RP. I get ya. I still disagree and I suspect that this one as other discussions with thee and me will have to end in the old agreeing to disagree. Which is fine if a little sad. I have been alluding today to our dearest Gabs on G+ that I enjoy my argumentative nature as it helps me clarify and investigate my own position, opinions and ideas, I hope that by now everybody here understands this about me, and see's no malice in it.
Damn me though it is at times like this that I miss that reprobate Fiddler, he I think got this about me, although hah sometimes it sure felt that he forgot it in his outrage!
As an aside though, I've been a member here what almost ten years I think, I've seen people come and go, as I have been constant and quiet over the years. I love this place though, it is still the best forum on the net, and reading back through my own history I can see how it has helped me grow and indeed in some instances change my own stance altogether. You see people can and do learn. Life, it's a funny old game innit?
On Thursday, 25 October 2012 20:34:13 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
-- On Thursday, 25 October 2012 20:34:13 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
behave your self Allan
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <leerev...@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.
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > --
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
>
--
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
I am a Natural Airgunner -
Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário