has been made more than obvious lately James, and it is the sole reason why I have been at a loss for words with you. I used to believe that we drank from the same well, I no longer think that. That is truly disappointing. I am really expecting another completely unsupported rant at this point in time. In all honesty Michael I don't know what you want. You're the one who seems to feel that something needs to be resolved here. I don't understand what you want. It appears to me that you're seeking some kind of recognition that you are asbolutely right about something and JB (and possibly me too) are asbolutely wrong about something. You keep speaking about JB flinging insults at you, I don't see it. You started a thread entitled "So-called Pantheists", and tried to make it sound like everyone who doesn't agree with Spinoza's pantheistic view is not a valid pantheist. JB said that if you restrict yourself to a single philosopher you're putting yourself in a box. And you take personal offense to that? But that's precisely what you just did. You put yourself in Spinoza's box and then claimed that everyone who isn't in that box isn't a true pantheist. It just appears to me that recently you've taken a very firm stance on your position(s) and you've been taking other's unwillingness to climb on board with you as a personal insult. I have absolutely no personal conflict with you at all. I don't believe that JB does either to be honest about. We just aren't about to climb aboard an absolute stance that we see as highly restrictive. I personally see your stance as basically being "Atheistic Pantheism". I think of 'spirit' as my true nature. My true essence. That part of me that is indeed 'me'. The 'living soul' as religious people often call it. Ideas of 'spirit' that are completely unware and unconsious is an atheistic view to me. To me, all they are saying is that our 'souls' are fleeting. That our true 'selves' are not spirit at all, but just a result of our physical form. They liken 'spirit' to something like gasoline, and we are the flames. But from my point of view that's atheism. Maybe atheism is true. But I'm currently leaning toward the idea that it's not true. So I'm not trying to make any personal or derogatory comments toward you as a person. I'm just trying express my views concerning why I'm not in agreement with what you appear to be demanding is the only true and logically sound philosophy of pantheism. How do I go about disagreeing with that view without offending you? (same goes for JB?). You seem to be taking disagreements with your view to a personal level. That's all I know. I'm not out to become your enemy. I have no bone to pick with you at all. But I will defend JB when I believe she is being wrongly accused. If you feel that she has personally insulted you, you should take that matter to her in private email and resolve that with her personally. Either that or just let it go and ignore it. That's up to you. I don't see JB as the type of person who would purposely insult other people. I think she just strongly disagrees with you absolute Spinoza stance. I'm not prepared to climb on board with that stance either. Nothing personal intended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Mirror's conclusion he lends support to this claim which is completely against what you and JB are suggesting. Here are his words again... I disagree, and here's why,... You were holding the position that perception leads to consciouness. Mirror's post (as he posted it) appeared to me to be suggesting various levels of consciousness. So I don't see them as being the same at all. Again, there's a difference between something leading to consciouness, and having various levels of conciousness. And the difference being that if we take your position that perception leads to consciouness then spirit cannot have any form of consciouness at all. On the other hand, if consciouness exists on all levels, then spirit can be the source of consciouness. So these two views are humongously different. I don't know what Mirror specifically meant in his post, or which stance he would perfer to support. I only know that his post, as it was posted, appeared to me to support that consciouness exists at all levels. I don't see that as supporting your position that perception leads to consciouness. So I disagree that agreeing with Mirror's post automatically equates to agreeing with the position that you had taken that perception leads to consciouness. But again Michael, this seems to come back to down to trying to force that someone was absolutley 'right' and someone was absolutely 'wrong'. You seem to be on a war path to demand that someone conceded that you are right that perception leads to consciousness. I don't believe it it does. I'm a Spiritual Pantheist. I believe that consciouness arises from spirit. If I were to accept that consciouness arises from perception then I'd be an atheist. That's my view. However, having stated that I still hold that you are utimately cheating yourself (as well as everyone else), but demanding that perception itself is a form of 'awareness'. I think it all comes down to a humongus misuderstanding. We're trying to say that are ability to be 'aware' arises from the fact that we are spiritual entities. And therefore awareness is always present in some form. To believe that awareness can only arise from form is atheism. This goes back to what I've said a very long time ago. Are we the form, or are we the thing that is taking the form? That is the question. Atheism versus Spirituality. You seem to be taking the atheistic view that we are the form and that our very awareness arises solely from form. JB and I are taking the view that we are the thing that is taking the form (i.e. spirit) and that our awareness is innate to the spirit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 06/21/08 09:39 AM
|
|
Someone said:
If it is true that consciousness can be increased resulting from quantity of senses, then must also be true that it would be decreased by the same measure, or neither is held as true. I have no explanation for your inability to follow this logical construct. The above is an idea that Mirror suggested. I did not say that I believe it is absolutely true ~although I did not disagree with it simply because I believe Mirror's understanding of consciousness seems to be slightly different from mine. So according to his understanding this statement could appear to be a true one. I believe that consciousness itself always remains the same. It is unchanging and flows through all things...in degrees or amounts. I believe that living things have different capacities for consciousness, but that all living things do have a degree of this consciousness flowing through them. What you normally think of as a living thing or creature, may have a higher degree of consciousness flowing through it than a rock, but still, even a rock has a degree of consciousness flowing through it. Therefore if you do not understand this concept or believe it, perhaps your basic understanding of consciousness is different than mine. That is for you to decide. I will still maintain my belief that all things have consciousness flowing through them in degrees, but that consciousness itself never actually changes, it simply connects all things and that is what makes the body of the universe alive and aware. To see the universe as one, it must be connected. It is my belief that consciousness is that connection. You can agree to disagree with me if you choose, and go in peace. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 06/21/08 09:37 AM
|
|
If A then B A = quantity of senses B = level of consciousness If a living thing's consciousness level is dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses, then it can only be a product of that influence, necessarily so. It must follow that no senses would also equate to no consciousness. A living thing's consciousness level is not dependent upon the quantity of possessed senses. However I would suggest that all physical constructs that arise in a creature for environmental sensing purposes, have arisen because of the flow of consciousness through it. This is called evolution. Consciousness itself flows through all and is constant and unchanging. This is spiritual pantheism. P.S. From our (human) point of view, a creature may appear to be more conscious or aware if it has more sensing abilities similar to our own, but this (human) point of view is limited to our own senses and understanding of such, so I do not confine my ideas to what human states of consciousness can logically deduct. I am not my body. I am a spiritual being. I look at things through the eyes of the spiritual being, not the body. Jeannie |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB:
"I am not my body. I am a spiritual being. I look at things through the eyes of the spiritual being, not the body." Jeannie TRIBO: oh you are to your body!! your just acting like your cats - all finiky and choosy!! wanting what you want when you want it!!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 06/21/08 11:54 AM
|
|
JB: "I am not my body. I am a spiritual being. I look at things through the eyes of the spiritual being, not the body." Jeannie TRIBO: oh you are to your body!! your just acting like your cats - all finiky and choosy!! wanting what you want when you want it!! Damn right!  And why not? I like my body. I have great respect for it. It is where I live. (I feed it too much though.) But I don't smoke. But that's probably because I'm too cheap to pay that much for cigarettes. Now excuse me while I take some time out to get a massage, take a hot bath and feed my body. I'm so spoiled.    |
|
|
|
|
