Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let's read this different interpretation then, for instance explain to me how the whale came to be.

Well that is easy. The mamma whale and pappa whale hooked up and did the humpback.......on the backs of crystals, of course. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Well that is easy. The mamma whale and pappa whale hooked up and did the humpback.......on the backs of crystals, of course. 😛

It took you 4 edits to come up with that dung? 😞

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It took you 4 edits to come up with that dung? 😞

Yes! 😠

Originally posted by joe shmo
I don't know, but the idea of creation in general is becoming more plausable to me as of late. I personally feel that we are instruments used for measurement. What exactly is the measurement we are taking, I'm not sure. Our existence really seems to parallel any measurement we ourslelves attempt to make, that is that the act of observation affects the sy Either way I'd like to further develop the idea by attempting to incorporate others inputs.

Is there a confusion going on here?

Firstly, why are you introducing "a mind" to observe the universe? There is a danger that your use of language is tricking you into a proposition that is not necessary even in terms of your own question. Why "a mind" or any mind in particular, rather than, say, minds? Maybe it is just that you mean that there should be at least one mind but it is tricky wording here.

Secondly, even within your terms, does that mind have to observe every aspect of the universe or is it sufficient that in due course and at some point there is an observing mind? Maybe it is sufficient to know that here today we are observing the universe and that satisfies your question without requiring anything additional.

All your proposition does is to give us far more importance in the scheme of things than otherwise. The universe is no longer indifferent but depends on us to perceive it. That may be valid or it may just make you feel better.

It is fair enough to say that perceptions of the universe vary and are subjective. They are subjective by definition. However, we can rely on a huge amount of consistency between our different perceptions and we can devise ways to overcome those subjective differences that matter. There is a big difference between making a statement regarding pereption and making a statement regarding the object of perception. Recall the problems astronomers used to have with individual differences in vision when recording the positions of stars and planets? They were differences of perception but not differences in the position of stars or planets.

Even the internal feelings of others are sufficiently similar to our own for empathy to be achievable.

A lot of our observations of the universe are driven by mathematics. Is that mathematics really just subjective? It is not so in the same sense as "perception" alone. Whether we make mathematics or discover it is just a curious word game that people like to play sometimes; the answer to that seems to me aesthetic more than anything else. People like Roger Penrose like the notion of maths as ideal forms in the Platonic sense but I am not clear that that results in anything being different.

Originally posted by finnegan
Is there a confusion going on here?

Firstly, why are you introducing "a mind" to observe the universe? There is a danger that your use of language is tricking you into a proposition that is not necessary even in terms of your own question. Why "a mind" or any mind in particular, rather than, say, minds? Maybe it is just that you mean that there should b ...[text shortened]... ms in the Platonic sense but I am not clear that that results in anything being different.

Of course I'm confused,...aren't you?

Secondly, can a lone entity percieve...It seems to me that perception is fully dependent on communication between two entities,...something to the effect of can a single neuron percieve the universe? my instinct is to say no ( as I feel perception is a relative measurement), but put two together such that they can link and form a circuit, and at least two opinions on the universe can be formed (albeit simple). This may be the heart of the paradoxical loops we encounter.
However, even after what I just stated, I feel that a single neuron is conscious, because a single neuron will seek out connection. So consciousness is separate from perception?

Furthermore, I could care less about my importance in the grand scheme of things, sure a ruler is useful, but I'm not going to feel empathy for it if it were to break.

However, I have empathy for insects, are their perceptions of the universe not equally valid, to them the stars don't exist, but they have to be aware that we exist in some way, and they don't realize the breadth of our intellegence, could we not simply be insects in the analogy, or for that matter the ruler?

Originally posted by joe shmo
Of course I'm confused,...aren't you?

Secondly, can a lone entity percieve...It seems to me that perception is fully dependent on communication between two entities,...something to the effect of can a single neuron percieve the universe? my instinct is to say no ( as I feel perception is a relative measurement), but put two together such that they can li ...[text shortened]... intellegence, could we not simply be insects in the analogy, or for that matter the ruler?

Before speculating about these concepts it is useful to define them in a clear way. According to what definition of consciousness is a neuron conscious (at least not according to any common definition of consciousness).

Originally posted by joe shmo
Of course I'm confused,...aren't you?

Secondly, can a lone entity percieve...It seems to me that perception is fully dependent on communication between two entities,...something to the effect of can a single neuron percieve the universe? my instinct is to say no ( as I feel perception is a relative measurement), but put two together such that they can li intellegence, could we not simply be insects in the analogy, or for that matter the ruler?

I feel that a single neuron is conscious, because a single neuron will seek out connection. (my emphasis)

a neuron will grow new connections as a result of the effects of chemical signals on it and that is surely a mindless automatic response because it can be described in purely chemical and physical terms without having to involve anything with intelligence.
A river of water will, in a purely physical sense just like with a neuron, “seek out” and form a physical “connection” to the lowest point/thing it can run to ( usually the sea ) as a result of the effects of gravity on it. Does that make you feel that a river is conscious?

There is also the problem that what is “conscious” or “consciousness” is extremely hard if not impossible to clearly define and, unless you can define exactly what it is, you cannot rationally say anything X is conscious.
When it comes to consciousness, nobody knows what they are talking about.

Originally posted by humy

I feel that a single neuron is conscious, because a single neuron will [b]seek out connection. (my emphasis)

a neuron will grow new connections as a result of the effects of chemical signals on it and that is surely a mindless automatic response because it can be described in purely chemical and physical terms without having to involve a ...[text shortened]... hing X is conscious.
When it comes to consciousness, nobody knows what they are talking about.[/b]

Well maybe most people talk about consciousness in an uninformed way but it is not fair to say that nobody (in the sense nobody-at-all) knows what they are talking about.

Generally, "consciousness" refers to the ability not only to think but also to think about that thought. This internal loop in the mind has powerful consequences. One is the emergence of a sense of "I" as the entity that is aware of itself.

The distinction between conscious and not-conscious is fairly clear. Humans do a lot of stuff "out-of awareness." We learn skills which we then exercise without the need for awareness - indeed, paying attention can disrupt skilled activity. A lot of other behaviours are known to operate automatically and without the opportunity for thinking. Our "fight or flight" responses to an alarm are good examples. A huge of amount of very complicated and biologically necessary activity takes place continously within our bodies that are totally inaccessible to conscious awareness never mind control, although even then there are interactions (eg our mood affects digestion). But even processes that we can influence, like our emotions and our appetites, have a strong tendency to operate out of awareness and may require a significant effort for us to bring them back under conscious control.

We know enough about the way the brain works to be able to show both huge similarities between human and other mammal brains, and also important differences, and to correlate important features with evolution. So we can make perfectly meaningful and justified comments about the way consciousness has to operate in humans and the potential for consciousness in other species. We can certainly, for example, compare the emotional lives of humans and animals and Darwin did early work on just that. Also we can compare the ability of different species to learn new behaviours and to behave flexibly in response to the environment as indicators of the degree to which behaviours are hard wired into the creature or the creature has some ability to learn, with further debate about how such learning takes place (especially if it is passive or active learning and if there is an internal goal or just an external push). This is where intelligent behaviour, for example among some birds, is very challenging to our prejudices.

One interesting thing about humans is that we cannot be born with a complete brain -we would never fit out without murdering our mother in the process. In the first three years after birth we are still building our brain, and a large part of the physical connection between the limbic system (which governs emotions) and the cortex is built up as part of the process of infant and early child development. We know that the early experiences of an infant have a physical consequence in terms of brain development. This affects certainly the way in which we habitually handle our emotions, but we also know that perception is partly a learned process and of course language seems to have both learned and biological components.

The general implication seems to be that we share many, biologically important qualities with other species, but our outsized cortex gives us a whole layer of opportunities to re-shape and redirect them. The difference between us and our closest relatives in the evolutionary tree may less than many want to assume though it is still a big difference but even quite separate species - again, birds - can challenge our assumptions.