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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> > > > -- > > > --
