"Of course this is all based on my core perception that we are the supreme creatures in the Universe."-Gruff
Kinda scary and I, like Poky Porcupine, fell this way; “Thar’s only two possibilities: Thar is life out there in the universe which is smarter than we are, or we’re the most intelligent life in the universe. Either way, it’s a mighty sobering thought.” On Aug 21, 6:21 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Aug 18, 8:57 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: ..." > > > > Isn't proof of existence outside the confines of ones own > > > consciousness of more value? > > > I'll take a crack at it: We are something, sentient and intelligent. We > > exist by the same measure, as we perceive it, as the world(s) we inhabit > > through our innate senses. The heuristic beauty of our intelligence > > endows us with the ability to expose and inspect our world while at the > > same time reflecting upon it and ourselves. By any standard, one > > certainly exists (or at least I do), and by the force of sheer > > statistics it is reasonable to assume everything and everyone does as > > well. If there is a greater standard by which we do not exist it is > > alien to logic or reason and perhaps irrelevant or as philosophy of > > science would say, 'uninteresting'. Or another way, it is as relevant to > > us as we are to it, (at least/) as we are here. > > Agreed, especially the latter. I cannot think of any standard by > which we do not exist and I consider the point irrelevant. Perhaps > after I die I may have a different perspective but for here and now, > as I said, I agree. > > > I prefer panpsychism myself (aka 'radical materislism' on a purely > > information plane), but it depends on mood so I might drift between it > > and pantheism (experiential plane) or somewhere else outside those > > definitions. {chuckles} I've been thinking about hijacking ID and making > > a new Super-ID, tagline: 'If you can't tell the difference between the > > two domains that makes two of us'. I am happy you stayed this time > > Gruff, it is a pleasure. > > There is a rare definition of pantheism which I like, mainly due to > it's antithesis. A pantheist in this case is one who admits or > tolerates all gods while an atheist is one who admits or tolerates no > gods. I lay claim to the latter title (along with about a billion > others.) However, I'm not sure what panpsychism is, but according > to one source it is that the entire Universe is an organism which > possesses a mind (or that all material entities possess a mind), but > I'm not quite sure how that works. I could readily admit to all > higher forms of life possess a mind but whether that could include > flora and bacterial life I have serious doubts, but not absolute > doubts. After all, even the simplest of life forms will shy away from > harm and turn toward that which enhances life. Some call this simply > instinct but where in the whole of that life form would instinct be > seated but in some form of a mind even if we don't recognize it as > such. This is why I say my doubts are not absolute. > > Another definition of pantheist is one who believes the entire > universe is a manifestation of god. This is closer to something I > would consider possible in the remote chance there was a god; which, > without a lot of mumbo-jumbo, implies that we are our gods in the > becoming. This ties in closely with what I believe to be our creation > of gods; i.e., that we created them out of fear and loneliness but in > doing so gave those gods characteristics and abilities we ourselves > possess. In other words, we are not created in gods image but rather > we created our gods in our own image. > > Of course this is all based on my core perception that we are the > supreme creatures in the Universe.
