Re: Mind's Eye Re: Life

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 <leerevdouglas@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.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
> --
>
>
>

--