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