Re: Mind's Eye Re: Life

A better understanding of oneself and the world is a mark of
intelligence and not consciousness. A human can be said to be more
intelligent than the lessor life-forms as he has a better
understanding of the self , his emotions and how to control them. To
me there is no difference between the Self or the universal Soul or
God.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdouglas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we are indeed using different definitions of the word. Yes there is a
> difference in intelligence between us and chimp, but also in consciousness.
> If I am conscious of a Self, that is apart and separate from others of my
> species, and a worm is not conscious of such a thing, is this a measure of
> consciousness or intelligence This is what I mean when I use the word and
> it is this I allude to when I say levels of consciousness.
>
> As to souls, well for me the jury is still out on whether such a thing
> exists at all, that is I do not equate the Self with the soul.
>
>
> On Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:51:08 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>>
>> Lee , by consciousness I understand awareness of something like sound
>> , sight , etc., by evolution I understand the growth from simple
>> life-forms to complex life-forms. As for the difference between chimps
>> and humans is not that of consciousness but that of intelligence. You
>> are trying to say that your soul is more developed than that of chimps
>> or maybe a chimp is lacking of soul. The whole argument is about us
>> having individual souls which I do not agree with , I believe in a
>> universal Soul and the rest to be just dust.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Umm I'm not sure I agree with that either RP. What I mean by level of
>> > consciousness is rather things like, sense of Self, emotions, ability to
>> > use
>> > tools. If it helps lets us call it scale instead of level. I don't
>> > think
>> > that level of evolution is correct, not really. I think of evolution
>> > over
>> > time. We humans shared some 5-6 million years ago a common ancestor
>> > with
>> > chimps. If we humans have carried on evolving (and we have) and chimps
>> > have
>> > carried on evolving (as they have) then we share a level of evolution.
>> > We
>> > have both evolved over the same span of time from our common ancestor.
>> >
>> > I do agree though that, I shall use the term, 'Lesser order' animals are
>> > inferior to us, but that highlights my insistence on grouping by 'levels
>> > of
>> > consciousness . Is it true to say that chimp is at a lower level of
>> > consciousness as a human? Well I think it quite correct to suppose so.
>> >
>> > However remembering that all of this is in reply to your initial post,
>> > then
>> > it is clear that some of the creatures we share this planet with can be
>> > said
>> > to not be conscious at all. Does an Ameba have consciousness? But
>> > perhaps
>> > more importantly to this discussion, can a creature without
>> > consciousness be
>> > said to be a 'being'?
>> >
>> > Before I go let me just clarify why this phrase 'intensity of senses'
>> > makes
>> > no sense to me when it comes to consciousness. A falcon has far
>> > superior
>> > eyesight than a human, but according to how I have defined consciousness
>> > is
>> > clearly on a lower level than humans.
>> >
>> > Personally I don't think that searching for proof of God's existence is
>> > any
>> > good at all. You either believe such a thing IS or you do not, and that
>> > is
>> > good enough for me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 18:06:20 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Lee , what you mean by level of consciousness is actually the level of
>> >> evolution , but that doesn't mean that the less evolved are in any
>> >> manner inferior to their highly evolved brethren --humans have the
>> >> concept of God but animals haven't and still all are equal in the eyes
>> >> of God even though He has made everyone in a different mold. It is
>> >> only if we see everyone with an eye of equality that we can be truly
>> >> compassionate towards all regardless of their position in the
>> >> evolutionary ladder.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Heh you are the master of the non answer, are you a politician?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm going to assume then that yes crows are conscious, and what you
>> >> > may
>> >> > call
>> >> > the level of intelligence, and the intensity of the sense also mean
>> >> > yes.
>> >> > Which makes your previous words contradictory.
>> >> >
>> >> > This phrase though, 'intensity of sense', makes no sense to me. What
>> >> > does
>> >> > it mean then for consciousness for those beings who have more intense
>> >> > senses?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:26:41 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There is a matter of the intensity of the senses and the level of
>> >> >> intelligence , but , my friend , crows are beings and not machines -
>> >> >> ah , robots.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Lee Douglas <leerev...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Ahhhh RP! You don't change at all sir do you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > There are of course many, many people and soooo much literature
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > disagrees with your wishy washyness here. So much of it in fact
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > don't even feel the need to defend my stance at all. So let me
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > finish
>> >> >> > by asking you two questions.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Are crows conscious?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Is a crows consciousness the same as a humans?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 17:08:51 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That which exist is Being , and consciousness does't have levels
>> >> >> >> but
>> >> >> >> parameters -- sound , sight , etc.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Lee Douglas
>> >> >> >> <leerev...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > The we disagree again RP. Unless you and I have differing
>> >> >> >> > concepts
>> >> >> >> > on
>> >> >> >> > what
>> >> >> >> > consciousness is? My cats are conscious, would they have an
>> >> >> >> > understanding
>> >> >> >> > of God as a human does? I suspect not, but they are surely
>> >> >> >> > conscious
>> >> >> >> > creatures. It may be that I infer I am currently in discourse
>> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> > another
>> >> >> >> > conscious entity, but I'd rather say it is empirically correct
>> >> >> >> > that I
>> >> >> >> > am
>> >> >> >> > doing so rather than it is an inference that I can make. After
>> >> >> >> > all
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > we
>> >> >> >> > not members of the same species? Without being too general, I
>> >> >> >> > think
>> >> >> >> > such
>> >> >> >> > inferences that I can make about myself as a human must also
>> >> >> >> > hold
>> >> >> >> > true
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > other humans. I must breathe to live, so can I infer that
>> >> >> >> > others
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > my
>> >> >> >> > species must also do the same, or can I claim knowledge that it
>> >> >> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > true?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I get what you mean of course, I can ever only really say I
>> >> >> >> > think,
>> >> >> >> > therefore
>> >> >> >> > I am. However when an inference takes place day in and day
>> >> >> >> > out, I
>> >> >> >> > think
>> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> > better to regard such 'truth' as knowledge. Thus I know you
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > conscious,
>> >> >> >> > as you are human, and I know I am conscious. My cats show all
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > signs
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > being conscious and indeed as you would expect of conscious
>> >> >> >> > beings.
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > both exhibit different attitudes and personalities.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So once again we are back to the following two questions. What
>> >> >> >> > do
>> >> >> >> > you
>> >> >> >> > mean
>> >> >> >> > by 'being', and at what level of 'consciousness' does this
>> >> >> >> > proof
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > yours
>> >> >> >> > need to be, to be proof?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 12:20:34 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> As far as a person is concerned , there is only one
>> >> >> >> >> consciousness
>> >> >> >> >> ,
>> >> >> >> >> that is , his. Others are inferred, as also the existence of
>> >> >> >> >> god.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Lee Douglas
>> >> >> >> >> <leerev...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > Meh! I know plankton exist, is it conscious, or would you
>> >> >> >> >> > not
>> >> >> >> >> > call
>> >> >> >> >> > it
>> >> >> >> >> > a
>> >> >> >> >> > being? Or perhaps we can discuss levels of consciousness?
>> >> >> >> >> > Nope I
>> >> >> >> >> > can't
>> >> >> >> >> > get
>> >> >> >> >> > with this argument RP, far too many holes in it.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > On Sunday, 23 September 2012 15:20:45 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Conscious beings are a proof of God because otherwise an
>> >> >> >> >> >> unconscious
>> >> >> >> >> >> Being
>> >> >> >> >> >> could not be said to exist. Existence is the seed which
>> >> >> >> >> >> finds
>> >> >> >> >> >> its
>> >> >> >> >> >> growth in
>> >> >> >> >> >> life.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> --
>
>
>

--