"Hello, is there anybody in there...?" A call to pagans, pantheists, and assorted...

[Simon Anders]

Heh.. my bad.
I meant: "Thus it is best to assume that a thing is ... unless it can be proven otherwise"

So you actually disagree with this? Isn't that the basis of your rock example that you keep using. You have repeatedly agreed that most of the universe is not alive and life is the exception. How did you draw that conclusion? You could have said "we only know for sure now that a small % of the universe is alive" but you have repeatedly agreed that you believe most of it is not alive. How could you know this without believing the assumption I described above.

I don't understand.. Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution.

I never said that. It is not about pinnacleness. It is about life and intelligence being defined working away from humans. Remember that animals were considered machines until fairly recently by science. Other races were considered animals. The further away the less likely it is alive.

Hmm yes I do, but it also isn't a useful definition. I mean how would you test it ?
This definition leads to "We don't know what is alive in what is not", or worse "Only humans are alive".

Actually it can lead to a solipsistic conclusion that you can only know that you are alive since you have awareness and preferences. There is no real way to test anything for whether is has awareness and preferences. Even your neighbor could just be a complex machine with no internal life.

To me your position is a partial solipsism.

For a long time scientists felt that 'we cannot know' if animals 'really' have feelings, intentions and emotions. (a few behaviorists even included us in that). Now it is OK to be a scientist and refer to these things.

So the degree of solipsism - stringency of response to the problem of other minds - has reduced in science. (good for science!)

Still compared to me and probably th1gy
you have a more stringent response to the problem of other minds.
Something you have been trained to have by TV, scientists, your parents, the culture, etc.

 

[Enmos]

So you actually disagree with this? Isn't that the basis of your rock example that you keep using. You have repeatedly agreed that most of the universe is not alive and life is the exception. How did you draw that conclusion? You could have said "we only know for sure now that a small % of the universe is alive" but you have repeatedly agreed that you believe most of it is not alive. How could you know this without believing the assumption I described above.

The way you use the word "life" is confusing to me.
I'm going by a well defined scientific concept.
Using that concept there is only evidence that particular organizations and composition are alive.
There is no reason to assume anything else is alive as it has never been observed.
You can pick up a rock and observe it into the length of days to try and determine whether or not it has the characteristics of life.. you never will.

I never said that. It is not about pinnacleness. It is about life and intelligence being defined working away from humans. Remember that animals were considered machines until fairly recently by science. Other races were considered animals. The further away the less likely it is alive.

That's not what I believe.

Actually it can lead to a solipsistic conclusion that you can only know that you are alive since you have awareness and preferences. There is no real way to test anything for whether is has awareness and preferences. Even your neighbor could just be a complex machine with no internal life.

To me your position is a partial solipsism.

For a long time scientists felt that 'we cannot know' if animals 'really' have feelings, intentions and emotions. (a few behaviorists even included us in that). Now it is OK to be a scientist and refer to these things.

So the degree of solipsism - stringency of response to the problem of other minds - has reduced in science. (good for science!)

Still compared to me and probably th1gy
you have a more stringent response to the problem of other minds.
Something you have been trained to have by TV, scientists, your parents, the culture, etc.

Uhm hold on there.. I was working from your definition of life here.
So that would mean you consider your position partial solipsism.. :shrug:

 

[Simon Anders]

Enmos,
Going to drop this for a while, at least. Maybe
th1gy can take over for a while.

I find your responses a little odd here. I don't want to be in the position of having to remind you of the position you hold. I am very much aware of how you view things and I am doing my best to try to explain my view and the problems of your view in ways you might be able to understand. I cannot also have responsibility for reminding you of what you said before and what it means. That is too much work for me.

I have a degree in Bio. within your paradigm and read articles regularly written by scientists who work in that paradigm. I realize though this experience on my part that I am not going to convince you. My main intent is to hold off your certainty that I must be wrong and my paradigm and experience of life must be off somehow. Also to point out potential areas of inconsistancy and mere assumptions in your own paradigm. To hold you at bay, so to speak. The paradigm of lifelesseness has done a lot of damage to the world. It is in fact creating a backdrop to many actions that are transforming the planet into a lifeless place. I know you love nature and that you do not have this intent. I also get it that you do not notice the connection between the paradigm and what is happening. I find that all a bit sad, but, as I said above, I have little hope of getting that much across. For me it is more seeing if the lifeless paradigm still has any of its hooks in me.

If I can clear it out of myself, that may be a small thing, but that is something.

 

[Simon Anders]

Uhm hold on there.. I was working from your definition of life here.
So that would mean you consider your position partial solipsism.. :shrug:

No. I accept what you would call intuition when I recognize other life. You need to go to a lab to prove to yourself something is alive. You need to test because you do not trust your feelings. Just as scientists did not trust the direct appraisal of lay people that animals were emotional, intending cognitive beings for so long.

You mistake in thinking that my belief leads to us thinking only humans are alive is because you cannot even consider directly experiencing the life or intelligence in something that is very different from you.

Sigh.

I really got to drop this now.

 

[Enmos]

I find your responses a little odd here.

Likewise.. I think there is a miscommunication somewhere.

I have a degree in Bio. within your paradigm and read articles regularly written by scientists who work in that paradigm. I realize though this experience on my part that I am not going to convince you. My main intent is to hold off your certainty that I must be wrong and my paradigm and experience of life must be off somehow. Also to point out potential areas of inconsistancy and mere assumptions in your own paradigm. To hold you at bay, so to speak.

Your pantheism does not stem from Biology.

I'm just doing the same thing.
But you seem to have this preconceived notion of me which I don't fully fit. I'm sure it's what the miscommunication arises from.

The paradigm of lifelesseness has done a lot of damage to the world. It is in fact creating a backdrop to many actions that are transforming the planet into a lifeless place. I know you love nature and that you do not have this intent.

I agree, I think.. the human bit in your definition of the paradigm confuses me.

I also get it that you do not notice the connection between the paradigm and what is happening. I find that all a bit sad, but, as I said above, I have little hope of getting that much across. For me it is more seeing if the lifeless paradigm still has any of its hooks in me.

No, I do see the connection. But I also say that it's ultimately the assholes that are responsible, not the paradigm.
Unless the human bit in your definition is meant as human supremacy, then I do see the connection, and then I am absolutely not part of it.

If I can clear it out of myself, that may be a small thing, but that is something.

Simon arguing your beliefs is not my main concern here, I want to understand your position better.

 

[Enmos]

No. I accept what you would call intuition when I recognize other life. You need to go to a lab to prove to yourself something is alive. You need to test because you do not trust your feelings. Just as scientists did not trust the direct appraisal of lay people that animals were emotional, intending cognitive beings for so long.

You mistake in thinking that my belief leads to us thinking only humans are alive is because you cannot even consider directly experiencing the life or intelligence in something that is very different from you.

Sigh.

I really got to drop this now.

That's not what I meant.
I said that the definition was not helpful in determining what is alive and what is not.
Your definition was basically only "consciousness".. how are you going to determine if a rock has consciousness ?
If you cannot determine if anything besides humans have consciousness, you are not going to able to call anything but humans life.. :shrug:

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Enmos, try this: For a short time, say 5-10 minutes, believe nothing on this issue, or rather , hold no position on this issue. And during this time read what Simon and I have wrote as if it were a textbook on the subject and from there see if you can get your mind around the paradigm. Also during this time, pretend that this is how most people see the world and if someone doesn't hold it 'all life' paradigm that person is seen as odd.
My point is I think the trouble might be in your trying to translate from one to the other. My intent is not to connivence you on this but to spend time thinking in this fashion. Then after the time is up, after you've spent time thinking in this fashion, Pls feel free to return to your regularly schedule paradigm.

Again I only suggest this with the purpose merely getting you to understand/see it from our eyes. And then afterwards, go ahead tell us, tell me, I'm full of shit. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos, try this: For a short time, say 5-10 minutes, believe nothing on this issue, or rather , hold no position on this issue. And during this time read what Simon and I have wrote as if it were a textbook on the subject and from there see if you can get your mind around the paradigm. Also during this time, pretend that this is how most people see the world and if someone doesn't hold it 'all life' paradigm that person is seen as odd.
My point is I think the trouble might be in your trying to translate from one to the other. My intent is not to connivence you on this but to spend time thinking in this fashion. Then after the time is up, after you've spent time thinking in this fashion, Pls feel free to return to your regularly schedule paradigm.

Again I only suggest this with the purpose merely getting you to understand/see it from our eyes. And then afterwards, go ahead tell us, tell me, I'm full of shit. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

No, I get what the "all life" paradigm is.
I just don't agree with the definition of "life" Simon offered.
I have already done what you suggested, in fact, that's what you do to see from someone else's perspective. I do it all the time.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

OK. Then what is it you don't understand?

 

[Enmos]

OK. Then what is it you don't understand?

I think I understand it, I just don't agree with his definition of "life".
See below:

It is important to know what definition of life you are using, so if you please ?

Has awareness and preferences.

Hmm that's not a really helpful definition for anyone..

I think you mean you disagree.

Hmm yes I do, but it also isn't a useful definition. I mean how would you test it ?
This definition leads to "We don't know what is alive in what is not", or worse "Only humans are alive".

Actually it can lead to a solipsistic conclusion that you can only know that you are alive since you have awareness and preferences. There is no real way to test anything for whether is has awareness and preferences. Even your neighbor could just be a complex machine with no internal life.

To me your position is a partial solipsism.

For a long time scientists felt that 'we cannot know' if animals 'really' have feelings, intentions and emotions. (a few behaviorists even included us in that). Now it is OK to be a scientist and refer to these things.

So the degree of solipsism - stringency of response to the problem of other minds - has reduced in science. (good for science!)

Still compared to me and probably th1gy
you have a more stringent response to the problem of other minds.
Something you have been trained to have by TV, scientists, your parents, the culture, etc.

Uhm hold on there.. I was working from your definition of life here.
So that would mean you consider your position partial solipsism.. :shrug:

No. I accept what you would call intuition when I recognize other life. You need to go to a lab to prove to yourself something is alive. You need to test because you do not trust your feelings. Just as scientists did not trust the direct appraisal of lay people that animals were emotional, intending cognitive beings for so long.

You mistake in thinking that my belief leads to us thinking only humans are alive is because you cannot even consider directly experiencing the life or intelligence in something that is very different from you.

Sigh.

I really got to drop this now.

That's not what I meant.
I said that the definition was not helpful in determining what is alive and what is not.
Your definition was basically only "consciousness".. how are you going to determine if a rock has consciousness ?
If you cannot determine if anything besides humans have consciousness, you are not going to able to call anything but humans life.. :shrug:

 

[Tht1Gy!]

OK. But I never was trying to convince you of anything. You said, I thought, you wanted this concept explained to you so you could understand the point of view.
I never for one second, expected you to say "Oh Fuck!! I've been wrong all these years. So much time wasted!!" All I wanted to accomplish was for you to say "Hummm, I never looked at it like that. Interesting." Or something like that.

 

[Enmos]

OK. But I never was trying to convince you of anything. You said, I thought, you wanted this concept explained to you so you could understand the point of view.
I never for one second, expected you to say "Oh Fuck!! I've been wrong all these years. So much time wasted!!" All I wanted to accomplish was for you to say "Hummm, I never looked at it like that. Interesting." Or something like that.

No, I understand that.. and I do understand what it is you and Simon believe in.

But now I can't understand how you can believe it.

Do you agree with me in the series of quoted posts in my last post ?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

But now I can't understand how you can believe it.

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole here but: So?

Do you agree with me in the series of quoted posts in my last post ?

Do I agree with what... ? With the 'flaw' you percieve in defining life to include all?

 

[Enmos]

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole here but: So?

So I think Simon didn't do a good job of defining "life", or I may be missing something. I just want to understand, but that doesn't mean I'm forfeiting common sense

Do I agree with what... ? With the 'flaw' you percieve in defining life to include all?

Not a flaw, it seems incomplete or inaccurate.
Do you agree with the definition Simon gave ?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

So I think Simon didn't do a good job of defining "life", or I may be missing something. I just want to understand, but that doesn't mean I'm forfeiting common sense


Not a flaw, it seems incomplete or inaccurate.
Do you agree with the definition Simon gave ?

Yeah, for the most part. I might change a few words here and there, but...

Here's the thing: The reason "it seems incomplete or inaccurate" is It's a religious, or spiritual or mystical position. Complete with a belief in a pantheistic view of god.
Of course it will seem "incomplete or inaccurate" to an atheist.

When I say that sand has life, I don't mean to say sand is 'alive' in the everyday sense of the word. What I mean is that all/everything is one indivisible whole, and... Here, let's try this:

At one point I referenced the trinity, with the three, in my paradigm, being:
mind, will, or pattern & energy, spirit, or life & form, existence, or matter. And since sand has form, it also has pattern and energy.
You savvy?

 

[Enmos]

Yeah, for the most part. I might change a few words here and there, but...

Here's the thing: The reason "it seems incomplete or inaccurate" is It's a religious, or spiritual or mystical position. Complete with a belief in a pantheistic view of god.
Of course it will seem "incomplete or inaccurate" to an atheist.

When I say that sand has life, I don't mean to say sand is 'alive' in the everyday sense of the word. What I mean is that all/everything is one indivisible whole, and... Here, let's try this:

At one point I referenced the trinity, with the three, in my paradigm, being:
mind, will, or pattern & energy, spirit, or life & form, existence, or matter. And since sand has form, it also has pattern and energy.
You savvy?

Change a few words ? lol
It was only one word basically, the full definition was: "Has awareness and preferences."

I'm not sure whether this has to do with it being religion. I'd like to think you guys are just as rational as the next person.
You can say sand is alive, but then you will have to be qualified to call it that.
Qualification in light of your religion or beliefs is to know how that religion or beliefs define life.
Simply saying it is so because it is so.. doesn't cut it. Religion or not.. that isn't rational. Right ?

 

[Tht1Gy!]

Too much of life is irrational for that to be a sole qualification for 'truth'.
I consider myself a reasonable person, if a little high strung. But rarely has anyone accused me of being rational or logical without qualifying it.

If you reread my previous post you'll see I didn't say that I think sand is 'alive', I said it has 'life'.
And there is no way I can "prove" my position. It is something I feel deep down inside. Maybe someday it will be proven??? How recently were black holes proven. How about atoms, or the earth is round, or the earth is not the center of the universe. Fiction and fact change places from time to time. Flight was ludicrous, what, 200 years ago.

It has been proven that all matter contains energy. Rather that matter is 'energy contained'. That energy, the core of all matter, is LIFE.

If you don't find that reasonable, Oh well...

 

[Enmos]

Too much of life is irrational for that to be a sole qualification for 'truth'.
I consider myself a reasonable person, if a little high strung. But rarely has anyone accused me of being rational or logical without qualifying it.

If you reread my previous post you'll see I didn't say that I think sand is 'alive', I said it has 'life'.
And there is no way I can "prove" my position. It is something I feel deep down inside. Maybe someday it will be proven??? How recently were black holes proven. How about atoms, or the earth is round, or the earth is not the center of the universe. Fiction and fact change places from time to time. Flight was ludicrous, what, 200 years ago.

It has been proven that all matter contains energy. Rather that matter is 'energy contained'. That energy, the core of all matter, is LIFE.

If you don't find that reasonable, Oh well...

But why do you call it "life" ? Isn't energy a better description, since we already have a concept called "life" that is defined differently from what your are describing ?

 

[Simon Anders]

But why do you call it "life" ? Isn't energy a better description, since we already have a concept called "life" that is defined differently from what your are describing ?

[my emphasis]

'We' is not the human race, it is a particular segment of it. There are other 'we's and they may be quite correct not to limit life to what the 'we' in your post above are willing to accept, nor do these other 'we's agree on epistemologically with that 'we'. In this discussion you react as if the accepted and designated authority's decision should not be questioned and the reasoning behind this is precisely the fact and manner of your authority's way of approaching the problem. This is circular. That you, personally, are not convinced by what we say is one issue, but you must understand that we are choosing to use language in ways that seem most appropriate to us and that fit our experience much better than the way you think we should use language. And as a good scientist or at least believer in the scientific methodologies, you should know that knowledge is considered provisional in that system. It is possible that science will one day acknowledge that it has been to restrictive on this issue. That you will not, of course, change your mind until such a day - which you assume will never come - is one thing. That you seem to think we should change
when very likely we have a very different experience of the world than you do, seems presumptuous.

 

[Tht1Gy!]

But why do you call it "life" ?

Most of the time I don't as it's too much bother, but the subject came up in context of pantheism. And you seem someone open to at least entertaning new ideas.

Isn't energy a better description, since we already have a concept called "life" that is defined differently

No, as it allows or gives cause to the objectification of nature. And its corollary: the raping of the earth.