outhouse
Atheistically
No you don't
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Richard Dawkins Facepalms at Deepak Chopra
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
No you don't
godnotgod
Thou art That
Your'e conceiving of it incorrectly: it's not the individual particle that 'has' consciousness; it's consciousness manifesting as the particle, indeed, manifesting as this entire Universe, even as you.
Besides, we now know that all those 'particles' bubbling up out of the Quantum and Higgs fields have no real mass. It is virtual mass, rendering all of reality as being virtual. This dovetails perfectly with what Eastern mystics have said all along: that the 'physical' world is illusory (ie; 'maya') and/or empty (Buddhism).
Gambit
Well-Known Member
This is a straw man argument. No one is ascribing conscious experience to a rock.
outhouse
Atheistically
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Some are. If your not or don't feel that there is any kind of special "consciousness" beyond cognition then it doesn't apply to you. But in other threads there have been those that claimed just that.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
How true is that?
Your claiming subatomic particles
I am proposing that substomic particles exhibit some element of spontaneity (based on evidence). I am not proposing that rocks do.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
I am proposing that subatomic particles, molecules, macromolecules, the first replicators, cells, etc. exhibit some form of subjective experience. I am not proposing that rocks do.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
And what do you mean by "subjective experience"? Do you mean that they had some sort of awareness and cognition?
I've never quite understood this analogy. Language is a construct, by humans. It's something we agree on, more or less. Why would your "HELP" thing be in English? That sounds pedantic, but follow me on this;
If we assume that a God will indeed speak to us, why would he communicate through such esoteric means? This analogy rests on the idea that both the creator of the "HELP" message and the person who views it understands English. Obviously, God(I hope) would not be so limited. So the question remains, why make it so convoluted and reliant on such precise parameters? What I'm trying to reach here is, why does he hide? It would be extremely simple for God to alert everyone to his presence. There are people who have and will go their entire lives, through no fault of their own, without ever even hearing about *insert deity of choice here*. It's not a question of numbers & chance, or at least, it's not entirely a question of numbers & chance. It's a question of why make it so Byzantine.
But rocks are made up of those things just as much as we are.
outhouse
Atheistically
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It's not the same thing. Rocks are not living organisms.
I already have, but you have chosen to ignore it.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
We are living organisms; rocks are not. That's the difference.
..And? What does that matter? If there is some measure of sentience or even just awareness down at the smallest possible level, it ought to scale.
outhouse
Atheistically
You posted nothing credible.
You don't get to post poor guesses and claim they are credible.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It matters because I am not proposing that nonliving objects exhibit subjective experiences.
Then I must have missed something.
You are claiming that sub-atomic particles have subjective experiences, yes? Those particles, by definition, are non-living.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
By whose definition?
"Biology is the study of larger organisms, whereas physics is the study of smaller organisms." - Alfred North Whitehead
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
On what grounds do you claim them to be life as the definition of life does not apply to molecules much less atoms or even smaller particles. Though after re-reading some of your comments do you feel there is some kind of evidence that points to there being some underlain communication or knowledge with these particles?
godnotgod
Thou art That
As I said, it's not the individual rock or any other form that has consciousness; consciousness is manifesting itself as all forms.
Universal Consciousness cannot be 'separate' from you and I any more than we can be separated from the Universe.
The mystical experience is outside of cognition. In Zen, for example, the rational mind is short-circuited, as when sudden realization occurs when the solution to a koan is spontaneously seen and understood. Here, there is no time for the thinking mind to operate.
The reason mystical experiences cannot be proven is simply because they are outside of the sphere of Reason, Logic, and Analysis. For you to have even a glimpse of this 'other' reality of which you haven't even a clue, the constant machinations of your thinking mind (ie; 'monkey mind') must be suspended, even if for a brief moment, or otherwise tricked into self-implosion, as via koan or other device. People who have experienced such glimpses behind the facade of everyday 'reality', will never be the same afterwards.