Philosophy Now Forum

Consciousness is something that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom, though animals too have it but in different ways. Consciousness is a response to stimuli though in our cases in a subtler way compared to animals. Maybe or maynot be it is arises from physical apparatuses. It is divinized, spiritualized and immaterialized though it happens in the material device like the brains. I do not want to argue whether consciousness is material or nonphysical. But it needs a physical or material base to sprout and evolve into what we see today

https://futurism.com/scientists-have-an ... cal-world/

perhaps this is the experiment that will quiet materialists once and for all.

osgart wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 3:12 am https://futurism.com/scientists-have-an ... cal-world/

perhaps this is the experiment that will quiet materialists once and for all.

From the link:

“The long and short of it is this: entangled particles affect one another regardless of distance, where a measurement of the state of one would instantly influence the state of the other. However, it remains “spooky” because — despite following the laws of quantum physics — entanglement seems to reveal some deeper theory that’s yet to be discovered. A number of physicists have been working on determining this deeper theory, but so far nothing definitive has come out.”

That deeper theory referenced in the quote is for a deeper understanding of physicality.

I don't see physicality as an option, you are talking about instantaneous reaction regardless of distance . that tells me something is omnipresent in both places at the same instant of time.

nothing can travel that fast and be physical.

but go ahead and try to reconcile that.

osgart wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 4:10 am I don't see physicality as an option, you are talking about instantaneous reaction regardless of distance . that tells me something is omnipresent in both places at the same instant of time.

nothing can travel that fast and be physical.

but go ahead and try to reconcile that.

You're assuming that human beings know everything there is know about physicality.

And, you're assuming that all human beings know everything there is to know about being human.

Physicists, who develop theories of physics, deal with the physical world, are also often humble enough to admit these limitations. But they're also curious to discover.

Pretty good, huh?

I don't make that assumption

Then you must have reached the conclusion that within infinite potentiality exists a set of conditions for any phenomenon to manifest, and man’s search for meaning most times consists of finding the right conditions for desired phenomena. Sometimes the desired phenomenon is non-conceptually realized as the will to do what must be done for survival. For an intellectual, this means reconciling conceptual contradictions to persist in the effort of biological survival.

For instance, Victor Frankl’s famous book, Man’s Search For Meaning, is just one such account of a man seeking the combination of elements resulting in the love state of consciousness, while he was in hell. He needed to find a reason to live in the present other than hope for the future.

This seeking of what is, is the same as the scientist who seeks to know what is ever-present.

It has been a good while since I read the book, once. There is likely more to his story that I don't recall.

I read that book in high school, I thought it was poignant about the will to survive. they also destroyed his life's work as a scientist. so he didn't have that even. no guarantees of any survival. I remember he would give his food away while in camp.

That's why I look to the spiritual, and if I cease to exist so be it. if I can make one better day I will do it.

I always felt there was something more to existence, and that doesn't take away from me anything when I assess what life offers, you can only have so much anyway.

I don't look to a God, I look to myself and the meaning I create.

osgart wrote:I don't look to a God, I look to myself and the meaning I create.

Like Sherlock Holmes do you also discover meaning, and what is the difference between created meaning and discovered meaning?

Walker wrote:

osgart wrote:
I don't look to a God, I look to myself and the meaning I create.
Walker replied to Osgart:
Like Sherlock Holmes do you also discover meaning, and what is the difference between created meaning and discovered meaning?

A work of art is a patchwork, your own new synthesis of what you have learned. To discover meaning is to discover yourself.

meaning is discovered and created, sure thing.



but is meaning reality itself, I wonder and not just some ridiculous fluke. we are the cosmos and it is random,brute, and indifferent to us sure.

intelligence is a little too sophisticated for their not to be an intelligent force in the universe though.

I can't describe consciousness in physical terms, even with all the brain correlations. That's not enough for me.

I'm at least smart enough to see the fallacy of religion. I don't delude myself.

but to me it is logical to see purposeful intention in the function and form of living creatures. why is that crazy?

In face of the many aspects of consciousness exposed in these threads, we ought to appreciate its marvels and diversity