Philosophy, religion and spirituality, your view - Page 11

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

drunk?😆

Originally posted by: Mister.K.

Another shorter explanation for you Sarina is that, I am conscious of you, I am conscious of this computer, I am conscious of my neighbors, I am conscious of a billion other things (living and non-living) and most importantly, I am conscious of myself.

It then becomes a question of what you view as separate and distinct and what you view is part of you.

If you are self-aware, then are you separate from you or are you part of you? Questions like that.

Hmm so are you saying that the dichotomy lies in the nature of awareness.

Non living things are conscious, but unaware of their existence.
Living things are conscious, and aware of their existence.

Is there anything that is aware but not conscious? Is it possible?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Hmm so are you saying that the dichotomy lies in the nature of awareness.

Non living things are conscious, but unaware of their existence.
Living things are conscious, and aware of their existence.

Is there anything that is aware but not conscious? Is it possible?

I still think it's more about what is consciousness conscious of.

Consciousness is conscious of everything there is (you, me, that animal, that pebble, that ocean, that star, etc) past / present / future. If consciousness is not conscious of it, it is not there.

So the question is not what you and me and that pebble etc. are conscious of, but what is consciousness itself conscious of.

I am trying to read upon David Bohm's implicate order and will be ready to carry on from where we left off, couple of pages back.

Originally posted by: Summer3

Just a bit of sake, put a spirit in you tank.

good see you are aware of your state😆

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Qwerty, I got busy, but we can resume the discussion tomorrow.

For the moment, are you talking about "free will"? Such that will to do something that doesn't have an outside cause? For the moment free will hasn't been proven yet.

However, dont quantum particles too fluctuate randomly without any outside cause? (will look it up and be back tomorrow on this point) In that case they will also have a sort of free will even if of not the same scale as humans. I am already talking at a very generic case because otherwise we can't compare them.

^^ wanted to add that free will hasn't been disproven either.

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

Qwerty, I got busy, but we can resume the discussion tomorrow.

For the moment, are you talking about "free will"? Such that will to do something that doesn't have an outside cause? For the moment free will hasn't been proven yet.

However, dont quantum particles too fluctuate randomly without any outside cause? (will look it up and be back tomorrow on this point) In that case they will also have a sort of free will even if of not the same scale as humans. I am already talking at a very generic case because otherwise we can't compare them.

Sure.. Quantum particles are subjected to random forces and their movement is kind of indeterminate... but we can establish free will by conscious acts of repetiton and precalculated reversal in orientation and processing.. At a veri generic level things that we consider well structured appear randomized by fre-will in the sense free-will is an extreme end of random processing.. If one cuts his limb off.. it would be impossible to establish free will in that severed limb .. The greatest exhibition of free will when we face death and adversity since instintually tuned to escape from both,,, there are lot of instances ...to establish free will. I might have to google or read some books and provide you more instances.. the uncertainty preniciple around quantum particles which is the heart of quantum mechanics could be enough to establish lack of free will.......