Hahhah leave off Allan, I'm not insulted by RP nor do I hope he is by me. Differences of opinion are just that, and as you know I enjoy a robust interaction. RP has widely reported his conception of Soul and God and Gods message to us, it is one that I do not agree with, and this too is by now widely reported.
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: > > behave your self Allan > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM, RP Singh <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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 > > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > 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. > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > -- > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > -- > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > -- > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > -- > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > -- > ( > ) > |_D Allan > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > I am a Natural Airgunner - > > Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. > --
