0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneWould we want a definitive answer?I would ?...because I think even a definitive answer would not be absolute !Do we have a definitive question?I can think of two that I would like answered which for me..would be good for starters.1: How did the Universe Begin ?2: What is The proof of whether there really is a creator behind all of this with a purpose ! ?Is the answer 42?LOL..So long and thanks for all the fish !!George
quote:The only other possibility I can conceive, and it is one that must be regarded as both a real possibility, but nonetheless one that is for all practical purposes impossible to prove or disprove, is to deny the reality of free will on the part of the experimenters, and assume that every action that the experimenters take is predetermined, and its outcome is similarly predetermined. The problem with this hypothesis is that if human free will is non-existent, and the outcome of all experiments are predetermined, then the outcome of any experiment to demonstrate the existence of free will is subject to the same distortions as any other experiment. This then becomes more of a philosophical argument than a practical scientific one, since no science could possibly be undertaken that can prove or disprove the hypothesis. I don't think the argument comes down to whether an electron in flight can specifically influence a person's brain, since a human brain is for all practical purposes just another collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons (and various other elementary particles). Thus, the more accurate question is whether in some way all the elementary particles in the universe, including those within the human brain, as well as those in any computer, or anywhere else in the universe, are bound together in such a way as to mutually interact with each other in a predetermined way, and as such to predetermine the result of any experiment that one collection of elementary particles (namely those that form the human brain, the human body, and all the physical ancillary equipment that forms the experiment) performs upon another set of elementary particles (namely the electrons being observed in this experiment). If all matter within the universe is entangled in some way, then we humans, as a part of this universe, are also entangled with the rest of the universe.
quote:Originally posted by neilepALBERTO THANK YOU FOR THIS.Do you think that if you must question whether the answer is true or not....... means that you must apply that same rationale to any answer at all.I think I understand what you say that because you are faced with the final answer that therefore you must not be a part of it...but turn it around .....perhaps it's because you ARE in fact a part of the answer that you can in fact perceive it as such......so that it must include you.
quote:Originally posted by lightarrowWhat another_someone says is very interesting.So, I would like to go on with this, but in no scientifical way.Let's look at our (right, e.g.) hand: we can distinguish several different fingers. If every finger were aware, he could say "I'm the index finger, that one is the middle finger..." ecc. But, all together, there is only the hand. No separation. The hand could say "I'm the hand, made of index finger, middle finger, ecc."You have understood what I want to say: maybe, we think to be different individuals, but, at an higher level of awareness, we are the same thing.Maybe the same not only among individuals, but also with everything in the universe.
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneI have no problem with your analysis of fingers and hands, what i do have a problem with is your extension to the idea of a larger/higher organism that is self aware. That a finger is both separate and yet one with the complete hand is totally valid, but as far as we are aware, neither finger nor hand is self-aware, that is a particular function of complete human beings, and is not necessarily a function of all other entities of whatever scale.
quote:Originally posted by lightarrowI'm sorry another_someone, but I don't understand what you want to say.What I wanted to mean is that, as an analogy, maybe we individual human beings (and, maybe, all beings and things in the universe) are part of a greater being, as fingers are part of a hand, which is part of a human being...
quote:Originally posted by otis01In innocence I was born, and in innocence I shall return.. However, at this point I am still quite inbetween.
quote:Originally posted by otis01If a wave was capable of consciousness, it would believe it is separate from the ocean. It would say "I am this wave. Those are other waves that are different and separate from me." But this isn't true.
quote: The wave Is the ocean. Even the notion of individual oceans is an illusion. There can only be One ocean- humans divided it up so as to comprehend its vastness. 7 oceans are an illusion, just as individual consciousness is only an illusion. Individual consciousness was created much for the same reason we have divided this Earth into nations, waters into oceans, gulfs, lakes, rivers, and streams; they were created so we are not overwhelmed by their vastness. Our individual consciousness must be only a part of a whole consciousness; the infinite ocean of consciousness. It is much too vast for us to yet understand, so it was divided. We are each but a wave of consciousness in the Ocean of consciousness.
quote:In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems about the limits of formal systems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931. Gödel's first incompleteness theorem is perhaps the most celebrated result in mathematical logic. It states thatFor any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true 1 but not provable in the theory. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.Gödel demonstrated the incompleteness of a theory of arithmetic, but it is clear that the demonstration could be given for any theory and language of a certain expressiveness.
quote:Originally posted by MjhavokAre you talking about a specific scientific theory or the scientific method?-Steven
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneWhat I was trying to say was that while I agree that we are connected to everything else, and as such me would rightly be regarded as part of a single entity with everything else, the problem I have is when you start talking about this 'greater entity' actually being self-aware, or being a sentient being of some sort (ofcourse, we can start asking what sentience is in the first place – but I am merely wary of what seems to me to be an anthropomorphism).It was your use of the phrase “a higher level of awareness” that concerned me. If you had merely said “at a higher level”, and had left out the word “awareness”, then I would not have had a problem.