I think the human experience of Life is a brand new game as we nibble its cusp.Look to science and technology for the clues- they will be the new gods and morality. We are in an era of simpy mopping up the old belief/behavior systems. Some are stubborn or fearful of change but that has been a habit of historical dramas. Some have the luxury of retreating into a private world or pasting together a pretense of old values. Nothing gold can stay- Robert Frost, poet.
On Oct 26, 8:31 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
