excreationist

If materialism is true, then for trees to have human level consciousness they'd have to have areas where they store memories that they learn. And to build a model of how the world works, they'd need to interact with the world at some stage - to test out their beliefs. In my definition of awareness, goals or desires are required - so the tree would need to have these which it continuously seeks - often in new ways that it discovered. (So its behaviour/approach isn't hardcoded)

On the other hand, for dualists, they don't need all that physical machinery, so trees and even rocks *could* be conscious.

WJ

John, all!

I was thinking about the evolution thing and a thought popped in my head, should the materialist/atheist believe in animal rights? (I don't mean to turn the discussion into an atheist v. theist debate but was just thinking aloud... .)

Anyway, John you had said:

"Please substitute "the concept of consciousness" for "it". Hopefully, this clarification makes your question redundant."

"BTW, that something "helps" does not necessarily imply it has its own purpose or is sentient in any way."

1. Could you please clarify how substituting 'it' for consciousness would matter? I mean, 'does the definition of consciousness ["it"] even help'? I think maybe then what you are saying is that the essence of both "it" and "consciousness" cannot be known, therefore, "it" is in fact redundant(?). And so in this context, words themselves cannot aedquately define human existence.

Perhaps the next question can words define a physical tree? And if words can, after examining it of course aposterior, what does it mean? Language is still inadequate for the development of the tree's existence. Language itself cannot create a tree. Nonetheless, it now seems language iis just an inanimate tool, much like apriori logic itself. Otherwise, it would have in its very essence, sentient existence. But the essence of language is inanimate. Words are words!


With regard to your last thesis, I would have to agree. atheism is just another religion. We are back to the apriori thinking again! BTW, what is #8?

Walrus

Amos

The only reason why humans would think about animal rights is to enhance our human rights. Our human rights are called into existence to confirm our humanity which has no material existence or words could define it and would not need defense.

Our human-ity is a condition of being that belongs to the animal man (the being) wherein this condition finds its essence. We use words to describe our humanity while pointing at the soul of man that is real.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

John Page

Should? No, why?

The substitution a) makes clear what "it" refers to and b) clarifies that the concept of consciousness is different than consciousness itself.

Yes, but to be meaningful the definition has to reference a specifc instance of a tree, number of tress or tree-like entities in external reality. I think we're in agreement here.

Not quite, what I actually said was "to blindly believe in formal logical is to relegate atheism to a religion."

Ontologic's axiom #1 removes the a priori by relying only upon the observer's direct experience of reading it.

You asked for Ontologic's Axiom #8. This is represented in symbolic form by "R [] R" or, in words, "A represented existence comprises and consists only of itself."

Cheers.

WJ

Hi John!

Thanks.

Ontologic's axiom #1 reminds me of subjectivism (which of course I agree with SK regarding epistemy viz. ontology).

Walrus

John Page

I'm not sure I understand. Reminds you? Surely we must all start with a subjective point of view and educate ourselves from there.

SK? What is your agreement with?

Cheers.

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

WJ

John!

Keirkegaard; to answer your question. Only until the truth presents itself to the subject, does it become [his/her]truth.

Of course that begs the question of whether truth exists independently of the observer. And if it does, who creates truth's from nothing? And what is nothing? (Does there have to be a some thing in order for there to exist no thing?)

Sorry for all the questions, but TMC is creating all sorts of questions about such meaning.

Walrus
-----------
Omega the unknowable

John Page

Walrus.

I'm essentially in accord with your Kierkegaard quote. However, to say that "the truth presents itself to the subject" implies that there is an entity 'truth' that is doing some presenting. I would have phrased it more like "the truth is consciously apprehended by the subject"

Truth is an abstract value within a mind. Truth values are a product of the cognition process and reside within the observer. How about "one man's truck is another man's SUV" as an example?

"Nothing" is an axiomatic concept, the existence of nothing is 'matched' or 'detected' when there is an absence of sensory information. In this manner, "nothing" does not exist in the material world.

If you would like I can send you a pdf containing a text description with diagrammatic explanation. Send me an email to jpage@reconciliationism.org so I can attach as a reply with it. No spam - promise!

TMC?

Cheers!

BTW I do acknowledge the concept of the unknowable. Unfortunately I can't say much about it!

WJ

Thanks John!

I will email you within the next day or two. I really do appreciate your kind offer of assistance!

If an objective truth exists independent of the observer, and we are objects, truth must exist outside the human consciousness (like the truth in physics). Therefore, to make truth become subjectively inside, I agree that one must predicate his existence (thru conscious observation) in order to acertain his/her own truth about a some-thing. I suppose this partially explains how a child develops his intellect.

Of course, the why's of existing objects are not known. Similarly, can the mind-body problem be resolved thru thinking alone. Perhaps then in an odd way we are dumb like trees; trapped in a physical body thru which our limitations manifest themselves, but our consciousness seems to think otherwise. (We can't do, what we will to do.) Perhaps were are cursed with consciousness(?)

Either that, or our consciousness is not 'smart' enough to answer questions like the origins (and the creation of) of the universe, consciousness, meaning, and so forth.

So in that sense, which is smarter, mind or matter?

Walrus

John Page

Objective truth does not, it exists within us. All truth is relative/subjective but you can eliminate the degree of subjectivity by: a) making observations from a number of standpoints; b) comparing notes with other observers and c) by examining cause and effect under experimental conditions to verify that the 'truth' in question is repeatable - which is essentially what a truth is!

To the extent that multiple observers come to the same conclusion, one might regard that conclusion as a 'truth' independent of the observers. In reality, however, the observers all believe the same 'truth', it resides within them all. In your example, only the physicists know 'their' truths, these truths are not available to me except by personal experience. All truth is subjective, its a question of the degree of subjectivity.

I think this is because they don't have any "why's" - unless they are 'sentient being' objects like humans.

I don't think there is a mind/body problem. The mind is an abstract entity whose operation is based on the physical workings of the body, most likely the brain.

Maybe not dumb like trees but I agree the principle, our minds are limited by our 'brainpower' so to speak. If you regard consciousness as independent of the body, yes, one might intuit the consciousness is less limited or unlimited.

However, if the consciousness were not a phenomenon of our bodies wouldn't we be able to drift between bodies? OBE, astral projection and ancestral memory are interesting topics but the evidence is clearly that our consciousness only knows about things it has experienced through the body of which it is part, or whence that body was born from (i.e. inherited characteristics).

I don't know how to answer that question, our minds are not separate from matter. However, I observe that beings with highly developed minds seem to have much more control over things that have little ot no mind at all!

Cheers.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>