Now its Obamas fault?
verthex

Now that Obama has announced the last of this years news, how many of you think Obama is completely at fault for George Bushes last eight years in office, and please back this up with references.

8-)

edit: and please keep your post within everyone's reason, don't start conspiracy theories! ;)

Matthew Leverton

Bushes, hehe.

verthex

Bushes, hehe.

Well there was nothing wrong with the word according the Firefox's dictionary so I used that, are you implying its Bushes fault?

Malinus

Wow, now that´s a big head.

Derezo
Verthexes post said:

Well there was nothing wrong with the word according the Firefox's dictionary so I used that

haha, nice!

Is it really that difficult for everyone to see what's going on? It's the same policies under the big O man as it was under the big W man. Nine Eleven under George W Bush after the Millennium ticked over to 2001 should have been a wake up call, and was for those who noticed it. The church invented that calendar you use, and if you thought the plans of the church were anything less than world domination I'm so sorry, but you're in for a rude awakening. Especially if you're in North America, 'cause the game will begin here.

The aliens aren't real.
The money isn't real.
The fear isn't real.

You can't keep a black man in charge of a white army for long (and the opposite is true). The crazies will start coming out.

type568
Derezo said:

You can't keep a black man in charge of a white army for long (and the opposite is true). The crazies will start coming out.

Erm?

GullRaDriel

Vanneto, the article you linked looks like a load bunch of shit for me ^^

Derezo
type568 said:

Erm?

Barry is black and leads the most powerful white army on this planet. I predict that this will prove unacceptable in the long term.

..but maybe I'm wrong. The last black president of a white nation worked out fine right?

type568

Derezo: You might be right perhaps, especially taking in to consideration there are no enemies left...

verthex
GullRaDriel said:

Vanneto, the article you linked looks like a load bunch of shit for me ^^

...you mean verthex?

Derezo

What's with all the cat avatars?

Did I miss something? :P

Thomas Fjellstrom
Quote:

What's with all the cat avatars? I'm dumb!

I concur!

Derezo

Damn, edit not fast enough!
{"name":"iloled-pam.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/6\/f67b843b04103805df97788e514bd9fb.jpg","w":500,"h":333,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/6\/f67b843b04103805df97788e514bd9fb"}iloled-pam.jpg

verthex

I concur!

Only 3 humans, 3 cats, I was hoping more cats would join in...

Evert
Derezo said:

The church invented that calendar you use,

No it didn't. Julius Caesar did (and even he mostly modified the already existing Roman calendar). Pope Gregory XIII called for a correction to the length of the year and had the date shifted so spring was back on the 21st of March. The correction itself was proposed by someone else, whose name escapes me.

Quote:

The crazies will start coming out.

You're already here, mate.
I can't imagine what it's like to turn into a conspiracy nut. I'm sorry. Really, I am.

Matthew Leverton
Evert said:

I can't imagine what it's like to turn into a conspiracy nut.

A little weed goes a long way.

Derezo

Indeed :P

Evert said:

Pope Gregory XIII called for a correction to the length of the year and had the date shifted so spring was back on the 21st of March.

Sorry, invented wasn't the word I should have used. I know it's based on older calendars that go back to Egypt and other creepy cultures that wrote about slavery on their walls. The part that I find suspicious is that the church was the one who forced everyone to adopt it at an International level. This changes the way time is perceived for everyone. How you perceive time changes the vary nature of how you perceive reality, as we can see from the more recent Mayan calendar insanities showing up everywhere, the year 2000 craziness, and countless other phenomena not just related to the end of the world. It changes the way we're paid, the way we celebrate, and shapes the entire foundation of the financial sector.

I'm sure the church is influencing how everyone on the planet tells the time without any reason or purpose though. Maybe you're right and all they really wanted was to make everyone celebrate the return of the egg hiding rabbit together, like they claim.

Quote:

You're already here, mate.

I'm not talking about "conspiracy nuts", I'm talking about white supremacy groups, fundamentalists, gun nuts, and combinations thereof, and their opposites. It just takes one big violent race-based event to trigger a race war which will lead to uncontrolled chaos, which will of course then need some controlling. ;)

Quote:

I can't imagine what it's like to turn into a conspiracy nut.

Ahhh, you're a label maker. I thought there was something odd about the apologies. You slapped a label on me, and for that, I am truly sorry :'(

I simply view things with new eyes. You're right that you cannot imagine it, because it must be experienced, and it is most difficult if you label things (or people) and stick to that narrow view.

verthex

All I can say is that this thread has gone off into the holy shit zone!

Evert! don't feed the troll, and arguing with him will not make him more sensible. Watch him reply back to me with more nonsense, its hopeless!

8-)

BAF

Umm...

type568
verthex said:

Only 3 humans, 3 cats, I was hoping more cats would join in...

It's all Obama's fault!

Matthew Leverton
verthex said:

its hopeless!

Do you get charged per apostrophe?

Kibiz0r

What the hell is going on in this thread?

verthex

Do you get charged per apostrophe?

I dunno what you mean?

Kibiz0r said:

What the hell is going on in this thread?

...this is an example of political, minus the science.

Alianix

Calling someone a conspirator just because they are expressing their views is lame and rather ignorant. This what all people do who have no reasonable answer or argument for a subject except their own limited ideas based on little to no evidence. It's a convenient way to shut your mind to new information, the opposite of scientific research where you need to keep an open mind to discover anything new. Having fixed labels in your mind there is nothing to discover only repeat what you already know. The bottom line is, it all boils down to name calling, which happens with kids in kindergarten when after a while they can't resolve a dispute. Adults do this in more sophisticated way by enlarging their vocabularies with synonyms for "Stupid", like "Conspirator" and having lables like "Liberal" and "Republican" whatever etc. All these words are meaningless by the time they are uttered everyone has already conveniently forgot what the original question was: What is the truth ?
...The only way to get closer to the truth, is to gather information while keeping an open mind and then, deciding for yourself what you want to believe.

Derezo
verthex said:

Watch him reply back to me with more nonsense, its hopeless!

Hope is such a metaphysically negative word. A neuro-linguistic programmer from Kenya used that as the basis for a political campaign back in '08 ;)

This isn't really the place for serious discussions on this topic, and I am being too serious about it in general. It's just that I noticed Barry popping up here a lot and have been following the media from a different and very open perspective these past few months. Things are getting bad on this island, and they're soon to get a whole lot more crazy, and labels have a lot to do with it. Good labels, bad labels, they're what cause us all to take sides without really understanding what's going on. It's Red VS Blue, and I'm not picking a side.

Alianix said:

This what all people do who have no reasonable answer or argument for a subject except their own limited ideas based on little to no evidence. It's a convenient way to shut your mind to new information, the opposite of scientific research where you need to keep an open mind to discover anything new.

I agree. It can be seen that there is no real contribution to discussion in these politics threads, but it's understandable. It takes a considerable amount of reading to really form your own opinion, and most people find the information you need to wade through to be uninteresting, unnecessary and unfruitful... because it doesn't entertain.

I blame television. The news is full of house hippos and has a lovely mix of entertainment and fear to go with the half truths, smoke, mirrors, and lack of details and sources.

video

Matthew Leverton
verthex said:

I dunno what you mean?

I'm just trying to understand why you don't use apostrophes when the situation obviously calls for them. ???

I blame Obama (the prince of Hawaii) for not giving you a good education. :-/

verthex

I'm just trying to understand why you don't use apostrophes when the situation obviously calls for them. ???

I blame Obama (the prince of Hawaii) for not giving you a good education. :-/

first off, Obama left this mess at the age of 18 to attend some Ivy league school while I came here at the age of 25 to party. My physics is much more "precise" although that's debatable. Whats more funny is how "Obama" is not in the Firefox dictionary, "Firefox" is and so is "bushes".

Derezo

Names are not words, unless the word is a name. ;)

verthex said:

My physics is much more "precise" although that's debatable.

.. but I'm the one that doesn't make sense... :-/

Matthew Leverton
verthex said:

Whats more funny is how "Obama" is not in the Firefox dictionary, "Firefox" is and so is "bushes".

"Whats" => "What's" :-/

If obama were a low woody perennial plant usually having several major stems, then perhaps "obamas" would be in the dictionary.

Or should I say, "Exchanged audience's breakfast interpolation betroth a shoring." Hey, all the words were in the dictionary. Now that is Bush's fault, I think.

GullRaDriel

Sorry Verthex, I was fooled by the V.

verthex

"Whats" => "What's" :-/

In the dictionary. I dunno, I should prolly stop using it.

Evert
Derezo said:

Ahhh, you're a label maker. I thought there was something odd about the apologies. You slapped a label on me, and for that, I am truly sorry :'(

Yeah, ok, sorry. I meant to say, you sound like a conspiracy nut, but I guess you knew that. :P

Quote:

I simply view things with new eyes.

Of course you do.

Alianix said:

Calling someone a conspirator just because they are expressing their views is lame and rather ignorant. This what all people do who have no reasonable answer or argument for a subject except their own limited ideas based on little to no evidence. It's a convenient way to shut your mind to new information, the opposite of scientific research where you need to keep an open mind to discover anything new. Having fixed labels in your mind there is nothing to discover only repeat what you already know. The bottom line is, it all boils down to name calling, which happens with kids in kindergarten when after a while they can't resolve a dispute. Adults do this in more sophisticated way by enlarging their vocabularies with synonyms for "Stupid", like "Conspirator" and having lables like "Liberal" and "Republican" whatever etc. All these words are meaningless by the time they are uttered everyone has already conveniently forgot what the original question was: What is the truth ?
...The only way to get closer to the truth, is to gather information while keeping an open mind and then, deciding for yourself what you want to believe.

Oh yes, absolutely! I agree.
But I do think it's funny, or it would be funny if it weren't so tragic, that people will tell you you're close minded and not open to new ideas if you say that something is wrong.
If someone says that pixies took the money from the biscuit jar, that the gnomes did the dishes, that they have succeeded in converting base elements into gold, do you go "oh yeah, well, maybe all these things are real", or do you tell them that their imagination runs away with them? Either way, the burden of proof is on them.
So when someone starts spouting nonsense about "the singularity", "the galactic consciousness" or how "the church" is part of a mass conspiracy involving calendars, then you tell them their mind is playing tricks with them - and if they have good reason to say what they do, then it's up to them to provide it, not up to the other party to provide counter arguments (hard to do at any rate if you don't know what the arguments are).
Look, I understand the appeal of conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Really, I do. It makes for fantastic and scary stories and mysteries. But just because someone believes it doesn't make it true - and it certainly doesn't mean you can't call them on it not being true.

But hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

Thomas Fjellstrom
verthex said:

In the dictionary. I dunno, I should prolly stop using it.

Since when has a dictionary ever done grammar checking? Both are valid words ::) Just not in all situations.

Johan Halmén

Now its Obamas fault that people dont know where to put those dam'n apostrophe's.

Neil Black

I blame Canada. >:(

Matthew Leverton

Now its Obamas fault that people dont know where to put those dam'n apostrophe's.

Says the man with an apostrophe hanging out above his last name.

type568

Says the man with an apostrophe hanging out above his last name.

In a middle of a letter in his last name.. :o

Derezo
Evert said:

So when someone starts spouting nonsense about "the singularity"

"The Singularity Is Near" is a book which claims to be founded in science. It was mentioned mostly as a joke in that instance, because it is the answer the "sciencey community" is giving for "what's coming"... but something certainly is about to happen.

Quote:

"the galactic consciousness"

All I said was that consciousness is relative to matter and falls under the E=MC^2 idea. You never argued that or said anything about where you think it comes from, and probably have no opinion of your own -- you may not even know what consciousness is, for all I know. I think consciousness also evolves, like everything else, and gains a greater understanding and awareness of the universe (reality) and is also subject to entropy, which is about to hit a sharp curve (Of course, it's probably cyclical). It's not a conspiracy, though people who have said this stuff are always attacked by the media.

Quote:

or how "the church" is part of a mass conspiracy involving calendars

I never said they were conspiring, I said it is happening. People in power are taking advantage of the psychological effects of going from a 1900 mindset to a 2000 mindset. The calendar does shape your reality (and mine) and how we go about our day, and the one we use was enforced by the church. So you're saying it's a conspiracy, I'm just saying it happened. I didn't say it was planned by a group of people in secret, even if it was, but it's quite open and in plain view if you ask me. It's far more complex than you seem to be considering. People certainly do conspire, but that's neither here nor there, I'm only interested in the effects and what's actually happening. It just happens to be that there are groups who are influencing these things that have been around for a very long time and are often the target of conspiracy theorists.

Quote:

if they have good reason to say what they do, then it's up to them to provide it, not up to the other party to provide counter arguments

I've only written out my opinions about it. You're not disagreeing with me to any significant degree, or even providing opinions of your own. You're just saying it's a "conspiracy", and given that you're calling me a "conspiracy nut", I can only assume you think my opinions are unreasonable for some arbitrary reason.

.. but all of this is super deep. ;D It doesn't travel well by forum.

kazzmir
Derezo said:

All I said was that consciousness is relative to matter and falls under the E=MC^2 idea.

Wow, that is really fascinating! BTW, have you read this amazing site? Its full of information I think you might enjoy:
http://www.timecube.com/

Derezo

heh, yes, that idea does seem to get criticism of that type... since he's crazy (though I suspect his brother's death was of significance to why he does what he does the way he does). I didn't hear this idea from that page at all, but have been referred to it. I started reading the bible -- but that was after I got into Carl Jung, Timothy Leary, Buddhism and other controversial 'psychology'. Of course, this was all after my evolution kick and learning about NLP and hypnotism... not to mention trying to figure out what the hell the "The Secret" craze was all about. I've just spent way too much time reading about "unentertaining" things.

This just started happening one day. Literally everything was perceived differently. Maybe that day will be later known as 'Tumor day' :-/

I do not deny how insane these ideas appear to be, but feel that doesn't discount the possibility.

I can buy frozen, breaded chicken breast, mashed potatoes and gravy, creamed corn and a brownie, put it in a metal box powered by harnessed electricity and be eating a hot meal in 5 minutes. Dreaming up all of those things must have been considered insane at some point in history.

23yrold3yrold
Derezo said:

NLP and hypnotism...

Um ... you might understand I take no responsibility for this, can you not?

;)

kazzmir

Hrm, I just read the wikipedia article on timecube and it seems like the site is legit, as in not a parody. I always assumed it was a parody on other sites because its so unbelievably stupid. A new low for humanity..

Derezo

you might understand I take no responsibility for this, can you not?

I blame Tony Robbins for those ones, heh.

kazzmir said:

the wikipedia article on timecube and it seems like the site is legit

Not only is the site legit, there are huge groups devoted to this stuff. On his page he talks about creating time cube armies, stresses people to make comic books out of his page, and other points of note when you take away the crazy blinders. TimeCube.com is just a crazy example of a huge sect of a new age movement which is, uhh... convincing? I believe his grammar and crazy is specifically crafted that way, he's not really like that in any of his video interviews.. though he still doesn't really explain where he gets his information from and just says everyone is stupid and he has an evolved cubic brain or some crap.

I certainly have crossed the crazy border myself. I'm convinced that the TV Show LOST is a way of blurring fiction and reality with it's use of real world theories, a multitude of religious names, symbols, metaphors, and other references. It even has time traveling, extensive numerology, nuclear weapons, the guy who played Jesus, and an excellent cast and writing. Not to mention involving and engaging fan base with extensive advertising across untraditional media, with very popular oddities such as show branded chocolate bars. One tool used to ease us into a transition, like other Island TV shows. :) Not to mention "Lost University"... with real professors. Welcome to the future! ;D

Ahem.. but I'm hijacking a thread and turning it into a blog. No more! ;D

Tobias Dammers
Derezo said:

Barry is black and leads the most powerful white army on this planet. I predict that this will prove unacceptable in the long term.

Define black. Define white.

Anyway, using popular definitions: About 20% of the U.S. Army are black, but less than 3% of all presidents had some African heritage. You'll need 9 more African-American presidents just to catch up.

The problem is not that there's a (partly) black president, it's the people who still believe in the "white America" nonsense.

Johan Halmén

Define black. Define white.

{"name":"599944","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/c\/fc0b692fe9e59016d601b818d343e486.jpg","w":350,"h":473,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/c\/fc0b692fe9e59016d601b818d343e486"}599944{"name":"599945","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/9\/b9132974903d5e0bcf80efe3d7504e4a.jpg","w":370,"h":398,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/9\/b9132974903d5e0bcf80efe3d7504e4a"}599945

{"name":"599946","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/7\/377959cbc4c3f6a6816802477a2bb670.jpg","w":350,"h":473,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/7\/377959cbc4c3f6a6816802477a2bb670"}599946{"name":"599947","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/2\/62d2699867e0aee063c27113f163c705.jpg","w":370,"h":398,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/2\/62d2699867e0aee063c27113f163c705"}599947
Black: R=198, G=154, B=120
White: R=215, G=156, B=139

Done!

Evert
Derezo said:

It was mentioned mostly as a joke in that instance, because it is the answer the "sciencey community" is giving for "what's coming"... but something certainly is about to happen.

You're right. I'm about to make lunch and head out to work.

Quote:

All I said was that consciousness is relative to matter

That sentence doesn't even make sense. What does "relative to matter" mean and how does that relate to "consciousness"?

Quote:

and falls under the E=MC^2 idea.

And what's that? What's the "E = Mc^2 idea"?
In science there's no such concept as an "E = Mc^2 idea".

Quote:

You never argued that or said anything about where you think it comes from, and probably have no opinion of your own -- you may not even know what consciousness is, for all I know.

Oh, I certainly have ideas about where it comes from. I'm sure they're not particularly original, and possibly somewhat naive as it's not my field of expertise.
But I'll bite.
First things first. Define "consciousness" precisely and accurately. That's a tricky question that people (philosophers, scientists) have not agreed on. The simplest definition is probably something along the lines of "possessing self-awareness" or "being aware of one's own existence". Animals and plants are certainly aware of the world around them, but it's not clear that they have a mental image of "self". Humans and Chimpanzees do, so do Octopuses and possibly other animals. The animal brain coordinates input from the sensory organs and translates those into actions. These can be simple and autonomous (in which case you only need a very simple brain, or even no brain at all) or complex, depending on the complexity of the brain. Make the brain complex enough its range of responses to stimuli increases. At some point it becomes reasonable that it's important to distinguish between parts of yourself and parts of the world around you: that's a branch, I can stand on that, this is my tail, I should not stand on that, or as simple as, my arm is this long, so I can reach that branch over there but not that one; in other words, it becomes increasingly important to have a mental map of oneself. Make the brain complex enough to generate its own stimuli and I have no problems in seeing that the end result will operate somewhat similarly to the human brain.
As I said, that's probably a simplistic picture and I'm no expert, but there you have it.
On to you. How do you define consciousness?

Quote:

I think consciousness also evolves,

By that, do you mean "consciousness is an animal trait that can evolve, just as a tail or a pair of legs would" or do you mean "someone's consciousness changes over time"?

Quote:

and gains a greater understanding and awareness of the universe (reality)

Why? What does that mean?

Quote:

and is also subject to entropy,

And what exactly does that mean?
Entropy is a measure of the number of possible realisations of a physical system. This definition comes from statistical mechanics; within classical thermodynamics entropy has always been somewhat mysterious and hard to understand intuitively.
Left to evolve by itself (in isolation) a closed system is most likely to be found in the state with the largest number of realisations if observed some time after it was last looked at. That's the state of highest entropy. In other words, the entropy of a closed system either increases or stays constant. That's the second law of thermodynamics.
You'll pick up on the use of the word "statistical" in "statistical mechanics". This is something that happens on average to macroscopic systems.

Which brings us back to my original question. What exactly do you mean? Everything in the universe (indeed, the universe itself) is subject to the second law of thermodynamics. Do you mean "a consciousness develops to the state with the largest number of possible realisations?" If so, what does that mean? What's a "realisation of consciousness"?

Quote:

which is about to hit a sharp curve (Of course, it's probably cyclical).

What does that mean? How does "the number of realisations hit a sharp curve" and why is it "probably cyclical"?

That's the problem: you use words and scientific concepts and string them together in sentences that don't actually make sense given the meaning of said words and concepts. It's what they call "technobabble" in science fiction series. It reads no different from the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo of crackpots who think they can "prove Einstein wrong" with a few pages of dodgy algebra and by dropping some technical terms.

Quote:

So you're saying it's a conspiracy,

I did not. There is no conspiracy.

Quote:

there are groups who are influencing these things that have been around for a very long time and are often the target of conspiracy theorists.

Yes, and we call those people conspiracy nuts.

Matthew Leverton

Black: R=198, G=154, B=120
White: R=215, G=156, B=139

Genius! ;D

Evert said:

consciousness ... consciousness

Do not engage! 8-)

Derezo

Maybe you do get it Evert, you just don't like the way I'm presenting the idea ;D
As I said, it doesn't travel well by forum.

Evert said:

That sentence doesn't even make sense. What does "relative to matter" mean and how does that relate to "consciousness"?

It made sense. I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets.
Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

Quote:

And what's that? What's the "E = Mc^2 idea"? In science there's no such concept as an "E = Mc^2 idea".

There definitely was an idea that mass and energy are relative, and the common representation of it is E = mc2. I know you know, and are just being shy, but I'll explain.

E = mc2, or the "theory of relativity", was an idea by Albert Einstein which proposes that mass and energy are relative. In other words, more mass means more energy, less mass means less energy. Always. It is a theory, but is considered to be a solid one. It's a commonly accepted idea and referred to as Mass-energy equivalence by wikipedia. The theory lead to the development of the atomic bomb, which is a weapon sort of like fire, but Albert Einstein's "mass/energy magic" is applied to make the fire out of weapons grade plutonium. ;)

Quote:

First things first. Define "consciousness" precisely and accurately.

You couldn't have said it better. That's a tricky question that people (philosophers, scientists) have not agreed on. The simplest definition is probably something along the lines of "possessing self-awareness" or "being aware of one's own existence". Because there is no clear definition of it, I say it's open to interpretation. Consciousness is whatever you think it is. What I'm describing is my interpretation based on my experiences and what I've learned.

I define consciousness further to be a mysterious, unknown and unobservable force which has the ability to animate the physical world, observe it, and make choices within it. I am consciousness and I have a body which I am using. The body is finite, and will cease to exist, but I am part of a larger and infinite force at work.

It's effects range greatly in complexity. Microscopic bacteria can make very limited choices and observations and are entirely dependent on the environment - the most "primitive" form of consciousness. Humans are capable of making the most choices of anything else we've knowingly encountered, and are able to observe photon projecting screens in front of them, or other star systems thousands of light years away. A sort of "Consciousness++". Still dependent on their environment, but capable of changing it by their own will to suit their needs and goals, which are more diverse than those of bacteria.

Quote:

And what exactly does that mean? (entropy)

You explained it quite well, but wikipedia's article is quite extensive.
The reason I think this applies to consciousness, and thereby to us, is because the amount of change that occurs is increasing at an exponential level and can be viewed quite easily by considering the history of our species before and after the industrial revolution. The rate of change increased, and our ability to affect the rate of change also increased. As the wikipedia page says, this is irreversible without work and will continue with this trend unless acted on by another force.

Consider the technology we use that did not exist 10 years ago, and the technology around us that did not exist 100 years ago. Then consider the same question as if it were the year 1800. There is far less around in 1800 that wasn't there in 1790 than when compared with what is here in 2009 that wasn't here in 1999 (or even 1999 and 1989). As an example, consider how many people own laptops and cellphones now, with some countries averaging nearly 2 cellphones per person.. and that's just one example. You can go through time like this and there is a clear trend of increasing advancement, all the way back to the life stages of single celled organisms.

Quote:

Left to evolve by itself (in isolation) a closed system is most likely to be found in the state with the largest number of realisations if observed some time after it was last looked at.

Exactly. The system we're in falls under that too. As we move through time more and more realizations are made in this closed system.
If we were to leave and come back in 1000 years, we would observe that thousand years of change as instant and complete, but the consciousness that created the change would have observed it as it happened progressively through time, which is essentially what you are doing with your consciousness at this very moment, and have been doing in all of the moments that preceded it.. and right now, you're older than you've ever been. ;)

Quote:

I did not. There is no conspiracy.

It's not really a "conspiracy". I mean, people are conspiring about this and other matters of course, but when you label it a conspiracy it's thought of as negative. It's just happening, and has always been happening, and will always happen so long as the Sun rises. That is, if consciousness is real. If it's not real, and the rich really are the ones who rule the world, then .. this place sucks.

Define black. Define white.

Black = higher melanin production, with an original OCA2 gene. White = lower melanin with the "new" OCA2 gene, sort of like they evolved underground, in the shade, or in some other environment where less sunlight was present.

Quote:

The problem is ... the people who still believe in the "white America" nonsense.

I'm not sure what the "white America" nonsense is, but denying that whites make up the majority of Americans or pretending that there are no differences between the races is silly. I say our differences are important and we should be aware of them and even proud of them. We don't need to hate each other or kill each other because we are different, but we must be more careful with race and I think the future will reveal that.

.. and that's my book of a post.. ;D

Evert
Derezo said:

I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets.

Hm. Ok... we'll take that on board for argument's sake.

Quote:

That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

Ok, so what you mean is "the amount of consciousness is proportional to the amount of material".

Quote:

There definitely was an idea that mass and energy are relative, and the common representation of it is E = mc2. I know you know, and are just being shy, but I'll explain.

Oh, no. No, I'm not. I just want to know what you think it means without me influencing you.
I may be pedantic here, but no, there is no "E=mc^2 idea"; that may just be the way you express the concept though (more later).

Quote:

E = mc2, or the "theory of relativity",

E=mc^2 is not the theory of relativity.
Sure, it's one of the things that fit in there, but it is certainly not a "one-equation summary" of the entire theory.

Quote:

was an idea by Albert Einstein which proposes that mass and energy are relative.

The word you're looking for is "equivalent". "Relative" by itself is too vague a term unless you state what is relative to what.
What that expression tells you is that "mass" is a form of energy. Alternatively put, there's no such thing as "mass", just energy. Most particles have a rest energy that is so enormous that it dwarfs everything else. Most of the energy is in the form of rest energy, which is equivalent to what we call "mass".
There is an alternative interpretation (which I think is just confusing) involving "rest mass" and "relativistic mass" and "converting energy and mass" and "mass increasing with velocity". This is the sense in which Einstein originally formulated the concept, and you find it explained that way on several sites.

Quote:

It is a theory,

It is not a theory. Special relativity is a theory. The equivalence of mass and energy is a consequence of that theory.

Quote:

The theory lead to the development of the atomic bomb, which is a weapon sort of like fire

It has nothing remotely to do with fire.

Quote:

"mass/energy magic" is applied to make the fire out of weapons grade plutonium.

There is no magic.

Quote:

That's a tricky question that people (philosophers, scientists) have not agreed on. The simplest definition is probably something along the lines of "possessing self-awareness" or "being aware of one's own existence". Because there is no clear definition of it, I say it's open to interpretation. Consciousness is whatever you think it is.

In order to discuss anything and say anything meaningfully, people have to agree on what words mean. If a word means one thing to you and a different thing to me, then we're talking about different things.
So no, "consciousness" is not whatever you think it is. It's something that needs to be defined before you can discuss its properties, even if such a definition is simplistic or limiting.

Quote:

I define consciousness further to be a mysterious, unknown and unobservable force which has the ability to animate the physical world, observe it, and make choices within it.

Ok, so by your definition of consciousness, it's something that can do whatever you want it to do and be whatever you want it to be. Furthermore, by that same definition it is "mysterious, unknown and unobservable" and therefore it does not lend itself to rational study or debate.
There is a logical inconsistency in defining "a force" that is "unknown and unobservable": forces act. Through their action, they can be observed. If they can be observed, then they are known.

What you have done so far is instill a magical property in all particles that can do whatever you want it to do, without justification for why you do this. It can explain everything and predict nothing.
Through a convenient choice of words, you have linked this magical property of matter to human awareness and reasoning, but you have provided no reason for these two to be identified.

Quote:

It's effects range greatly in complexity. Microscopic bacteria can make very limited choices and observations and are entirely dependent on the environment - the most "primitive" form of consciousness. Humans are capable of making the most choices of anything else we've knowingly encountered, and are able to observe photon projecting screens in front of them, or other star systems thousands of light years away. A sort of "Consciousness++". Still dependent on their environment, but capable of changing it by their own will to suit their needs and goals, which are more diverse than those of bacteria.

A sperm whale has considerably more mass than you do. Does it then have more "consciousness"? If so, why don't they watch television? Why don't they shape the world in the shape they want it to be in?
By the way, birds navigate by the stars too.

Quote:

You explained it quite well,

I should hope so.

Quote:

because the amount of change that occurs is increasing at an exponential level and can be viewed quite easily by considering the history of our species before and after the industrial revolution.

Change in what?
My guess is you're about to say consciousness. But that's something you have defined in terms of the number of atoms that make up a human being, and that hasn't changed.
I take it you're referring to human cultural evolution being faster than human biological evolution, and having accelerated considerably (and increasingly) in the past few thousand years? That's true, but it's because the human brain can adapt much more quickly to changing environments than the human body can, and can direct the human body to modify its surroundings to survive better in it.
This has nothing to do with entropy, however.

Quote:

Consider the technology we use that did not exist 10 years ago, and the technology around us that did not exist 100 years ago. Then consider the same question as if it were the year 1800. There is far less around in 1800 that wasn't there in 1790 than when compared with what is here in 2009 that wasn't here in 1999 (or even 1999 and 1989). As an example, consider how many people own laptops and cellphones now, with some countries averaging nearly 2 cellphones per person.. and that's just one example. You can go through time like this and there is a clear trend of increasing advancement, all the way back to the life stages of single celled organisms.

Yes.
Which again has nothing to do with entropy.

Quote:

As we move through time more and more realizations are made in this closed system.

The Earth is not a closed system.

Quote:

and right now, you're older than you've ever been.

That's a throwaway line with no informational content.

I'm sorry. Really, I am, but you sound exactly the same as all other crackpots who think they've figured out the nature of the universe and write lengthy letters to universities and journals and wonder why they're not being taken seriously. You use terms and concepts that you barely understand and mash them together in fluffy sentences where you assign your own meaning and associations and twist the meaning of words to be what you want it to be.

You said yourself that the things you say sound crazy. That's because they are.

GullRaDriel

-"Captin, we are loosing Derezo"
-"Hell ya, he met the stellar professor who gave him a galactic punch"
-"Can we eventually save him ?"
-"Only if we still have molecular glue"
-"You finished it when replanting your hairs on your head capt'n"
-"So I guess he's lost"

Derezo
Evert said:

So no, "consciousness" is not whatever you think it is. It's something that needs to be defined before you can discuss its properties, even if such a definition is simplistic or limiting.

There are simplistic definitions, but we've already covered that. It's the complexities that become "whatever you think it is", because there are no standards set in this area to base anything from, and the whole idea is that you are consciousness.

I do understand that thinking that the Sun is the creator and animator of life on Earth is considered a bit far fetched, but that is the basis behind my view of this. We were created by the Sun and we are the "consciousness" of the Sun. Well, except those of us who aren't the Sun. ;) They're created in the night and by the darkness when the Sun's influence is weakest.

Quote:

Furthermore, by that same definition it is "mysterious, unknown and unobservable" and therefore it does not lend itself to rational study or debate.

I was being general and vague by saying it is mysterious, unknown and unobservable. Those were poor words to describe it. I meant more that it goes on unobserved by the masses, rather than that it is unobservable, and because of that it remains mysterious and unknown in a general sense. It isn't seen as a physical thing with your eyes in any one given moment, but you can only observe it's progression through time (as, essentially, it is a "time traveler", it traverses time).

Quote:

Sure, it's one of the things that fit in there, but it is certainly not a "one-equation summary" of the entire theory.

I agree with that. I think it's clear that it should have been worded for someone who didn't know what relativity is and not used aspects of the theory to describe it, even though we both know plenty about it I'm sure. :-/

Quote:

The word you're looking for is "equivalent". "Relative" by itself is too vague a term unless you state what is relative to what.

Equivalent was actually one of the words I used, when referencing 'Mass-Energy Equivalency', one of the links describing what I was talking about.

Quote:

What you have done so far is instill a magical property in all particles that can do whatever you want it to do, without justification for why you do this.

There is no magic to it at all, just like there is no magic to the atomic bomb -- that was word play and related to the Richard Feynman video. It simply explains another facet of evolution that is unnoticed by most at this point in time, but there has been great study on it.

Quote:

It can explain everything and predict nothing.

Simply untrue. This is my interpretation of the spiritual side of the theory of evolution. I'm referencing science to explain religious phenomena, which I think can be done and makes sense. The old religions weren't wrong, but we have no explanations for why they were. The explanation and discovery of consciousness has been shown to be considered "crazy", even if it is something many of us experience. I find that odd.

Quote:

Through a convenient choice of words, you have linked this magical property of matter to human awareness and reasoning, but you have provided no reason for these two to be identified.

It goes beyond Humans. Reason for awareness and reasoning to be identified? I'm not sure I follow you, but those two things simply exist. I claim they exist as a non-local property which belongs to the matter (energy) distributed throughout the universe, and I name that property Consciousness :P

Quote:

A sperm whale has considerably more mass than you do. Does it then have more "consciousness"?

Doubt it. As I said though, consciousness is not local or bound directly to the matter, it is created by the matter like we create sound with our voice. Electrons speak in photons. ;D
It's influence is not specific to it's own matter, such that the Sun would influence only the Sun. The conclusion of this idea is that the Sun would influence -- with a goal of total embodiment -- these bio-mechanical machines of ours, as would other stars and planets.

Quote:

Why don't they shape the world in the shape they want it to be in?

They do from their perspective. What makes you think they don't?

Quote:

By the way, birds navigate by the stars too.

Indeed, and they can even see the magnetosphere! :o

Quote:

Change in what?

Change in a general sense. Change in technologies used by us, species appearing and disappearing, geological changes, and changes in the creations that are made. Even changes in human biology, such as taller, fatter, longer living, or even different colored people. Change in the whole, not just one specific area of it.

Quote:

Which again has nothing to do with entropy.

So what you are saying is that entropy does not apply to us, or that it is unobservable? Why?
I disagree! ;D

Quote:

That's a throwaway line with no informational content.

It was also a funny song by They Might Be Giants. Why so serious? ;D

Quote:

I'm sorry. Really, I am, but you sound exactly the same as all other crackpots who think they've figured out the nature of the universe and write lengthy letters to universities and journals and wonder why they're not being taken seriously. You use terms and concepts that you barely understand and mash them together in fluffy sentences where you assign your own meaning and associations and twist the meaning of words to be what you want it to be.

I don't search for approval, or to be taken seriously. I enjoy discussing it as a possibility.

GullRaDriel

-"Captin, Derezo is emerging from nowhere !"
-"It can't be, blast that thing, it's for sure an ET who try to fake us !"

Derezo

it's for sure an ET who try to fake us

I might be! Afterall, people with my eyes did just sorta pop outta nowhere sometime around when the Egyptians were here...

zomg the pyramids were builded by alienz to unearth the liars! ;)
Some interesting Rage Against the Machine lyrics: "I'm deep inside your children. They'll betray you in my name." ;D

Alianix

Hillarious...
"Credits go to BAF, Evert, GullRaDriel, Kibiz0r, Malinus, Matthew Leverton, Thomas Fjellstrom, and type568 for helping out"

Hey thanks for leaving me out ! ;D

Just to clarify what I meant specifically: what I wrote previously applies when it comes to "conspiracy theories" and how I have heard people and politicians use this term to get a desired effect. It reminds me of the using the term like "having a pact with the devil"...have we really improved our consciousness at all for the last couple thousand years or just complicated our vocabulary ? Are we going to finally globally evolve and reach enlightenment(reason) some day or remain a bunch of ritualistic god-fearing sheep ?

It's another discussion but, I don't think it's a good idea to mix together terms of physics and consciousness, unless u can explain what they have to do with each other empirically maybe?

Derezo

Physics is a collection of teachings which describe the natural world using the scientific method. It must also describe how the religions came to be the way they came to be. It explains why they built their temples where they did, and why they practiced the various teachings that they had for so long. Why did it evolve to that point? Why were the indigenous people of this island slaughtered and banished from practicing the beliefs they had evolved?

I think physics tells us why we went from singing and dancing looking up at the stars, to staring at boxes all day long and hiding the stars in a gross orange glow.

I think the higher physics studies offer proof of why the ancient religions were the way they were, and in doing so, proves that much of what they teach is scientific fact. They discovered it because they evolved into it, it wasn't written on some stone tablet and handed down from the mountain tops. They were slaughtered because the other side evolved an opposite view -- because they were on the opposite side, experiencing the influence from opposite stars at opposite times.

That's why I reference physics. Nothing else describes the natural world better. :)

I want Pangaea back. ;)

Evert
Derezo said:

It's the complexities that become "whatever you think it is", because there are no standards set in this area to base anything from,

In that case you need to define and agree on what terms mean, even if their meaning is limited, because otherwise you (literally) don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

and the whole idea is that you are consciousness.

By your definition of consciousness, which is a magical property of matter. Which is certainly not the definition I gave, or the dictionary definition. There people have a consciousness, or experience consciousness or are conscious (not consciousness).

Quote:

I do understand that thinking that the Sun is the creator and animator of life on Earth is considered a bit far fetched,

Depends. Almost all life on Earth gets its energy from the sun, and life on Earth as we know it could not exist without the sun.
Reading that sentence metaphorically, I have no problem with it. Read literally, it's bonkers.

Quote:

I was being general and vague by saying it is mysterious, unknown and unobservable.

Yes, and that's the problem with vague general statements like that.

Quote:

Simply untrue.

Ok, fine then. Predict me something falsifiable about your "consciousness" property that can do and be anything you want.

Quote:

I'm referencing science to explain religious phenomena, which I think can be done and makes sense.

Maybe. That's not what you do though. You take scientific concepts and words and twist their meaning. You reference science to make it sound "modern" or acceptable, or at least not completely crazy. They're words and concepts that mean very little to most people, but they're legitimate scientific terms. You're talking nonsense, but unless someone knows what the things you reference actually refer to, they can't tell.
Not saying you're doing it deliberately, mind you - and I'm sure you believe the things you say and think they make sense. That's the tragic bit.

Quote:

The old religions weren't wrong, but we have no explanations for why they were.

Huh?
What sort of explanation do you need or want for, say, Christianity or Judaism being what it is?

Quote:

It goes beyond Humans.

So you assert. But you make that link by naming the magical property you instill on all matter "consciousness". Let's call it brxybrytl instead. Now explain what brxybrytl has to do with human consciousness. Why are they related? Why do you identify them?

Quote:

Reason for awareness and reasoning to be identified?

That's not what I asked (and no, they're not the same thing). See above.

Quote:

I'm not sure I follow you,

I'm sure you don't.

Quote:

I claim they exist as a non-local property which belongs to the matter (energy) distributed throughout the universe,

Evidence?

Quote:

I name that property Consciousness

Why?

Quote:

Doubt it.

Thought so.

Quote:

As I said though, consciousness is not local or bound directly to the matter, it is created by the matter like we create sound with our voice.

But a sperm whale has more matter. Why doesn't it have more of this "consciousness" then?

Quote:

They do from their perspective. What makes you think they don't?

When was the last time you heard of whales digging out a trough in the ocean floor so they could pass from one stretch of ocean to another? Or set up krill farms in the ocean for a more reliable food supply?

Quote:

Change in a general sense.

What? So everything, no matter what, changes exponentially more now than it did in the past? Is that what you think?

Quote:

geological changes,

Thank you for quoting the obvious counter example to your previous statement.

Quote:

changes in the creations that are made.

What does that mean, "changes in the creations"? What "creations" are those and what "changes" are made, and how are they exponentially changing more now than they were in the past?

Quote:

So what you are saying is that entropy does not apply to us, or that it is unobservable?

No, I'm saying that the rate of human technological advancement accelerating is not related to entropy.

Quote:

It was also a funny song by They Might Be Giants. Why so serious?

Because I'm fed up and am not about to let this pass unchallenged:

Alianix said:

This what all people do who have no reasonable answer or argument for a subject except their own limited ideas based on little to no evidence. It's a convenient way to shut your mind to new information, the opposite of scientific research where you need to keep an open mind to discover anything new. Having fixed labels in your mind there is nothing to discover only repeat what you already know.

Derezo said:

Physics is a collection of teachings which describe the natural world using the scientific method.

Not quite the words I would use. I'd say physics is the field of study that aims to describe the natural world using the scientific method.

Quote:

It must also describe how the religions came to be the way they came to be.

Why must it also describe that? As far as I can see that has nothing to do with physics and everything to do with human sociology. Which is not physics.

Alianix

I think you are talking about cognitive science, or science of cultural cognitions of the past. Just ponder that it took thousands of years of scientific research and collaboration (many generations of knowledge) to have the physics we have today. We all share this knowledge (as scientist at least) and therefore we can reflect upon this (we agree about how it works). The ancient civilization also had their science that they developed likewise perhaps, but that knowledge is lost to us. What maybe lost there is also is not just knowledge, but all the tools necessary to maintain it. But I think people of the past were just as much scientist as we are today if not more,it just that they had vastly different things in mind perhaps. So you couldn't probably wish that back because u have no means to cultivate any of it...

Also mixing physics with pseudoscience is a big trend nowdays unfortunately for most people, because they use it to explain things that have little to do with the science. Most people find it fascinating cause it sounds maybe scientifically complicated. It sounds like mumbo jumbo to me probably because i studied too much physics to be able swallow it. Anyhow I don't think it's a healthy idea to touch science to explain certain things unless you are very well trained in that science and know what you are talking about. Otherwise you are really discrediting people who put in lifetimes of hard work into their research.

Derezo
Evert said:

Which is certainly not the definition I gave, or the dictionary definition. There people have a consciousness, or experience consciousness or are conscious (not consciousness).

That is why consciousness is a disagreeable, controversial and confusing topic. That is backwards to the idea that it comes from matter -- which as you may have already guessed is not a widely accepted theory.

You still don't understand the idea, and it is related to bouncing around on the word 'consciousness' to various preconceived definitions of it, which is understandable considering the loose outline we've created. The way I'm using the term may seem more akin to "spirit", "soul", "life force" or "chi", but these things don't describe the self-awareness factor it has, which is important, and which is why the illusive word 'consciousness' works best :) It is still that same consciousness that you "have", but I propose it works differently than we feel like it does -- if you have one, and no everyone does.

All of those "religious" words for it carry more connotations related to the various followings they have and significant specific spiritual meanings, which further complicate things.

The person is subject to the consciousness, the person does not have a consciousness in a sense that it is unique to the person. The person is limited, finite and will perish. It's made of meat and will rot, the entire species will one day be extinct, and that is the destiny of all our bodies.

The consciousness that operates these bodies is unlimited, infinite and can only change. Matter is never created nor destroyed, and by this relationship consciousness can never be created nor destroyed. Things can only change from one state to another.

Quote:

You take scientific concepts and words and twist their meaning.

I'm open to the idea that I have something wrong, and if anyone can tell me what it is and why it's wrong it should be you... but it seems you can't. That's why your most recent post is filled with one word question responses and nonsense, avoiding contribution to discussion. Instead of flat out telling me it's wrong and why, you resort to what we see.

Quote:

Predict me something falsifiable about your "consciousness" property that can do and be anything you want.

It can't do or be anything I want in the sense you're describing. Those are your words and they are false. It also does not explain everything, which are your words. You're the one doing the twisting. You're mixing this with something you've heard before and being aggressive because it offends you ::)

Quote:

But a sperm whale has more matter. Why doesn't it have more of this "consciousness" then?

It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself, if you remember correctly I said it is the stars and planets which have any sort of significant influence on consciousness.

Quote:

When was the last time you heard of whales digging out a trough in the ocean floor so they could pass from one stretch of ocean to another? Or set up krill farms in the ocean for a more reliable food supply?

Never. What does that prove? What are you even suggesting? Those things you're describing are related more to intelligence and capability, which are something else entirely.

Quote:

What does that mean, "changes in the creations"? What "creations" are those and what "changes" are made, and how are they exponentially changing more now than they were in the past?

By "changes in the creations" I am referring to changes in things that are created. It is shifting more towards creations by humans -- cities, buildings, cars, networks, cellphones, video games, music, art, weapons, babies, and more -- as opposed to less spontaneous, less complex (in terms of overall effect), and less frequent natural creations by the old "natural world" or whatever word your highness would choose to describe the pre-neolithic era.

Evert said:

Why must [physics] also describe [religion]?

It is part of what has emerged from the natural world, which is what physics claims (or aims, whatever) to be studying, or describing, or whatever word you want there. ::) Physicists and consciousness philosophy are pretty much opposites though :-/

Quote:

No, I'm saying that the rate of human technological advancement accelerating is not related to entropy.

Why not?

Quote:

Not quite the words I would use. I'd say physics is the field of study that aims to describe the natural world using the scientific method.

You're just nitpicking. That description differs little, the general meaning differs none.

Alianix said:

I think you are talking about cognitive science, or science of cultural cognitions of the past.

Somewhat, but modern cognitive science focuses more on human reaction to it's environment. I'm speaking more about a spiritual side of things which I think there is evidence of because I believe we are in a game played by players on a "good" side and an "evil" side, and have started to believe in the idea of lamas/reincarnation and how that fits in with the repetitiveness of history.

Quote:

Also mixing physics with pseudoscience is a big trend nowdays unfortunately for most people, because they use it to explain things that have little to do with the science. Most people find it fascinating cause it sounds maybe scientifically complicated. It sounds like mumbo jumbo to me probably because i studied too much physics to be able swallow it. Anyhow I don't think it's a healthy idea to touch science to explain certain things unless you are very well trained in that science and know what you are talking about. Otherwise you are really discrediting people who put in lifetimes of hard work into their research.

I do understand that, but... I still think physics does describe some of the pseudosciences (or "religious beliefs"), because physics describes the way that macroscopic heavenly bodies interact, and the way that the laws which the substance of our universe, and consequently everything in it, are bound to. It seems the ancient cultures just understood the calling of the heavens by natural evolution, but it was suppressed by something. We were cut off from it, and the only reason I can come up with is that evil is real, and it comes from Egypt :P

I'm most interested in a casual discussion about the topic, and would prefer to be proven wrong.

I understand this is a difficult subject. Please watch this next video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html

If anything else you'll get a chuckle out of it. This you might not laugh at:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

Also of interest:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Note that one of the most popular items right now in people's minds is that Tiger Woods is cheating on people. Why do we care? Why does everyone seem to care so much about Barack Obama? Pepsi anyone? Want to Google? Google make wave? Invite special wave yeah? Make wave for google? The "new media" can say whatever it wants. You lose all your rights, you get sick and die, you're broke, the world's going to end, barack obama, lemon pledge. ::) It goes on and on.. Someone please tell me I'm not completely schizo and that this is leading towards insanity ;D

verthex

{"name":"258Troll_spray.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/d\/ed66b78482202f516f76bda29377fe50.jpg","w":377,"h":603,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/d\/ed66b78482202f516f76bda29377fe50"}258Troll_spray.jpg

GullRaDriel

HAHAHAHAHA !!!!! I love that one !!

Evert
Derezo said:

That's why your most recent post is filled with one word question responses and nonsense, avoiding contribution to discussion. Instead of flat out telling me it's wrong and why, you resort to what we see.

No, you make assertions, I challenge you to justify them or clarify them. Unless it's clear what you're talking about or why you say what you do there's no point in having a discussion. See the definition of "consciousness", which started out without you giving a definition of what you mean by it.
So, you tell me why you think these things and then maybe I can tell you why it's wrong or doesn't make sense - maybe because there are things that are outside my direct area of expertise.
But you won't. You'll just say I'm nit-picking and have no counter arguments.

Quote:

It can't do or be anything I want in the sense you're describing.

Well,

Derezo said:

force which has the ability to animate the physical world, observe it, and make choices within it

So it has the ability to animate the world. It has a choice. That means you can invoke it to explain things that you want it to explain, but avoid the difficulty of why it doesn't explain something else: it chooses not to act.

Derezo said:

You're mixing this with something you've heard before and being aggressive because it offends you

You're right, I have heard crap like this before, all too often. It doesn't offend me, it saddens me, especially if it's coming from someone who is clearly clever enough to know better.

Quote:

It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself, if you remember correctly I said it is the stars and planets which have any sort of significant influence on consciousness.

This flat-out contradicts what you said before:

Derezo said:

I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets.
Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

You ascribe it the properties that you want it to have and that are convenient in any particular example.
But I'm sure you'll claim it doesn't. So please explain. Why is it that "more matter = more 'consciousness'" applies to stars and black holes, but not sperm whales?

Derezo said:

By "changes in the creations" I am referring to changes in things that are created.

That's a tautology. :P

Quote:

It is shifting more towards creations by humans -- cities, buildings, cars, networks, cellphones, video games, music, art, weapons,

Yes, yes, human technological advancement has accelerated considerably. We've established that and it's clear why that is (you use technology you have to create newer technology that is more capable than the technologu you had before, repeat until natural resources run out). If that's specifically what you meant by "change in creations" then you should have been that specific and not use such a vague term that implies a broader scope than what you actually mean.
Anyway, shifting more to creations by humans, eh? Do you mean that "creation" of other things has slowed down? Accelerated less? Stayed more or less constant? How does that fit in your general statement that "the amount of change that occurs is increasing"?

Quote:

babies,

Really? Babies now are more different from babies that were born a century ago than babies that were born a century ago are from babies that were born two centuries ago? In what sense? What's your source?
Or is that not what you meant?

Quote:

It is part of what has emerged from the natural world, which is what physics claims (or aims, whatever) to be studying

Physics studies nature. It does not study biology or human psychology, although physics clearly has things to say about biology and possibly through a long chain of intermediate steps about human society, neither of those are physics. And then it's still a leap from human psychology to religion.
So, I'll ask again. Why would physics have anything to say about why religions are the way they are? It doesn't say anything about why you or I do what we do, why is religion different?

Quote:

Why not?

Entropy is the number of possible realisations of a physical system. Where does that connect to human technological advancement?

Quote:

You're just nitpicking.

Yes - which is why I said they're not the words I'd use, not that you're wrong as such.

Quote:

That description differs little, the general meaning differs none.

The difference is subtle, but as I've been saying, you have to be precise in what you say or mean, or words that have a specific meaning in context carry along an associated meaning into a context where that associated meaning has no place. That's how you end up with crackpot pseudo-science involving "entropy" or "energy".

Quote:

I still think physics does describe some of the pseudosciences (or "religious beliefs"),

Pseudo-science is not the same as religion.
Also,

Derezo said:

Physics is a collection of teachings which describe the natural world using the scientific method.

so how does it describe pseudo-science?

Derezo said:

because physics describes the way that macroscopic heavenly bodies interact, and the way that the laws which the substance of our universe, and consequently everything in it, are bound to.

In principle, in practice physics does not tell you how the human mind works.
Physics works well at describing interactions on a particular scale, but when scaling up (or down) and collective behaviour becomes important, fine details are lost. Yes, you can write down the equations of motion of every molecule in a fluid (which will be insanely difficult if you're not pretending molecules are simple hard spheres), but then you cannot calculate the macroscopic behaviour of a fluid directly from that set of equations. You need to average over local properties and integrate out the fine details. Then you get equations that tell you how fluid moves - but it will not tell you how individual water molecules move. That's before even considering things such as chaos (which makes it hard if not impossible to predict the future evolution of a system in anything other than probabilistic terms) or the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics (which has the same effect; it may not actually be stochastic at all, it may actually be chaotic, but it can be hard to tell the two apart), or the simple fact that our understanding of the laws of physics is incomplete.
So, again, physics does not tell you much about biology, sociology and psychology, for all that those things refer to things that are in the universe and subject to the laws of physics.

Quote:

It seems the ancient cultures just understood the calling of the heavens by natural evolution, but it was suppressed by something.

No, they didn't understand. People who lived thousands of years ago did not have a better understanding of the natural world around us than we do (which is not saying that they didn't know practical things that we may not, like how to survive on a savanna).

Quote:

Note that one of the most popular items right now in people's minds is that Tiger Woods is cheating on people. Why do we care?

I don't know anyone who cares. I'll wager that if you asked random people from India, China or Africa what they thought they wouldn't care either. I'm sure most people in South America, Australia, Europe and, yes, North America wouldn't care either. So what do you mean exactly when you say "the most popular item right now in people's minds"? The world is so much larger than statements like that make it out to be.

axilmar

Bleh, how come a discussion about Obama ended up as a philosophical debate? :-)

Thomas Fjellstrom

All I really have to say is that your (Derezo's) use of scientific terms is like using baseball terms for hockey. You've pretty much guaranteed that no one will understand what you're talking about.

Derezo
Evert said:

See the definition of "consciousness", which started out without you giving a definition of what you mean by it.

I'll admit the definition is difficult. Even in that video I linked Dan Dennett starts off saying you can't describe what consciousness is. It's up there now. That video doesn't describe what I am describing at all. What I am describing is my own theory based on my own experiences and a mash up of many religions.

Quote:

Derezo said:
It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself, if you remember correctly I said it is the stars and planets which have any sort of significant influence on consciousness.

Evert said:
This flat-out contradicts what you said before:

Derezo said:
I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets.
Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

Evert said:
You ascribe it the properties that you want it to have and that are convenient in any particular example.
But I'm sure you'll claim it doesn't. So please explain. Why is it that "more matter = more 'consciousness'" applies to stars and black holes, but not sperm whales?

How does it "flat out" contradict it?
There are no contradictions, you're making them up. You're misunderstanding and won't believe that you're misunderstanding because it has become your intention to do so, because you are basing your arguments on other discussions and not this one. You are not arguing this. This isn't what you think it is and it does not threaten you.

It does apply to sperm whales, but the sperm whale's consciousness has nothing to do with the mass of the sperm whale and I never said it did. I specifically said it is a non-local property which is essentially the voice of the cosmos speaking through the living matter inside of it. The mass of the sperm whale itself is like a grain of sand on the beach of "consciousness" and has nothing to do with the way the sperm whale experiences it.

You seem to be sensationalizing this idea. It is not new, and it doesn't break any existing theories, it's something that's always been here and will always be here. It is simply my way of explaining why and how the environment we are in (the stars and heavens above us) controls what we do in a very unique way.

Quote:

Anyway, shifting more to creations by humans, eh? Do you mean that "creation" of other things has slowed down?

Indeed, it has declined considerably. Thousands of species have gone extinct since I was born and the forests are being wiped out. Fruits and vegetables are not their wild variants but are genetically modified to be the same every time with little deviation (and less nutrients in some cases to increase yields). I am against organic food, but there's a mind virus going around making people think it's healthier or safer for you when the opposite is true.
The fact that things are changing rapidly is not something I am really arguing. It's just happening. If you don't accept that, I'm fine with that.

Quote:

So, I'll ask again. Why would physics have anything to say about why religions are the way they are? It doesn't say anything about why you or I do what we do, why is religion different?

I disagree. I think it does say a lot about what we do and why we do it, but that is a different discussion. The religions are based on the stars, and physics does a great job at describing what the stars are and how they do the various things they do. By that link, I believe physics does describe religions, because they are both based heavily on the same thing.

Quote:

No, they didn't understand.

Why did they do it then? That's the real question. What drove people to setup temples under specific areas exposed to specific sections of heaven to study the stars for thousands of years?

Quote:

People who lived thousands of years ago did not have a better understanding of the natural world around us than we do.

Not in a scientific sense perhaps, or a sense of knowledge about it, but they were no doubt in it more and had far more experience with it. We all live, work and travel in boxes. They did not. They may have been less knowledgeable than us, bit it is naive to think they were any less intelligent or reasonable.

Quote:

So what do you mean exactly when you say "one of the most popular item right now in people's minds"? The world is so much larger than statements like that make it out to be.

There are many popular things in people's minds, and this is one of them. That's what I meant and nothing more. It's simply one of the millions of memes.
I didn't say all people. Clearly that would be ridiculous. It is certainly enough of them for me to hear about it day after day from the various media and the people around me, even this forum. Many people go on by unaffected by it, too.. but more and more people seem to be getting sucked into this thing where they just believe anything they hear and don't formulate their own ideas.

Despite what you might think, this is an original idea. It is not based on whatever it is you're basing it on, but I would love to read the story you think it is just to see the similarities if you have it.

TF: I know that, and that's the point. Science to explain Religion. You can't be any more opposite, or any more controversial.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

You can't be any more opposite, or any more controversial.

Maybe if your methodology made any kind of sense (that is if you had one). The way you're currently going about it doesn't make a lick of sense.

SiegeLord

???

I can use science (physics) to explain religion. You start with atoms that are arranged into particular molecules, such as bi-lipid membranes and ionic channels, to form cells: neurons in this case. These neurons are reasonably complex dynamic systems, in the sense that their state (let's pick membrane potential) evolves in a non-linear fashion over time. These neurons are arranged into networks of the (yet) unknown design, to form the brain. This brain, then does its brainy stuff that is studied by the field of cognitive psychology. From there, you can go into sociology and derive religion from that.

I didn't need to invoke anything that is currently unknown in physics and (likely) chemistry to outline the above derivation of religion from first principles of physics. I don't see why you feel the need to do that.

Derezo

Maybe if your methodology made any kind of sense (that is if you had one). The way you're currently going about it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Noted. Thanks for pointing it out. Have a wonderful day.

Siegelord: What I want to know is: Why did they go to the stars? What was their goal? They went through millions of years of evolution which lead to looking up at the stars and study them, drawing conclusions about them, creating gods, songs and stories about them. The ancient religions were far more complex than some of the religions of today even.

I don't think sociology describes religion from the perspective I'm interested in, which is from the perspective of evolution. I think there was a point to the evolution. That's all.

SiegeLord

Follow my proof outline, and you'll have your answer why. Once you build the complete model of the brain, and tie that into sociology, you will be able to alter some parameters in the model and determine which values of parameters lead to the phenomena you describe.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

I think there was a point to the evolution. That's all.

Of course there was. To survive. That's the entire point behind it.

Derezo

I don't agree that survival is the entire point at all, there is far more to it. To say they did these things only to propagate their species and nothing more is narrow minded. Clearly that is a major element to evolution, but don't get stuck on the "survival of the fittest" mentality people have with evolution. That phrase is not all-encompassing or the "entire point". There is a bigger purpose here.

Evert
Derezo said:

How does it "flat out" contradict it?

Well,

Derezo said:

Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

versus

Derezo said:

It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself

In one instance you're saying things have more "consciousness" because they have more mass (your use of the word "relative" there), in the other you're saying something different.
So how do you reconcile those two statements?

Derezo said:

You're misunderstanding and won't believe that you're misunderstanding because it has become your intention to do so,

If by misunderstanding you think that I think that you make no sense, yes, that's right. So if you think it does make sense, why don't you go back and clarify those things that I said are unclear, vague or need justification?

Quote:

because you are basing your arguments on other discussions and not this one.

Nope. I have only quoted things you have said here. No other discussions.

Quote:

This isn't what you think it is and it does not threaten you.

I think it's pseudo-scientific nonsense, so far you have not given me a single reason to think it otherwise. And you're right, I don't feel threatened. Why even bring that up? Do you feel threatened by having your beliefs questioned?

Quote:

You seem to be sensationalizing this idea.

I'm not. I'm just responding to the claim that I say it's nonsense without being able to justify it. So far you have failed to clarify many of the things I asked you to clarify or justify.

Quote:

It is simply my way of explaining why and how the environment we are in (the stars and heavens above us) controls what we do in a very unique way.

That's fine. All I'm doing is pointing out gaps, apparent inconsistencies and leaps in logic that lead me to call it wrong. Again, you're free to respond to those and write a clear description of what your ideas are that answers all of those questions and concerns. But if that post is any indication, you'd rather complain that I just don't want to see what you're trying to say.

Let me put it this way. If I were asked to review a scientific paper that is as imprecise and vague in describing what it's talking about as you are, I'd send it back with a demand for greater clarity and precision in describing what it's talking about.

Quote:

Indeed, it has declined considerably. Thousands of species have gone extinct since I was born and the forests are being wiped out. Fruits and vegetables are not their wild variants but are genetically modified to be the same every time with little deviation (and less nutrients in some cases to increase yields).

Many of those things (if not all) are the result of human action. My question was about changes that are not due to human action. Has the rate of evolution slowed down? Has there been exponentially less volcanism over the past few hundred years? Plate tectonics? Star formation?

Quote:

I am against organic food, but there's a mind virus going around making people think it's healthier or safer for you when the opposite is true.

What's good about organic food is that it's usually locally grown and produced in a more resource-friendly way. And no, pesticides are not actually good for you.

Quote:

The fact that things are changing rapidly is not something I am really arguing. It's just happening. If you don't accept that, I'm fine with that.

I'm not saying human culture and technology aren't changing rapidly, or that humanity's impact on the world around us has increased considerably, I called you on "It is shifting more towards creations by humans", asking if by that you meant other things have altered their rate of change. You didn't answer that, instead you repeated that human society is changing rapidly and went off on some tangent about organic food.

Quote:

The religions are based on the stars, and physics does a great job at describing what the stars are and how they do the various things they do. By that link, I believe physics does describe religions, because they are both based heavily on the same thing.

Unfortunately whatever inspiration religion has drawn from the stars (a questionable assertion in itself if you ask me, but not relevant to this discussion) has very little to do with what stars actually are and what physics actually has to say about stars. I have a reproduction of van Gogh's Starry Night hanging above the dinner table, which also features stars quite prominently. However, physics has very little to do with van Gogh's paintings.

Quote:

I didn't say all people.

No, you said "people", a generic term. You may have meant a specific subset of people, but that means one thing to you and another thing to someone else. That's a problem with generic terms like that - and really at the heart of what I've said before: you're making statements using general terms that you have not clearly defined. You didn't even state what you mean by "consciousness" until I said that what you said about it doesn't make sense, at which point it turned out that you were using the term to mean something completely different than what it generally means. You can do that (sortof), but you need to be clear about what you mean.

SiegeLord said:

This brain, then does its brainy stuff that is studied by the field of cognitive psychology. From there, you can go into sociology and derive religion from that.

Leaving aside the practical aspect of the problem, I am skeptical that one could in principle write down a set of equations describing the human brain and derive from that not only human psychology but also religion and all its aspects in its present form from first principles, even if there are no simplifications in the equations along the way (which in something remotely approaching the real world there would have to be). There are too many free parameters. Understanding the physics about different components of the brain (we certainly do that) doesn't imply you understand the brain as a whole (we don't).

EDIT

Derezo said:

I don't agree that survival is the entire point at all, there is far more to it.

Why? And what?

Quote:

There is a bigger purpose here.

What do you base that on?

Yes, I know, religion would tell you that there is a purpose, or a point. Religion is not science though, and those questions are asked from a scientific perspective. If you just want to slap the label "religion" on there, that's fine. To me, that doesn't answer the question though (which is what I have against religious or supernatural explanations in general - you can always make them fit if you really want to).

GullRaDriel

Derezo ? I miss your unrealistic answer ;D

En tout cas Evert tu m'étonnes, je n'aurais jamais la patience de faire autant de longues réponses d'affilées, surtout en voyant que cela n'a aucun effet sur l'évolution du discour de Derezo.

Derezo
Evert said:

In one instance you're saying things have more "consciousness" because they have more mass (your use of the word "relative" there), in the other you're saying something different. So how do you reconcile those two statements?

You're suggesting that consciousness is exclusive to the object which appears to have the quality, I am not and have not been at all throughout this discussion. I'm saying that the object which has the quality is not the source of the quality. It is the stars which are the source, not the object itself. The object is made up of consciousness-making-stuff, but influence of the object itself is insignificant due to overpowering influence of the surrounding matter. I have been consistent in these things as they are the basis of the idea. The "scientific" explanation I've placed on this is a simple relationship which is unnecessary and can be scratched if you choose. I do suggest that energy, matter and influence of consciousness potential are equivalent, but it is not a necessary attachment to the idea if you feel it disagrees with your study of such sciences. It just helps me to know for myself because all things work under the same principles and while scientific theories never account for any sort of "life force" or "consciousness", there appears to be evidence of it's existence in our natural world. You may not believe that, but there is nothing I can say or do which will change you mind because "life force" and "soul" can be experienced, but communication of that experience is damn near impossible. :)

Quote:

Do you feel threatened by having your beliefs questioned?

No, but you're not questioning my beliefs, heh. You're questioning my explanation of it and the language used because you're going into it with a mindset that it is wrong even though you do not know what it is, which is called "prejudice" and is what happens to label makers.

Quote:

Nope. I have only quoted things you have said here. No other discussions.

Your responses to the quotes you make are not typically related to the premise of this discussion.

Quote:

I just don't want to see what you're trying to say.

I've already said that you were afraid of it, and that idea was based on my awareness of this.

Quote:

I called you on "It is shifting more towards creations by humans", asking if by that you meant other things have altered their rate of change. You didn't answer that

I did answer that ::) My words were: Indeed, it has declined considerably. Thousands of species have gone extinct since I was born and the forests are being wiped out.
The talk of agriculture was to note that not only are animals going extinct, but entire ecosystems are being destroyed and occupied by human created plants. In many cases the human created plants are engineered for the highest profit margins.

Quote:

Unfortunately whatever inspiration religion has drawn from the stars has very little to do with what stars actually are and what physics actually has to say about stars.

And that's where I strongly disagree. I understand your perspective, but I know of nothing in nature which agrees with that statement or offers a metaphor to aid it. Things are attracted to other things for reasons, and they evolve to be attracted to them for reasons. Take flowers as an example. Many flowers range in beauty and develop significant differences in order to attract bees to take their pollen so that they will procreate when the pollen is spread to other flowers. They evolve different colors and patterns, varying flavours and volumes of nectar, with the grand purpose of attracting the bees. There is reason in all things, and there are no exclusions. There is no denying that we were once attracted to the stars. I think this idea could be why, and that is all. :P

Quote:

That's a problem with generic terms like that - and really at the heart of what I've said before: you're making statements using general terms that you have not clearly defined.

Well, as I said, I'm trying to have a casual discussion. You are in interrogation mode because you are prejudice. If you didn't take every word with such a heavy heart it wouldn't be such a difficult conversation. I am not going to take the time to be ultra-specific and explain real world happenings in great detail when I'm speaking with someone who is moderately intelligent enough to cut away the obviously non-applicable states and focus on the core of the discussion. I continually admit the language is difficult, and you agree, but you can't get over it and keep going back to it.

This is not a small, simple topic. You are rubbing off as unaware of the world around you, but I know that is not true. I can't teach you all of these things just to show the idea that life is made by star stuff and is therefore controlled by the stars due to attraction, and what that implies with our history. You do not want to know that for reasons of your own. Frankly, I'm not sure why you bothered, you have nothing to gain from this discussion when you are closed to participating in it.

There are entire books written about the purpose of life. I cannot summarize it in a paragraph for you, and we will have to disagree there. You can have meaninglessness, and I will keep my meaning, it certainly doesn't need to be real for you for it to be real for me. :)

Derezo ? I miss your unrealistic answer ;D

I thought all of my answers were unrealistic -- that's the point. The reality that has been forced upon us is a fake! ;D Much of our reality is constructed by dangerous memes.

SiegeLord
Evert said:

Understanding the physics about different components of the brain (we certainly do that) doesn't imply you understand the brain as a whole (we don't).

That's why I said it is an outline of the proof, not the actual proof. My point is that understanding of physics is in principle (but not yet in practice, as you point out) already sufficient to explain everything about humans without resorting to adding new properties of matter. Instead, the proper course of action is to follow each step of my outline, and that is what is being done in serious research.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

There is a bigger purpose here.

Please do enlighten us. I'm interested in what it could be.

Derezo said:

The reality that has been forced upon us is a fake! ;D

You do have actual proof right? Its not science if you cant test and verify your hypothesis (the reason why string theory isn't REAL science yet, if it ever can be).

Quote:

Well, as I said, I'm trying to have a casual discussion. You are in interrogation mode because you are prejudice.

I'm not sure thats it actually ;) He seems to be honestly interested in your answers, but none seem to actually answer the questions asked.

type568

Dаmn, serious discussion's going on.. Makes me curious. But the posts are SO LONG :o :-X :-/

Derezo

It's not that serious :P

You do have actual proof right?

Of course I do. Do you have proof that it's real?

Quote:

He seems to be honestly interested in your answers

He seems to be interested in something, but I don't think that's it. I've answered questions and he's asked me them again saying I didn't answer them :P

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

Do you have proof that it's real?

See? you're evading questions again. The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the one claiming something, you have to prove it, or at least provide a possible way of testing for it. Till then, your ideas are purely philosophical (also not a science).

Derezo

See? you're evading questions again.

I answered your question. You asked "Do you have proof?" and I said "Yes I do". Question answered.

You actually want me to prove it to you? You never asked me to do that, and I will not prove that to you here on this forum. If you wish to wake up you will have to do so of your own accord; I cannot wake you. If the stars want you the stars will take you.

You apparently do not have proof that your reality is real. You dodged my counter question completely. What you did is dodging questions, what I did is answering them.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

I cannot wake you..

Woha.. You realize how that sounds right?

Quote:

but you apparently do not have proof that it is real ;)

Science isn't real? or what was it again that you are talking about? Of course I have no proof that your unique idea is real. I don't even know what it is yet since you refuse to even discuss it.

Quote:

You never asked me to do that, and I will not prove that to you here on this forum.

Because you're afraid someone will actually be able to prove you wrong?

Derezo

You realize how that sounds right?

Absolutely crazy. Do you?

Quote:

Science isn't real?

I don't know. Are you suggesting your reality is "science"?

Quote:

or what was it again that you are talking about?

I know, it's hard to follow things when you quote what you don't understand just to troll. :)

You're wavering off into some place strange because you split the topic by asking me about reality. That wasn't what Evert and I were talking about -- at least, not in the context you quoted. The part you quoted and questioned was this line:

I thought all of my answers were unrealistic -- that's the point. The reality that has been forced upon us is a fake! ;D Much of our reality is constructed by dangerous memes.

I provided proof in the link. Whether you accept it as proof or not is your own choice, and whether you understand it depends on the entire process you went through which lead to you sitting in your chair in front of this screen watching what a crazy stranger is typing from half way across the country.

If you do understand it, I suggest watching the movie "Children of Man". Not the greatest movie, but is interesting under the context of that memes video.

23yrold3yrold
Derezo said:

You apparently do not have proof that your reality is real.

Objective, shared reality is a fairly simple thing to prove ... a person's perception of reality is fairly easy to fake (speaking as a recently certified clinical hypnotherapist, which Derezo should know since he has me Facebook'ed) and I'd agree that we as human beings do not experience reality directly, only filtered through our subconscious. But that and a dollar fifty will get you a cup of coffee; reality is still real. ::)

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

Are you suggesting your reality is "science"?

It is what people use to describe reality.

Quote:

You're wavering off into some place strange because you split the topic by asking me about reality.

When exactly did I do that?

So wait, you're not being serious at all and don't believe a single thing you've written so far? See I thought you were being serious this whole time. Thank <insert deity here>.

Evert
Derezo said:

You're suggesting that consciousness is exclusive to the object which appears to have the quality, I am not and have not been at all throughout this discussion.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying through the things you say. If I misunderstand what you're saying, then that's because you're not clear.

Quote:

I'm saying that the object which has the quality is not the source of the quality. It is the stars which are the source, not the object itself.

Ok, but that's not what you said before:

Derezo said:

I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets.
Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

Nothing in that implies what you just said. In fact, to me it blatantly states the exact opposite.

Derezo said:

The object is made up of consciousness-making-stuff, but influence of the object itself is insignificant due to overpowering influence of the surrounding matter.

Ok, but why does that not hold for humans in your earlier comparison

Derezo said:

Microscopic bacteria can make very limited choices and observations and are entirely dependent on the environment - the most "primitive" form of consciousness. Humans are capable of making the most choices of anything else we've knowingly encountered, [...] Still dependent on their environment, but capable of changing it by their own will to suit their needs and goals, which are more diverse than those of bacteria.

Compared to the Earth, humans and bacteria are both insignificant. According to what you just said, the influence of either is insignificant compared to the overpowering influence of the Earth. To me, that's at odds with what you said before. How are they not?

Derezo said:

I have been consistent in these things as they are the basis of the idea.

From where I'm standing you have not been consistent. You have been vague and been evading questions prompting you to be less vague. You have made statements and then later made statements that provide new information that change statements that you have made before, or to all appearance contradict them. And when asked about that, you reply that your statements do not contradict but you do not clarify why.

Quote:

The "scientific" explanation I've placed on this is a simple relationship which is unnecessary and can be scratched if you choose.

Ok, so hang on. Does it actually add anything or doesn't it? If it does, then why is it unnecessary? If it doesn't, then why do you bring it up in the first place? Isn't it simply misleading to draw an analogy in that case?

Quote:

You're questioning my explanation of it and the language used because you're going into it with a mindset that it is wrong even though you do not know what it is

Not at all. I'm just subjecting it to a skeptical scientific interrogation. I'm questioning your explanation because I want to see how you respond to having your explanation challenged. I make it a point of trying to get precise language and definitions because without that we're not talking about the same thing. See the earlier debacle on the meaning of "consciousness". That word means something very different to you than it does to me. If you don't say what it means to you and I read what you're saying with my meaning of "consciousness" in place of yours, then you talk gibberish. All I'm doing is playing Socrates.

Quote:

Your responses to the quotes you make are not typically related to the premise of this discussion.

Oh? What, according to you, is the premise of this discussion?
For me, it is that you will not able to self-consistently clarify your explanation of the world, including your "consciousness", if subjected to critical questioning, asked to define concepts precisely, explain the links between different bits of information and to clarify or justify some of the broad and vague statements you make.
So far you haven't failed to live up to that expectation.

Quote:

I did answer that

I've already said why that doesn't answer my original question. So how about those other things I asked about?

Quote:

The talk of agriculture was to note that not only are animals going extinct, but entire ecosystems are being destroyed and occupied by human created plants.

You did not make that point. You just made a random statement about organic food. If that was the point you wanted to make, you didn't state it. Probably because you have an association there that naturally takes you from one to the other so that to you it doesn't seem as though you've skipped a part of your reasoning. And maybe that's the major part of where the misunderstandings come from: you're just not explaining parts of your logic.
Anyway, that's still human influence. We've been there.

Quote:

I understand your perspective, but I know of nothing in nature which agrees with that statement or offers a metaphor to aid it. Things are attracted to other things for reasons, and they evolve to be attracted to them for reasons. Take flowers as an example. Many flowers range in beauty and develop significant differences in order to attract bees to take their pollen so that they will procreate when the pollen is spread to other flowers. They evolve different colors and patterns, varying flavours and volumes of nectar, with the grand purpose of attracting the bees. There is reason in all things, and there are no exclusions. There is no denying that we were once attracted to the stars. I think this idea could be why, and that is all.

No, I don't think you do get the gist of what I meant. What inspires people about a starry night does not depend on what the nature of the stars is. Physics tells us stars are nuclear furnaces, tens, hundreds, thousands parsecs away or more. Whether you know this or not does not change the beauty of the night sky.
Stars inspired people because of the way they move, the regular patterns that (seemingly) stay the same from year to year, century to century. There is a semblance of tranquility and eternity about the night sky that is in contrast to the turbulent and transient nature of life on Earth. None of that depends on what the stars actually are - for all intent and purpose, they could be what people once believed them to be: tiny dots of light attached to a sphere suspended high above the Earth.

Anyway, you're reading a lot into human curiosity to know what is "beyond the next hill".

Quote:

I'm trying to have a casual discussion. You are in interrogation mode because you are prejudice.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to proof a point, which is that it is pointless to try to argue with you against the things that you have convinced yourself are true, no matter how legitimate questions or points raised might be.
I suppose I should apologise to you for putting you at the receiving end of all that; I have nothing against you and while I do think the things you state are sheer nonsense, you're free to believe it if you think it enhances your life as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

If you didn't take every word with such a heavy heart it wouldn't be such a difficult conversation.

If you were clear about what you mean and actually answered questions instead of going "oh, you're just nitpicking and you don't want to believe me anyway" it'd be a whole lot easier too.
If I don't take your word for the wild things you say and question you critically about them, then you should respond to those challenges and not evade them or say something vague like "you can't understand because you don't want to" because that's certainly not going to make me receptive to the things you say.

Quote:

I am not going to take the time to be ultra-specific and explain real world happenings in great detail

Ok, so you're not going to clarify any of the things I asked you to clarify because they're unclear?
Well, I didn't really think you would. That just proofs the point I wanted to make though.

Quote:

when I'm speaking with someone who is moderately intelligent enough to cut away the obviously non-applicable states and focus on the core of the discussion.

Ooh, I love the insult. Say it again. :-*

Quote:

I continually admit the language is difficult, and you agree, but you can't get over it and keep going back to it.

Yes, because I keep trying to get you to do something about the problem by defining concepts and being as clear as possible and you keep ignoring it and prefer to use vague and loose sentences that don't actually make your line of thought or reasoning clear.
Yes, it's hard. But unless you try to solve the problem it's not going to go away.

Quote:

I can't teach you all of these things just to show the idea that life is made by star stuff and is therefore controlled by the stars due to attraction, and what that implies with our history.

I daresay I know more about stars and "star stuff" than you do.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you bothered, you have nothing to gain from this discussion

I told you why I bothered.
And again, I probably ought to apologise to you for that.
The questions are honest enough, I'm open to having an intellectual debate about things I don't believe in. But no, I never seriously thought you would answer them. Not believing that I wouldn't have bothered except to proof a point.

Quote:

There are entire books written about the purpose of life. I cannot summarize it in a paragraph for you,

But I never asked you about the meaning of life, and you don't have to summarise it for me.
To me, it is up to each individual to find meaning in their lives - because there is nothing "out there" that will do it for them. To some, that means believing that there is. And that's fine.

En tout cas Evert tu m'étonnes, je n'aurais jamais la patience de faire autant de longues réponses d'affilées, surtout en voyant que cela n'a aucun effet sur l'évolution du discour de Derezo.

Yes, well, as I said, in a sense that was the point of the exercise.

Derezo

I mean what I say, but I am not serious. Serious is BBOOOOOORRRRRING.

When exactly did I do that?

Scroll buttons not working? It when you asked me if I had proof. It went like this:

I said:

The reality that has been forced upon us is a fake! ;D

Then you replied:

You said:

You do have actual proof right? Its not science if you cant test and verify your hypothesis (the reason why string theory isn't REAL science yet, if it ever can be).

I assumed you meant about the reality being forced upon us being fake. What were you referring to? I don't understand now why you quoted that line.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

I don't understand now why you quoted that line.

I asked if you had verifiable proof of your hypothesis. I did not ask directly about your unique idea.

edit: and generally when people ask if you have proof, they expect you to actually show it. If you can't show it, it means you're just blowing smoke.

verthex

{"name":"troll_spray.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/1\/21cc310670712412bde61ecd5718b1e6.jpg","w":964,"h":1187,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/1\/21cc310670712412bde61ecd5718b1e6"}troll_spray.jpg

Derezo
Evert said:

Ok, but that's not what you said before:
...
Nothing in that implies what you just said. In fact, to me it blatantly states the exact opposite.

It is not the exact opposite. By saying it is a 'non-local property' I was trying to convey the meaning that it is in influence of other things and not only in influence of itself. I'm basically saying the sun isn't just giving us heat and making life sustainable, it is creating the life and controlling by giving it ever increasing levels of "consciousness" which evolves.

The Sun has the largest consciousness in our solar system, but the Sun doesn't only control the Sun with it. The Sun controls events down here on earth with it :o

Quote:

Ok, but why does that not hold for humans in your earlier comparison

Humans are the most intelligent, capable, influential creatures on this planet and (arguably) the most evolved, but they are still just creatures and do fall under this same idea (nothing is excluded).

Quote:

Compared to the Earth, humans and bacteria are both insignificant. According to what you just said, the influence of either is insignificant compared to the overpowering influence of the Earth. To me, that's at odds with what you said before. How are they not?

I'm saying the Earth is the influence of the bacteria and the humans, as are the stars. Although their matter is insignificant, they are the created and influenced by the Earth and the Stars. Humans and bacteria alike are still influenced by it. They wouldn't be here without either the Sun nor the Earth, and the Sun and the Earth are what guide the further evolution of consciousness most. That is obvious and vague, but what I mean is that they are analogous to the mother and father of these biological machines and their spirit is inside of us. I did say it is mysterious.

It seems so vague because I'm describing things at a macroscopic level and relating it to things that happen at a microscopic level. For that I can only suggest that there are trends in our history, evolution, and music that I have noticed. That evidence can't just be typed into a box and posted onto a forum and make any sort of sense (as we can see).

This is just an idea. Just one that we seem to be taking seriously. ;)

Quote:

Ok, so hang on. Does it actually add anything or doesn't it? If it does, then why is it unnecessary? If it doesn't, then why do you bring it up in the first place? Isn't it simply misleading to draw an analogy in that case?

What I meant was that the use of the comparison to the scientific theory of mass-energy equivalency is not needed to understand this idea, but I felt it lent itself nicely to it. It provides proof to me, but I feel like I know something else.

I give matter an additional property, kind of like a "Deity Particle" if you want to call it that (to avoid using the already existent God Particle ;)). The "Deity Particle" creates a link from the Sun to the Earth through photons, influencing the recipient "stuff" to eventually become alive and walk around through the process of evolution. Eventually the Sun is able to think for itself on it's own soil because the creature will be aware that it is the Sun, and also have an awareness of what it has control over. That is what I mean by all of this, but even that is a little vague. It's just an idea.

Quote:

Oh? What, according to you, is the premise of this discussion?

Remember the phrase 'Galactic Consciousness'? ;D The discussion is about the galaxy becoming aware of itself. The step we're involved in right now is giving this solar system "consciousness".. but then we're kind of into a whole "But how does that work? What is the evidence?". I say the evidence is quite literally everywhere that stuff isn't just rocks and empty space.

Quote:

No, I don't think you do get the gist of what I meant. What inspires people about a starry night does not depend on what the nature of the stars is. Physics tells us stars are nuclear furnaces, tens, hundreds, thousands parsecs away or more. Whether you know this or not does not change the beauty of the night sky.

It's not that I don't agree with all of that, but I think there is a little bit more to it. We were "meant" to be attracted to them, not just because they move, but because they "have" consciousness and can influence our reality in a more meaningful way that is more profound than we give credit to. They made us attracted to them, like the flowers with the bees.

Quote:

Ooh, I love the insult. Say it again. :-*

Hey, moderately intelligent isn't an insult! I called you prejudice as an insult. ;)

Quote:

Ok, so you're not going to clarify any of the things I asked you to clarify because they're unclear?
Well, I didn't really think you would. That just proofs the point I wanted to make though.

I am clarifying the idea, but I don't think it is my place to clarify real world things that are already clear to each of us (or should be). From what I can see I am being as clear as I can be about an unclear mysterious topic.

There are things that I cannot simply prove in a few paragraphs, like how I feel entropy applies to everything. I could write a book on that, if I were any good at writing, but the examples and metaphors are all I can give you here. The wikipedia example of an ice cube melting was what triggered the first relationship I made between entropy and "the end of the world" because it feels as though that is what is happening (I mean, we're a melting ice cube, not that the world is ending). The realizations that are made over time get steadily increasing. More of the ice cube melts, more technology and more rapid changes occurring here on earth. Eventually it gets to a point where there is no more ice left, there are no more changes to take place... but this is the universe, and the universe is infinite, so it becomes "cyclical". A new cycle is created, a new ice cube is formed, and it again begins to start melting. Slowly at first, but it'll speed up.

With metaphors and analogies you either get it or you don't. If you don't actually understand what I'm trying to say, I have no hope of trying to prove to you that it is true. There is nothing to prove because you wouldn't even know what it is that you're disagreeing with if the proof doesn't meet your standards. I haven't always been giving answers to some of your questions because I've noticed you don't understand the concept itself which makes proving it futile.

I asked if you had verifiable proof of your hypothesis. I did not ask directly about your unique idea.

I know what you did, I said I don't know why you did it. In either case, I did provide all answers to your questions. You may wish to form better questions.

Everyone has consciousness and a "soul" at birth, but not everyone retains it throughout their life. There is darkness in space, a force which wishes to absorb the photons. Those things manifest themselves here as Fox News, and they also have a massive influence... for now. ;D

Matthew Leverton

Okay, I confess. I've been trolling as Derezo. I'll stop now. :-X

Derezo

I really should stop now. ;D

Last thread I'll hijack with crazy blog-length posts. Promise. ;)

Shravan

I've been trolling as Derezo

Obama should be blamed for that.

Alianix

Quote from Mr.Derezo:

"What I meant was that the use of the comparison to the scientific theory of mass-energy equivalency is not needed to understand this idea, but I felt it lent itself nicely to it."

I'm glad you realized that...Also I hope next time you will think twice before trying to sell some scientific mumbo jumbo...Not that there's anything wrong with it, as long as you know that that's what it is. It's best to respect science in my opinion by not infiltrating it with whatever else.

Also it's harder to understand what you are trying to say when you mixing terms, for those who are actually trying to understand it not just taking your words for granted.

So why do you think that conciousness was forced upon us, and if so, who forced upon us? Perhaps ...Obama ? ;D

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

I said I don't know why you did it.

Because I'd actually like to know. But you seem uninterested in actually showing anyone. And generally thats one of the first signs of crackpotism.

verthex

great matthew, what about allianix, is he you too? I really wish someone would have taken this thread seriously, everyone just shit all over it.

Derezo
Alianix said:

Also I hope next time you will think twice before trying to sell some scientific mumbo jumbo.

At least I didn't say quantum mechanics gives us the ability to manifest objects in our reality through the power of thought! ;D That was all the rage around this time last year (and of course still continues).

Quote:

So why do you think that conciousness was forced upon us, and if so, who forced upon us?

Anything that happens, happens.

Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen.

Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again.

It doesn't necessarily do it in chronological order, though.

Written at the beginning of Mostly Harmless. :)
The general idea I have is that time is illusory and all of this stuff "just is", always has been, and always will be. The purpose of the universe might be to create another universe, or maybe we're creating new universes with every passing moment. Who knows, but I guess it's just a book, and I haven't finished it yet. ;D

I'd actually like to know.

If you really would actually like to know, what did you think about the memes Dan was talking about? I bet you didn't even watch the minuscule crumb of proof I told you of. Essentially he says there is an infection goin' round... and what he talks about is not something new, it is something that's always been going on.

Thomas Fjellstrom

More vagueness. Goodie. Maybe I'll get it when you actually decide to accurately describe this phenomenon of yours.

Derezo

So you're saying you didn't click the proof you asked for? ::)
That was indeed about the perception of reality though, not about the source of consciousness.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Maybe I'm just blind but I haven't seen a single link in any of your posts responding to my questions.

But seriously, if its anywhere near as wishy washy as the stuff you've been talking about, its just yet another psuedo-sciencey cult.

I prefer mine in pasta form.

Derezo

I'll even post it again 'cause I'm such a nice guy ;D

Here he is in "non-cult" outfit. It should all feel normal, it's a really good video.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html

If anything else you'll get a chuckle out of that one.

Here is after he got into the Jesus Juice:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html

You may notice he talks about "good memes" and "bad memes" while still promoting Darwinian concepts and Richard Dawkins. Light VS Dark! God VS Satan! Science VS Religion!
LEFT OR RIGHT, I DON'T KNOW ANYMORE!!! :o
;)

I also like how in the memes one there's a fair bit of coughing....

Also of interest:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Johan Halmén

HTML vs. Variables

GullRaDriel

Haha Johan X-p

I think Derezo should stop drinking and smoking pot while watching Matrix trilogy.

Derezo

I think Derezo should stop drinking and smoking pot while watching Matrix trilogy.

I don't smoke pot, drink or eat meat any more. I blame it all on smoking pot!

According to Fox News, which is the only news I ever watch, marijuana eats your soul. Always do what Fox News tells you to do, they are fair and balanced. ;)

... and there was no 'trilogy'. The Matrix 2 & 3 sucked so much that they were removed from the Matrix. There is no spoon.

GullRaDriel
Derezo said:

I don't smoke pot, drink or eat meat any more. I blame it all on smoking pot!

You are a living contradiction, isn't it ?

:-p

Edit: as spotted by Johan later, I should have used "aren't you", but "isn't it" do the trick too.

Johan Halmén

There's no sense in your question tag, aren't you?

Alianix

Ok Derezo now you've finally destroyed my leftover faith in you ? FOX news ??? You need to be really brainwashed to take this seriously... ;D

Derezo

FOX News is evil incarnate.
Evert was right. Sarcasm isn't funny anymore. :(

The only thing I take seriously is what I see with my eyes. The TV lies, and everyone knows it, but that doesn't stop people from believing in it.

You are a living contradiction, isn't it ?

If you completely ignore what I said and pay attention to only the parts you bolded, then yes. For everyone else, no.

Thread #602415. Printed from Allegro.cc