Apech

I don't wish to offend but I kept thinking of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now ... it seemed very dark and spacey to me ... not my cup of tea these days ... but I hope it helps those who practice this.

That is my problem. I cannot define something that does not exist. (Speaking only from my own understanding.)

 

I can define a rabbit but I cannot define the Easter Bunny.

 

I cannot define Tao but I can talk about some of its aspects (the Manifest realm).

 

I can talk about a person's consciousness but I cannot talk about a stone's consciousness.

 

So little do I really know!!!

When you say God does not exist - you must have an idea about what you mean - otherwise the words are meaningless. It's just that people seem to mean a whole lot of different things when they say God.

My Dad is an atheist (although being strict rationalist he would say you cannot disprove what you don't know so he calls himself agnostic ... but he doesn't really mean it ... he's just being super cautious in a strict rationalist sense). So I was brought up with only 'cultural' religion in my life - and that was pretty sparse. So I am naturally an atheist but am drawn through personal experience to spirituality ... so I tend to think in terms of 'energy'/'consciousness' or whatever term you might like to use.

I don't naturally talk about God because the term means very little to me. But I find most people are reacting to the 'sunday school' term ... an old man somewhere who knows everything about you and issues moral guidelines written in stone ... and I would wholeheartedly agree that this God does not exist.

However if someone prefers to use God as meaning the origin and source of everything ... I don't have a problem with that. Logic suggests to me that since I know I am conscious ... then that consciousness must have an origin or source ... and that could be terms God by some. I can't accept that consciousness arises in 'dead' matter ... it doesn't make any sense to me logically and my experiences suggest otherwise.

Materialism is a kind of dualism ... since matter is only one state of energy (which I think we established earlier) ... so i can't believe in the fundamental reality of something which is only an effect caused by something else.

All very interesting anyway .... and I appreciate the chance to discuss ... I am sure we will return to this again and again .

Define God please. By which I mean the way in which the word can be applied.

My friend Everything is thinking too much again.

 

(I don't believe in the ability to foresee the future, as in fortune telling or prophecy.)

I predicted you would say that!

Seriously ... if the TTC speaks to profound truths about nature and human nature then what it says will be universally true and so would predict in a way what will happen in specific circumstances.

....

 

A raock is a rock until it is worn down and becomes a stone and the stone is a stone until it becomes a grain of sand.

You made me think of this ....

To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.

 

 

William Blake - Auguries of Innocence

... what's a raock by the way ... did I miss a geology lesson ... or did you mean ruach ... Hebrew for spirit (?) lol

As with everything we have define what we mean by gods. I find most people are confused by the Judeo-Christian concept of God where as there is only one god he/it stands for Absolute reality. So we get the idea that this God, a person or supreme being is equivalent to the Absolute ... which creates all kinds of problems. Monotheism is really a kind of concealed duality.

The ancient view of gods is that they are nothing but power or energy concealed in forms. Polytheism such as you find in the ancient world and in Hinduism is very different to monotheism. As there is no limit placed on the Absolute then it is conceivable that it can manifest in many forms and 'levels' as intelligences of all kinds ... not just plants, animals and humans. Worshiping such intelligences becomes very different from going to church on Sunday and can be more about remembering that energy (or whatever we want to call it) or consciousness is at the root of all we perceive and that the variety of its forms is an expression of its total creativity.

There are different perspectives to be had is all I am saying.

Hey John! I just watched a program on TV that spoke to exactly this. Check out the concepts "Spooky Action At A Distance" and "Quantum Entanglement".

 

Spooky stuff! Hehehe.

Well yes. The act of observation has some effect on not just the observed particle but its 'twin' .... suggesting particles are not separate entities but modalities of a continuum which interacts with itself ... thus I am suggesting that this is the basis for consciousness. The transfer of information from place to place in space. Light is one aspect of this.

Consciousness in some form or another (perhaps not immediately recognizable as such) is fundamental and not an epi-phenomena ... this makes sense to me.

If only that rock could speak or write a book.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

Story time. About rocks.

 

Years ago I went up to North Georgia to get some river rocks for my pond area. I was in the water collecting some and a Fish and Wildlife agent came down and asked me what I was doing. (He was hoping to catch someone without a license.) I told him and he said I couldn't do that because it was private property and beside, if everyone came and collected rocks there would be none left.

 

I said nothing but when he left I went to the sheriff's office and told them what had happened and asked if the river was private property and if it was illegal to collect some rocks out of the river. They answered no to both questions.

 

I went back to the river and continued collecting my rocks almost hoping the agent would come back.

A very interesting admission! Unless you agree those stones were actually self-conscious beings I may have to report you to:

The Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division (EPD)

under the statute:

"Any activity which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state water or onto lands within the state, including, but not limited to, clearing, dredging, grading, excavating, transporting, and filling of land but not including agricultural practices as described in paragraph (5) of Code Section 12-7-17."

River Basin Center - North Georgia

(PS isn't google great!!!!)

Good post Apech:-) Hmm, why is it when I explain the same thing questions of kitchen experiments come up and when Feynman does it with a diagram he gets kudos:-)

Nah, not important, I didn't do the math/physics work and Feynman sounds like a non-pathalogical human:-)

 

Edit. More typos

Maybe he just looks like he knows something about particles and all that stuff:

But Steve, this has nothing to do with whether or not the rock is self-aware/conscious.

 

My looking at the rock does not give the rock consciousness. In fact, it give the rock nothing. Now, if I threw the rock into the lake than the rock would have a very long bath.

Marblehead you only exist because the rocks are watching you . Don't get paranoid now.

... but seriously I want to pursue the question of consciousness/ sentience. If we agree about plants then that's a start. Plants with some kind of sentience. They have no brains or complex nervous systems ... so at least their sentience is not the product of complexity. This suggests perhaps that the complexity we have in our brains and bodies is just a vehicle to allow us to express our consciousness rather than the basis for it.

I suggested a long time ago that the interactivity of particles was the basis of sentience in 'higher' levels of life. Here is a Feynman diagram of two electrons interacting.

The interaction which is shown as a photon exchange is the equivalent of one electron saying to the other ... hey I'm over here ... move over will you. Could this not be the basis for what develops as sentience???

Anyone?

Hehehe. You must have very elastic arms and fingers because you are stretching a very long way in order to support your belief.

 

Yes, people do recover from comas. This is when they regain consciousness. If they regained it then it must be said that they didn't have it. How much more simplified can I make this?

 

When was the last time a rock spoke to you?

 

And my chair has never told me to get my fat ass off of it. Ah!, my chair. I have used it as an example many times, haven't I?

 

Yep. I live on this objective, physical planet. It is what I relate to when living my life.

 

Are you too perhaps taking your connections and associations a bit too far? But if they work for you then that's fine. Just don't spend too much time sitting in your easy chair, holding your rock and waiting for it to tell you all the answers to the questions you have in life. I think that you might end up finding that you have wasted a lot of your life.

 

BTW I don't talk with dead people either. They never talk back to me.

 

(Edited for spelling.)

I think you are still equating consciousness to human consciousness. Rocks don't talk ... they don't have mouths... plants don't talk either but I believe they have a form of sentience because they seek sunlight etc. in other words they sense something about their environment.

If I am in deep sleep and you walk round my bedroom humming quietly to yourself (not that I am suggesting that you regularly break into peoples houses and do this ... I hope :lol: ) then I will not be conscious of you ... but that does not mean I have ceased to have any consciousness in any form whatsoever does it. It just means that my awareness has not distinguished you as an external object and identified your form. In fact I would suggest that it is likely that I would sense you in some way or other and wake with a vague (i.e. ill defined ) notion of some kind of presence in the room last night. Same for the guy in the coma.

By the way .. you have started to talk about beliefs (because of my so called stretchy fingers ... err !) I am trying to come from a logical standpoint. Until someone shows me how sentience/consciousness can arise in something intrinsically inert (i.e. matter = energy) I will continue to doubt that this is possible. I'm not saying it is impossible but I am just asking for some kind of descriptive mechanism which stands up to reasoned analysis.

My point is that we use these terms glibly. Matter, energy, consciousness ... by trying to define them properly we can get towards an understanding of what we are talking about. Until then saying 'everything is energy' has about as much meaning as 'everything is porridge' ... well almost ...

People recover from comas ... their consciousness has not been extinguished but has merely become dormant. Because you cant remember being asleep ... or your dreams does not mean you had no consciousness. It is merely a connection problem. So I don't buy the coma argument.

If matter is a form of energy ... something we seem to agree on ... then to say you are a materialist or believe in the reality of the objective physical world just means that you think that energy is real. Since we are energy and it is energy (the world) ... there is nothing else ... then logically consciousness must mean energy recognizing itself. Or perhaps it is recognizing the forms which it is able to take up ... a chair, a table, you , me ... etc.

So we have energy which has sentience ... we may not completely understand the mechanism of this but it seems an inescapable conclusion to me.

Maybe the nature of this energy is ineffable ... maybe that's why we are struggling with definitions.

That's why I stopped where I did. I wanted to define it but found myself lost for words.

 

In my mind it is the stuff that Singularity was. No, I cannot define Singularity.

 

But Singularity did go 'bang'. Well, kinda'.

 

And we are already beyond the knowable so it would be best to stop and not try to define it.

That's what I find interesting about these conversations. We all make bold statements about things that we cannot, or struggle to define. A physicist would say energy= capacity to do work ... which means basically its 'something that can do things' ... which gets us nowhere really.

The word consciousness is similar ... a word which we would struggle to define. Literally it means 'with cutting' or something like that! So to know things we divide up reality ... into knowable bits ... hence the cutting part. The movement from the unknown to the known - or the mystery to the manifest. The implication being that the act of being conscious does this ... it breaks down 'reality' from an unknown mystery into known things. Which would also imply that we somehow create the things that we know... hmmmm.

Sentience means to be able to feel. I would suggest this is basic to consciousness. I would suggest that all living things can feel at some level in some way. So our human consciousness is not the product of the complexity of our brains so mush as the evolution of the basic ability to feel which we share with all life.

But where does that come from? If it doesn't come from complexity then it must come from that which makes up living entities ... i.e. forms of matter, proteins and so on ... And matter is energy ... so maybe hylozoism isn't so strange an idea after all.

Mr MH, I think we ought to try to define it, lest it becomes defined for us :-)

 

The point of definition is to produce application/results. (Most) physicists (IMO, I'd love to be wrong as usual) don't spend their time attempting to understand reality so they can enjoy its play like some old zen monk in his garden. They do it to be able to have an effect over it and make things that use that understanding of reality to 'do stuff'.

 

As far as I read Fu Xi mentioned that his teaching would make 'gods' of the people he taught it to.

Absolutely. Even if we think its going to be difficult to get a perfect definition we should try to define terms we use. then at least we can agree what they mean. And I think you are right ... the reason for wanting to know ... is it to manipulate or to enjoy life??????

Hahaha!!!

 

Matter is energy.

 

Continuous cycles; energy to matter and matter to energy, etc. No energy is ever lost. Yea!!!!! Eternity!!!!

I agree with that. So matter is not inert lumps of dead stuff. Its energy. How are we going to define energy? What is it?

Well, Shucks! There are some things I just don't know and don't even have enough knowledge of to form an opinion. So, yes, sometimes I will dodge your bullets. Hehehe.

Ok here's an easier one ... what is matter?

Human sentience is just an aspect of sentience. Without sentience, not necessarily human sentience, there would be no knowledge. So a lifeless piece of rock floating in space may or may not exist, but without a sentience being aware of it, its existence will be unknown, in fact unknowable.

K's pet rock has an astronaut cousin!

That's not a fair request. Even the masters of the field are up in arms arguing with each other as to what it is and where it comes from.

That's right keep dodging my bullets ... metaphorically ...

I'll go ask the rock :-)

 

Edit: rock said I'm a young fool who knows nothing and it was a stupid question (me, not the rock).

Is it a sage rock?

methinks the white cat is barking up the right tree...

This cat is barking all right ...

Thanks Apech. Nice to see an actual word for my current affliction of perspective and that there's a philosophy for everything:-)

 

How's about 'entropy' as a throw in :-) ?

Entropy is the degree of disorder in a system - which tends to increase over time unless energy is put in to give structure. Thus the earth because of the input of the sun's light/heat is in a reverse entropy phase ... this energy is captured by plants and put into the chemical structure of their metabolisms ... animals eat the the plants and so on ... feeding energy up the food chain to allow more and more complex structures to be formed (e.g. human brain). You could even argue that rocks on being subject to heat and cold ... causing exfoliation etc. form the basis for soil ... feeding the bacteria which feed the plants also ... so your pet rock may one day be sacrificed as part of this great enterprise.

PS.. I still want to hear from the materialists ... where they say sentience/consciousness comes from ...

Hi,

I meant what is 'now Iran' ... not 'not Iran' BTW ... rubbish typing as usual.

Something in the back of mind says gold jewelry ... or was that the Thracians ... ??? I'm going to have to google ... got any links about those graves?

Well, water does have something going for itself. As far as we know there would be no life on this planet without it.

I know we have done this before but I am going to ask anyway. If the objective world comprises insensate material (like rocks) then were and when does consciousness arise? And I mean sentience and not human consciousness. How can something that is not sentient become sentient ... explain this with the laws of physics ... its genuine question not rhetorical ....

I agree with effilang (and phosphor).

Important thing is not to focus on the 'physical' sensations ... just do the practice.

Do you mean Scythian? ... not that I know anything about them ... but I think they lived in what is not Iran ... horses, nomads that kind of thing.

Hi folks,

I'm going to lock this thread now because it was just for the poll really. The result shows that the majority of voters are happy with I4L posting in General Discussion (with the option of Off Topic for PUA (if you really must)). Obviously normal mod rules apply but apart from that ... the few who object to his posts well I guess ignore is the best option. I4L please don't flood the board though ...

On the issue of subs and the stifling of debate ... I think now we have the subs we will have to learn to use them well. They seem to serve a purpose for some people and some topics ... but its an open forum and its not about the views of individuals dominating its about open, frank, respectful, humorous, sometimes tangential discussion. If you don't like subs then use the general ... its up to you ... make this place what you want it to be.

PS. If you want to continue this debate please start another thread - I'm just closing this cos of the poll.

If you search on here or google 'thetaobums I ching' you'll get some helpful stuff and links I think.

I use Stephen Karcher 'Total I Ching' a lot and also wilhelm ... also have Wang Bi trans by Lynne.

If you want to study you should start with the 'Great Treatise' - start by examining the lines, the pairs and the trigrams to see how they build to the 64 hexagrams ... after gaining an understanding of yin and yang of course. A lifetimes study ... the more you look the deeper it goes ... also use it as an oracle so you can engage with it through real experience in daily life.

My 2 c.