duendy said:
anciently that level was called the Underworld...
I understand the metaphorical constructs, I just don't find them as an accurate depiction of reality. They are tools more useful for introspection than defining reality in my experience. I have no problem with the mystical perspective; In fact I have a lot of appreciation for it. But I do find it odd to see a mystic trying to resolve it and asserting a particular view.
As far as hallucinogenic experience goes; I never followed the Dead or Phish around the country in a VW bus...
but yes, I've had a fair amount of experience with it. I think it can provide some interesting insights but so can any alteration of perspective. Personally, I find other methods more reliable though I do understand the appeal. But that's about the extent of it. I certainly do not view it as intrinsically revelatory; no more than I would assert that I perceive the world more accurately through rose tinted glasses.
explained....? maybe. ie., from the PSERSPCTIVE of a materilaist (they think EVERYTHING can be xplianed)
Actually no we don't, at least not necessarily. It's more a matter of excluding needless complexities. The principle is Ockham's razor.
but FEELING is another matter. for that you ARe the experiement, yeah. you cannot have the safe haven of OBJECTIVELY looking AT the experience. you ARE the experience. that's the crucual difference I can however use my reason to try and define it. is this form reason is where it shouold be. a TOOL. rather than the function that lords itself over imagination and feeling where it shouldn't.
Ah, but one still needs to be able to fit one's subjective experience into a cohesive worldview. I'm not trying to deny it, I merely accept it as a function of what I can verify. I have managed to do so without having to define the unknown; I am able to simply classify it as unknown and attempt to resolve it as best I can. On the other hand I find that you are laboring under a presumption that you know what is actually unknown.
dont know what you think of animals and AV. i am against it totally. a huge part of the justification for testing on animals was the Carestian idea that their emotions weren't like ours, but were rather the cries of automata......!
I don't want to get into a deep discussion of this topic here. If you'd like to we can discuss it in another thread. For this topic, suffice it to say that I find animal testing to be a necessary evil. But that is not because I perceive animals as automata.
Now, animals are conscious like us. though obvious can't create nuclear wars like us, and may not be as self-conscious. bu they are NOt automata consciousness/experience has to be intrinis not just for animals but for all matter-energy. otherwise how do you explain OUR consciousness if you feel everything is just matter-energy. how can 'dead' matter--as is thought by materialists suddenly have subjective awareness? this is the 'problem'. but the solution is that matter-energy is ALWAYS aware. thus is self-organizing. matter-evergy is always in trasformation..ie., is ALIVE
Some animals appear to have a distinct consciousness, others display very little. I believe that behavioral evidence suggests a range of consciousness from the essentially mechanistic to the self-aware to the self-realizing.
I find the assertion that consciousness is intrinsic to all matter/energy to be unwarranted. Subjective awareness seems to me unnecessarily complicated in your explanation that there must be something more than what is apparent. From the materialistic perspective "dead" matter does not "suddenly" obtain subjective awareness. Subjective awareness is only found in complex, recursive systems. Please, if you think otherwise, give me an example. Show me the rock that displays intelligence, self-awareness, or the ability to choose.
WHEN person BLIVEs reality is mechancial and materialistic then they TREAt reality as to how they believe it is. like as explained, if they see animals as mere machines, then all compassion for them as living beings goes out of the window. why are you struggling with this insight?
Because it's erroneous. Again, you are being presumptuous in assuming things about other people based upon simplistic categorizations.
For instance, I have a materialistic POV and I have compassion for animals. I do not view them as "mere machines". I am well aware, for instance, that my dogs are conscious even if their level of self-awareness and self-actualization is comparatively less than a human's. This blatantly invalidates your assertion.
I find that from a materialistic POV it makes no sense to dismiss anything so hastily. It's an unwarranted superposition stemming from anthropocentric arrogance, what you keep labeling (invalidly IMO) "patriarchal" and "materialistic".
i CAN'T convince you if you are stuck in your worldview. i keep hinting at that you ARe the experiement. NEVEr will you receive the 'evidence' you want. cause the questions you are asking are limited. you are tied to the criteria of our little limited scientific method. period.
Please stop trying to stuff me into a box of your choosing. Your presumption is really getting annoying. That I believe the materialistic perspective is correct does not make me incapable of understanding other perspectives. To accuse this is both offensive and invalid as an argument.
Instead of claiming over and over again that I just don't understand because I'm limited by my perspective, why don't you actually try to back up what you are saying? Thus far your entire argument consists of "I feel this" and "you're blind to it", it's no more valid than the theistic argument that one must first have faith before one can perceive the evidence. Utter nonsense. More to the point, I have tested similar perspectives and found them lacking. Either put up a valid argument or admit that what you believe is simply wishful thinking.
how CAN you measure consciousness? we've been through this. how can you measure love? it doesn't make sense. you reject what i say because instead of seeing the limitations of what you are asking, you rather underestimate experience/consciousness
I believe you are overstating experience/consciousness and thus far you have given me no reason to think otherwise. I find it to be simple, anthropocentric hubris. "Life is special. Consciousness is special. I am special." Prove it. Give me something to work with other than an argument from incredulity.
how can matter organize without innate intelligence?
I don't see where intelligence is a requisite for organization. Matter becomes ordered according to the interaction of the fundamental forces and energy. From all observation these forces operate in an entirely mechanistic fashion. Given a specific starting configuration we can accurately predict the outcome. If I mix chemical A with chemical B at a certain temperature, at a certain dilution, etc I get solution C. Always. While at the quantum level we find a level of indeterminacy this resolves itself probabilistically on a macroscopic level. If these things were not so science would have invalidated itself.
Where is the evidence then that such function is a result of intelligence? Where is the independent action we associate with consciousness? Where is memory, without which identity is non-existent? If matter / energy is itself conscious how would that differ from non-conscious matter / energy?
If everything is conscious shouldn't we see this behavior at all levels of existence? Instead things appear to occur in a mechanistic fashion. It is only at a high level of complexity (such as in the neural networks of animals) that we find the apparently autonomous behavior we take as evidence of intelligence and consciousness.
so your equipment can tell me how much i LOVE can it?
No, I don't believe we have anywhere near the understanding necessary to dissect such a complex system to that level of accuracy. I would also point out that love is a rather ambiguous concept to begin with. But we can measure and gauge relative physiological responses. This, for instance, gives us a rather reliable means of lie detection.
Thanks for the link. Although I do differentiate between "suffering" and being deprived of what Unicef regards as basic rights. I would also point out that of the 7 basic rights only 3 did man have before the advent of technology and all have been vastly improved specifically due to the success of the scientific method and naught else.
let me guess. you are wanting EVIDENCE??!
Yes. Your assertion is that all of this suffering is caused by a materialistic worldview. You need to support your assertion. Otherwise why should I believe you?
This is what we ALL need to seriously explore no matter how daunting it may appear. it can only come when we start exploring the materilstic outlook that is the prevailing paradgim, and which imposes itself on all the world...people, animals, etc.
I have yet to see you make a convincing case for it. Is there any society that does invest the attributes you proscibe?
Its fundamental roots is patriarchy. many people imagine the Esat is not patriarchal. however when you examine their myths, and political structure it very much is.
Its central philosophies are certainly not materialistic however. I don't see a resolution here. Is the cause materialism or patriarchal societies? Would a maternal materialist worldview somehow be better?
~Raithere
